Reflecting on Retrospectives
Retrospectives became a chore, not a joy. We've changed our habits. Felt great.
In every software team I’ve worked in, we’ve had Retrospective. No matter your engineering process, it does make sense to have regular time allotted for reflection. It is however no trivial task to reflect, nor set up optimal settings or utilize the output. In my experience, retrospectives have at times felt more like obligatory tasks than truly enriching exercises. However, no one wants to be the one to argue for less introspection - so what do?
When I've had the opportunity to lead retrospectives, I've made it a point to experiment with different formats and seek advice from others. There are countless resources available offering alternative techniques and fresh perspectives on how to revitalize retrospectives. Yet, even with these efforts, the core challenge remained: how to move beyond surface-level discussions and transient resolutions to enact meaningful change.
While occasional successes were celebrated, many retrospectives fell into a predictable pattern of discussing what went well, what didn't, and what could be improved (the things surrounding the project, be it process, tools, or persons) —an exercise that often led to short-lived commitments and little tangible progress. When the action items weren’t met or didn’t always have the intended output one can be left with a feeling of hopelessness.
Changing focus
For a few months now, we’ve changed the focus from the what to the feelings we had. (That is maybe the most Gen Z thing I’ve ever written).
Especially when working remotely, check-ins and ensuring good group dynamics are crucial - if you haven’t read my post on remote-first, I can recommend giving it a read, as it touches on related topics.
The whiteboard changed from post-its on things that affected our process, into simply talking about how we felt. That might lead to many of the same discussions, but it turned to process on its head. Similarly, our intention was less so on what we could do differently, but to a bigger extent on listening. We still utilized a board but had a radically different focus. As of late it’s been a two dimensions graph:
The board was part of a much larger deck that an awesome coworker put together. We spent the whole time talking about the output from that initial board. It was great.
Changing gear, and saying “I’ve felt overwhelmed because […]” might still arrive at a concrete thing to change, but the core problem isn’t that we have too many tasks in progress - the problem is the effects that have on quality, output, and the team. And that often amounts to some feeling. Be it dissatisfaction with quality, feeling overwhelmed, or whatever.
As an example, I felt overwhelmed, partly because I felt that we occasionally focused on too many different things in a given iteration/sprint, which meant I had to context switch. I felt I had lost the big picture and was afraid I would miss crucial details. A “too many things in scope” post-it in a “less of” column would probably highlight the same thing, but be more vague, and less associated with the consequences it caused. We had a good discussion, and based on it carried more weight, moving into future sprints looking at the scope, and were able to put in measures so mid-sprint we closed things faster and tried to increase focus. Focusing on feelings probably correlates with nonviolent communication practices, so there might be research to back me up.
By changing the focus we also ensure that each person is heard; when pushing post-its into columns, each post-it is visible and discussable, however, it quickly becomes a numbers game (You have N minutes to write as many post-its as you like followed by voting). By giving each team member equal weight, we can discuss and reflect on the experiences of each member, rather than on the most crucial things.
Furthermore, I want to stress that sometimes a solution isn’t needed; sometimes you simply need to feel seen and heard (I am so GenZ).
Enabling empathy
Physicological safety was all the rage on LinkedIn last year, however, it doesn’t come for free, nor simply because you say you are doing it - you have to put in the work. I feel safe being vulnerable with my team; “… my grandmother died last Monday, and we were close and that has been on my mind a lot” does help match expectations, and ensure that I am back full speed again sooner. It isn’t fixable (Unless you work for a necromancer. Hit me up then!) - but it enables mutual trust and sympathy.
Not all employers or teams have a safe environment, and I am sure some would use vulnerability with hostile intentions, so use it with caution - I am lucky to be in a wholesome team - but in my opinion, everyone deserves people around them that have their best interests in mind; be it coworkers, family or friends.
Our current practice can also be a preventive measure to minimize the friction that can arise when working closely together. Especially in a remote setting, empathy is an important resource. Knowing why people react in different ways - knowing each other, is great. Having a safe space to communicate is great. Whether that is “Casper enjoyed working on these types of tasks”, the inverse, or “I feel less creative when tasks are too restrictive and predefined”, enables the team to empower each other and ensure both quality and satisfaction where possible.
Worth noting is that the format is very conversational. It is not ideal in bigger groups, and I’d suggest groups of 3-4 persons. I’ve facilitated a similar format in a larger group where we simply split everyone into randomized smaller groups (In a virtual context both Zoom and Google Meet have breakout rooms, which makes it trivial). This worked well and can be a great way to build bridges between persons who don’t directly communicate day-to-day.
The medium, not the goal
I am not promoting a new silver bullet or a concrete way of running your retrospective. Rather, I advocate for the meta-practice of reflecting on the reflection itself—essentially, pausing to consider how we reflect.
In sharing these reflections, I hope to potentially inspire such a meta-reflection but also encourage you to share your own experiences, challenges, and insights so I might be inspired by those.
It's perfectly acceptable to try new methods for a while and eventually revert to old ones. Experimentation either gives rise to new greater practices or confidence in your existing practice - there is essentially nothing to lose.
While the classic 'Start/Stop/Continue' format may have its merits, our current focus lies elsewhere. By delving into both the personal, interpersonal, and external, we not only grow as individuals but more importantly as a team.
This approach not only enhances the quality of our work but also contributes to our overall job satisfaction and fulfillment. A true win-win.