Effective team communication always requires multiple channels. Stand ups, Iteration Planning Meetings, informal one-on-ones, team lunches, retrospectives, and (perhaps most important) simply sliding your chair across the team room to ask a question are all a part of the necessary multi-channel approach.
For project and program managers, retrospectives stick out as a unique channel for their utility in providing a dedicated time and space to surface those nagging concerns and good ideas that all teams have but often do not express. PMs should work very hard to make sure this regular forum goes very smoothly for the team. All well and good, and not really controversial, I hope.
So then why do so many retrospectives still suck?
I believe that the retrospective techniques themselves are rarely at fault. Not to say that every activity has equal merit; some approaches do fall flat. But there is something else going on when you see an unengaged and quiet team every time you kick off the session. That silence is a danger sign and a missed opportunity for the project. I see two key areas where the PM uniquely has the ability to drive team engagement in the retrospective, or, the reverse, make it a painful exercise the team cannot finish soon enough.
It’s not the PM’s retrospective
Retrospectives are for the team and their voice has to be primary. A PM that doesn’t understand this point can instantly shut down the flow of ideas through simple but inappropriate comments. Things like ‘didn’t we already talk about that’, ‘that’s out of our control’, or, the real killer, ‘you don’t understand’. Repeat those comments and you will create the impression that retrospectives do not matter, nothing will change, and the team’s opinion is not important to management.
Fundamentally, without a climate of openness, retrospectives have no chance for success. Any team member can torpedo a retrospective but none with greater ease or speed than the PM.
So what does a PM need to do? First, never jump to the resolution of any raised issue immediately. Let the team have the opportunity to express their concerns and generate ideas for solutions. They will likely generate a much better breadth of ideas than you could alone and, further, a team is much more likely to support an idea that came from them.
Second, teams need to vent. Disagreeing with them about feelings and concerns they express is a sure way to cut off useful contribution in retrospectives. Sure, some of those feelings and concerns may be off base but they still change team behaviors. As such, the team leadership has to deal with the issues raised but public disagreement in a retrospective is rarely the best way.
It will eventually break, no matter how well run
A certain staleness creeps into retrospectives over time. This applies mostly to the iteration level retrospectives, where the team loses interest in generating new ideas. They are being asked the fundamental question of a retrospective, “How do we improve”, in the same way over and over again.
So the lesson for a PM is to make sure the retrospective activities rotate. There are lots of options out there, easily found, and easily implemented in your next retrospective. Get out there, find them, and use them.
Another cause of staleness is too many sessions by the same facilitator, very often the PM. Even if you are brilliant retrospective facilitator, look for other team members to step up and hold the white board marker for a change. Experienced facilitators from outside of the team are often the best approach, bringing a fresh perspective on things. This is sometimes difficult to arrange on an every iteration basis but it really is a must for larger, project length retrospectives.
