Steven List asks if Retrospectives are an antipattern. The question actually came from Chris Matts, and was a point I agreed with – the more mature a team, the less likely they will need formalized retrospectives.
To explain more, check out Patrick Kua’s Model for Understanding Retrospective Impact. The key thing that struck me is how I envision teams working in that model. let’s say we divide it into 4 quadrants – Dysfunctional/Chaotic, Dysfunctional/Nurturing, High Perfoming/Chaotic, High Performing/Nurturing.
Dysfunctional / Chaotic
This is the typical Death March team. Communication is extremely vital for the teams, especially when you are looking for any edge. However, because everyone is heads down, it is going to take an experienced facilitator to help them get value and to force them to lift their heads up once in a while. So I see Retrospectives being formal, and requiring a lot of work to get information. Sadly, the information gleaned may not be able to be put to use in certain Death March scenarios, which may lead to the whole concept being rejected as a useless waste of time.
Dysfunctional / Nurturing
Here, I’m assuming Patrick means a team that has good communication skills and trust, but that isn’t getting anything done. I’d expect retrospectives here to still be a little more formalized, but not quite as much as the above. However, the information gleaned would be amazing. This would be the stuff formal retrospective dreams are made of.
High Performing / Chaotic
This team is the polar opposite of the above one. In this team, stuff is getting done, but it is utter chaos as people follow their own way, don’t work together, and generally work as independent entities. Retrospectives may not be seen as needed, and might be rejected since what will be changing here isn’t process, but people.
High Perfoming / Nurturing
In this team, stuff is getting done, and people are communicating. The need for a formal retrospective is minimal – likely at the end of major milestones just to recap. But mini, informal retrospectives are constantly happening. The team has a “issues” board on their Big, Visible Wall, and when things are posted, they are dealt with then, or during the next standup. And if it involves a bigger group, a retrospective is called on the spot.
In general, I highly agree with Scott’s comment on Steven’s original post – the need for a formalized, required, scheduled retrospective is a sign that communication isn’t happening on the teams that should be. In my opinion, it’s a great starting point with the right facilitator, but we should strive for more spontaneous ways of getting the information out we need to get out.
I’m not sure I find this persuasive. I’m don’t doubt that some pretty stable teams no longer need retrospectives, but I can only see that happening in relatively static business environments where margins are high enough that there’s not a lot of pressure to continue to improve.
A lot of the teams I coach are startups where resources are tight, business environments change rapidly, and there’s always a lot going on. For them, if you don’t explicitly carve out time to look back, your time will get filled up with more pressing concerns.
The most collaborative, high-performing team I visit regularly still takes an hour or so at the end of every week to look back, spot patterns, and come to consensus on things they like and things they want to make better. If they didn’t think it was paying off, they’d junk it in a heartbeat, but they are still going, even though this is circa their 120th iteration together.
Hi William,
I realize now that my wording may have led to believe that I didn’t think retrospectives were necessary in high-performing, nurturing teams. My intention is that the nature of the retrospectives change – they in general become a conduit for the team to explore concepts, as opposed to reacting to events uncovered during the retrospective.
I do think it is important to carve out time. In your second paragraph, I would agree it’s even vital for teams like that, although I would put them more into the chaotic side. In fact, that’s one of the challenges of that model – you can have teams that are high-performing, and that have good communication skills, in a highly chaotic environment. And you’ll need to pull their heads up once in a while.
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t think retrospectives /per se/ are bad. But I bet what the retrospectives look like on the team you visit is both quite different and easy to spot compared to a death march team in that the team knows they can’t get to everything, so they find a way to make it happen.