Scrum Team (A)
#No retro
The team skips the Retrospective, believing there's nothing to improve, and the Scrum Master agrees. However, agile is a journey, not a destination, and there's always room for improvement.
Someone Sings
If a participant shares information from the Retrospective with an outsider, it breaks the trust and confidentiality essential for effective Retrospectives. The "Vegas rule" applies: what is said in the room stays in the room, with no exceptions.
Waste of time
The Scrum team doesn't value the Retrospective, often due to repetitive and boring procedures. Consider changing the format or venue to make it more engaging.
No suitable venue
A meeting room with a rectangular table is the least appropriate place for a Retrospective, yet it's the most common. Agile requires space, so get creative. Go outside if the weather is nice, rent a space, or at least remove the table to sit/stand in a circle.
Bullying is accepted
The Retrospective should be a safe space for everyone, including introverts, to share their thoughts. Dominance and bullying can make others drop out and reduce the value of the session. The Scrum Master must ensure everyone is heard, as equal speaking time is a sign of a high-performing team.
Dispensable Buffer
The Scrum team cancels Retrospectives to focus on the Sprint Goal, which is a sign of cargo cult Scrum. This is worse than skipping Retrospectives due to perceived perfection, as it shows a lack of understanding of empiricism and continuous improvement. If the team repeatedly misses the Sprint Goal, they should use the Retrospective to inspect and adapt.
Extensive whining
The Scrum team uses the Retrospective mainly to complain and play the victim. While venting can be helpful, failing to address and act on identified issues defeats the purpose of the Retrospective.
Prisioners
Some team members only join Retrospectives because they feel forced. Instead of pressuring them, make the Retrospective valuable and engaging to foster intrinsic motivation. Try using exercises like Retromat’s “Why are you here?” to start the session.
Line managers present
Regular participation of line managers in Retrospectives creates an unsafe environment, hindering open discussion. This indicates a lack of understanding of Scrum practices.
Passivity
Scrum team members are present but not participating. This could be due to viewing the Retrospective as a waste of time, feeling unsafe, or being bored by its predictability. They might fear negative repercussions if absent. The Scrum Master needs to find a Retrospective format that works for the team.
Rushed Retrospective
When the team rushes through Retrospectives, allocating less than the recommended 60 to 180 minutes, it risks turning them into ineffective rituals. This can lead to team members viewing them as a waste of time. It's better to allocate sufficient time for meaningful Retrospectives or reconsider their necessity. If this continues, it might be worth questioning the team's commitment to Scrum principles altogether.
UNSMART
UNSMART: The team chooses to tackle UNSMART actions. (Bill Wake created the SMART acronym for reasonable action items: S – Specific, M – Measurable, A – Achievable, R – Relevant, T – Time-boxed. If the team picks UNSMART action items, it sets itself up for failure and may thus contribute to a bias that “agile” is not working.
Trapped in time
The Sprint Retrospective never changes in composition, venue, or length. There is a tendency in this case that the Scrum team might revisit the same issues repeatedly
Reporting structures within Scrum teams
There are hierarchies among Scrum team members. For example, a junior Developer reports to a senior Developer on the same Scream team. (This situation requires the immediate attention of the Scrum Master as it — at least in my experience — instantly turns the Retrospective into an awkward and significantly less helpful event.)
HUGE of todo list items
A situation in which a team identifies an excessively large number of action items during a Sprint Retrospective or similar meeting, without a clear plan for prioritizing, addressing, or managing these items. This can lead to overwhelm, lack of focus, and ineffective follow-through, ultimately hindering the team's ability to improve and achieve their goals.
Let’s have the retro next Sprint
Postponing the Retrospective to the next Sprint disrupts its role in providing closure and resetting the team's focus. It also delays the inspection of the team's processes and the identification of improvements, potentially leaving issues unresolved and affecting the team's flow. Consistently postponing Retrospectives can undermine their value and the team's commitment to continuous improvement.
#NoAccountability
At the last Retrospective, the team members accepted action items. However, no one took responsibility for the delivery. (If the “team” is supposed to fix X, probably everyone will rely on their teammates to handle it. So make someone responsible instead.)
#NoDocumentation
No one is taking minutes for later use. (A Retrospective is a substantial investment and should be taken seriously. Taking notes and photos supports this process.)
Let us see your minutes
Someone from the organization — outside the Scrum team — requires access to the Retrospective minutes. (This is almost as bad as line managers who want to participate in a Retrospective. But, of course, this information is solely available to team members.)
Lack of Preparation
Team members come to the Retrospective unprepared, without having thought about the Sprint or identified areas for improvement. This leads to superficial discussions and missed opportunities for meaningful insights.
Excluding stakeholders all the time
The Scrum team categorically rejects having Retrospectives with stakeholders, which limits feedback and hinders growth. While stakeholders' presence at team Retrospectives isn't ideal, excluding them entirely is short-sighted. Scrum offers various opportunities for stakeholder communication, such as Sprint Reviews, Daily Scrums, and Product Backlog refinement. If more interaction is needed, consider additional meetings or meta-level Retrospectives with stakeholders. However, the team-internal Retrospective should remain off-limits to stakeholders.
What improvement?
The team does not check the status of the action items from previous Retrospectives. (The sibling of autonomy is accountability. If you are not following up on what you wanted to improve before, why care about picking action items in the first place?)
No psycological safety
The Retrospective is an endless cycle of blame and finger-pointing. (The team wins together; the team fails together. The blame game documents both the failure of the Scrum Master as the facilitator of the Retrospective and the Scrum team’s lack of maturity and communication skills.)
Overloading Teams
The organization assigns too many projects or tasks to Scrum teams, leading to burnout and reduced effectiveness. Teams may struggle to focus on continuous improvement and delivering high-quality work.
Dominating Voices
One or two team members dominate the conversation during Retrospectives, leading to a lack of diverse perspectives and potentially stifling quieter team members.