When Retrospectives Turn into Blamefests: I

I once suggested to a client that his team might benefit from conducting retrospectives from time to time, because retrospectives help teams identify what works and what doesn't. His response was: "We tried retrospectives and they just turn into blamefests, so let's find a better way." Thing is, there is no better way. [Kerth 2001] If retrospectives turn into blamefests, the thing to do is to fix them, not ban them.

To make retrospectives worthwhile for groups that have histories of retrospectives turning into blamefests, we must address the ongoing causes of the trouble by taking steps in three domains: before retrospectives, during retrospectives, and after retrospectives. In this Part I, I focus on measures to be taken during retrospectives. See Part II for suggested measures before conducting a retrospective, and Part III for suggested measures for the period after a retrospective.

About blaming and accountability

The word accountability is widely misused. To be accountable for an activity means to be responsible for and answerable for that activity. If something goes wrong, those accountable are expected to answer for their part in the goings-on, because we need their knowledge when we try to perfect our flawed systems. Blame is something more. To be blamed is to be accountable in a way deserving of censure, discipline, or other penalty, either explicit or tacit. [Brenner 2005]

A "blamefest" is an uncontrolled exchange of blaming assertions, counter-assertions, and other retaliations, offered without evidence or effect, other than harm to relationships between blamers and blamed.

Blame-control measures that we can deploy during retrospectives

These measures address the effects of organizational culture, past unpleasant experiences, participant behavior, and patterns of conducting the work itself.

Enlist the assistance of an expert facilitator

Facilitating retrospectives is an art in its own right. The benefits of experience are clear, but an expert facilitator brings two advantages even more important to the exercise: neutrality and its close partner, fairness. These advantages are especially important for groups that have histories of retrospectives turning into blamefests.

Be explicit about expectations of behavior

Have the group develop and adopt a list of behavioral norms that apply for the duration of the retrospective. For example, "We treat each other with respect." Another: "We don't interrupt each other." (Expressing them in the present tense does tend to give them more force) Do this as the first order of business. And if trouble breaks out later on, review the list of norms for possible expansion or clarification.

Use anonymity-based tactics

In environments where blamefests are likely, deficits of psychological safety are also likely. [Brenner 2023] When people don't feel psychologically safe, they're often concerned that their comments might invite some form of retaliation. Making it possible for people to contribute to the retrospective anonymously can mitigate these fears.

Don't attribute actions (or inactions) to others by name

It's difficult to blame Person P for Event E without using P's name. You can try to blame P indirectly, but the blaming then becomes more obvious. It goes like this: "E happened, and someone told me P did it." Of course, that's a lie unless someone actually said that P did it. To avoid lying, the formulation can only be the equivalent of, "E happened." And that form is free of blame.

Last words

Certainly we can devise more guidelines that could reduce the likelihood of an outbreak of blaming in a retrospective. But these are a good start. Next time I'll suggest guidelines for measures we can take that occur before a coming retrospective.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Conflict Management:

Social Safety Margins

As our personal workloads increase, we endure more stress and more time pressure. Inevitably, we have less time for the social niceties that protect us from accidentally hurting each other's feelings. When are we most at risk of incidental harm, and what can we do about it?

Characterization Risk

To characterize is to offer a description of a person, event, or concept. Characterizations are usually judgmental, and usually serve one side of a debate. And they often make trouble.

Linear Thinking Bias

When assessing the validity of problem solutions, we regard them as more valid if their discovery stories are logical, than we would if they're other than logical. This can lead to erroneous assessments, because the discovery story is not the solution.

Quasi-Narcissistic Quasi-Subordinates

One troublesome kind of workplace collaboration includes those that combine people of varied professions and ranks for a specific short-term mission. Many work well, but when one of the group members displays quasi-narcissistic behaviors, trouble looms.

Asking Burning Questions

When we suddenly realize that an important question needs answering, directly asking that question in a meeting might not be an effective way to focus the attention of the group. There are risks. Fortunately, there are also ways to manage those risks.

See also Conflict Management and Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info