When Retrospectives Turn into Blamefests: II

Because retrospectives are such effective tools for fostering organizational learning, avoiding them altogether as a means of preventing blamefests is a sacrifice few organizations can afford. Last time I offered four guidelines for conducting retrospectives more safely. In this post I offer four safety-enhancing guidelines for preparing for retrospectives.

Anti-preparations for retrospectives

When a retrospective is scheduled in an organization that has a history of troubled retrospectives, people prepare well in advance for the coming blamefest. They devise excuses. They address the work with the blamefest in mind. They know that trouble is coming, and they seek safety by preparing for the trouble. I call these preparations anti-preparations, because even though they look like constructive preparation, they amount to little more than stockpiling ammunition for the coming blamefest.

In advance of the event, preparations that take these anti-preparations into account can make controlling the retrospective more effective. The focus of advance anti-anti-preparations should be making blaming more obvious.

Measures that we can deploy in advance of a coming retrospective

Here are four examples of anti-anti-preparations measures.

In the planning stage, create impersonal names for events

Define names for specific events that are planned to occur during the work. For example, for the first integration test of the Green modules, define the name Green Integration. Names like these are handy at every stage of the work, including during the retrospective.

But more important, they prevent the practice of using personal names or business unit names during the retrospective. That practice can easily lead to blaming behavior. For example, suppose that instead of "Green Integration" we use the name "Integrating Randy's work." Suppose also that the work takes two weeks longer than planned. Compare these two statements for their effect on blaming behavior:

• We were late because Integrating Randy's work took longer than planned.
• We were late because Green Integration took longer than planned.

Personal names for events elevate the risk of blaming.

Don't mix ranks

When a retrospective occurs in an organization
with a history of blamefests, people prepare for
the blamefest. They devise excuses; they
address the work with the blamefest in mind.
They seek safety by preparing for war.

A mixed-rank participant roster is one in which some of the participants are in roles that lie within the report chains of other participants. This situation creates a temptation on the part of rivals to call out individuals' performance in the presence of their superiors, an act that then invites retaliation. Perversely, it also creates a temptation on the part of close friends not to raise issues that could call a friend's performance into question. Mixed-rank rosters are analogous to tinderboxes. They invite blaming and suppress truth.

In organizations that use 360-degree feedback processes for performance management, there is a risk that retaliation cycles that are related to the 360 process and which are unrelated to the retrospective can propagate into the retrospective. Monitoring the data collected by the performance management system can provide early warning of this difficulty.

Require attendance

Everyone is important. Make clear to all participants that attendance is required. Absence or partial absence can deprive the event of a source of information about the happenings that occurred during execution of the work. That knowledge void can cause the group to come to incorrect conclusions about what, how, who, when, or why as it tries to identify past successes and future adjustments.

But with respect to blamefests, there is another more important reason to require attendance. With respect to some unwelcome event, it's easier to blame someone who's absent than it is to blame someone who's present. Absenteeism — even partial absenteeism — encourages blaming.

Conduct training for retrospective participants

Train everyone in retrospective participation. Ensure that everyone understands what blaming is, what the role of the facilitator is, why we use impersonal names for events, what behavioral norms are, what the "X-happened" formulation is, why attendance is required, and so on. Also explain how your retrospective supports anonymous contributions, and what safeguards are in place to protect anonymity. [Atwater 2007]

Consider the possibility that participants in your retrospective might also be participants in another retrospective shortly before or after yours. Those other retrospectives might have different expectations and norms, which might be different enough to cause confusion. Perhaps these differences can be resolved by both retrospectives making adjustments, but if not, explain to participants that there are differences between your event and other events. Ask for their help in following your event plan.

Last Words

If the pattern of retrospectives descending into blamefests is well established, one possible — even probable — cause is the nature of the organizational culture. A blame-oriented culture can overwhelm any measures you take to control behavior in your retrospectives. [Brenner 2005.1] If the problem is actually a blame-oriented culture, address that first. [Brenner 2014.1] Compelling abstinence from blaming behavior patterns doesn't work in blame-oriented cultures.

Next time I'll examine measures to take following retrospectives.   First issue in this series    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

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.

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:

Workplace Bullying and Workplace Conflict: I

Bullying is unlike other forms of toxic conflict. That's why the tools we use to address toxic conflict simply do not work for bullying. In this Part I, we contrast bullying and ordinary toxic conflict.

Patterns of Conflict Escalation: II

When simple workplace disagreements evolve into workplace warfare, they often do so following recognizable patterns. If we can recognize the patterns early, we can intervene to prevent serious damage to relationships. Here's Part II of a catalog of some of those patterns.

Red Flags: I

When we finally admit to ourselves that a collaborative effort is in serious trouble, we sometimes recall that we had noticed several "red flags" early enough to take action. Toxic conflict and voluntary turnover are two examples.

Bad Trouble: Misdirection

When Bad Trouble develops at work we have a chance to see what our organizational cultures are made of. Many of our colleagues respond constructively. When they don't, misdirection tactics are popular. Here's a little catalog of misdirection responses.

On Miscommunication

Some sources of confusion in communications are difficult to detect. Because they escape our notice, they are also difficult to avoid. One example: words that mean different things in different contexts. Another: multiple negations involving prefixes.

See also Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 23: Microdelegation

Microdelegation is a style of delegation in which the delegator unintentionally communicates the task to the subordinate in such detail and so repetitively that the subordinate is offended. As a result of this delegation style, many subordinates feel distrusted or suspected of fraud or goldbricking. Available here and by RSS on July 23.

And on July 30: What the Dunning-Kruger Effect Actually Is

Although the Dunning-Kruger Effect is widely recognized, people describe it — and understand it — in many different ways. Some of these expressions are misleading. Proceed with caution. Available here and by RSS on July 30.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.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