When Retrospectives Turn into Blamefests: III

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. In the past two posts, I offered guidelines for conducting retrospectives more safely, and for preparing participants to approach the exercise more confidently. In this post I offer three suggestions for steps to take after retrospectives to make future retrospectives less likely to degenerate into blamefests.

Measures that we can deploy following the retrospective

Rename the retrospective

Because some of the problem comes from past bad experiences, it's possible that the name retrospective (or lessons-learned, or retro, or review, whatever) is part of the problem. Past blamefests or other unpleasant experiences have attached themselves to the name of the event. Only repeated successful experiences with the form can relieve it of this baggage.

As with many verbal associations, "If you want to tame it, you must name it." Acknowledge that you're setting aside the association of the word retrospective (or lessons-learned, or retro, or review, whatever) with the kind of blame-focused exercise you conducted in the past. Acknowledge this by using a different name.

Address causes of diminished psychological safety

Blaming is rarely the problem. More often,
it's a symptom of the real problem, which
is a low level of psychological safety.

Some participants who blame other participants for having caused some kind of undesirable outcome are doing so either in retaliation for having been blamed, or at least, for what they perceive as having been blamed. Others do so preemptively, because they believe they are about to be blamed. Environments in which people engage with each other in this way have at least one thing in common — people working in such environments feel that they are in danger. That is, people feel psychologically unsafe.

In such environments, blaming is rarely the problem. More often, blaming is a symptom of the real problem, which is a low level of psychological safety. I've written in previous posts about indicators of low levels of psychological safety. [Brenner 2023] Assess your organization to determine whether this is an issue.

Attribute outcomes more to the behavior of groups and less to individuals

In organizations in which leaders attribute outcomes to the actions of individuals, there is a risk of inducing fear of blame even when no blaming has occurred. People then bring this fear of blame with them when they join the retrospective session. They adopt defensive attitudes, and some engage in preemptive blaming as part of their defense strategies.

But attributing failures or successes to the actions of individuals isn't merely risky. In most organizations it's also wrong. It's wrong because very little of the work of modern organizations is attributable to the actions of individuals. Nearly every outcome is the result of actions of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people.

Last words

Most important, conduct a retrospective about recent retrospectives. Identify those members of the family of retrospective disorders that were actually observable in recent retrospectives. For example, describe incidents of blaming in ways that protect the identities of blamers. A second example: with a view toward understanding why past "lessons learned" weren't learned, list any "lessons learned" from previous retrospectives that the organization evidently did not learn. Applying what we know about retrospectives to learn how to conduct more effective retrospectives seems only sensible.   First 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:

Can You Hear Me Now?

Not feeling heard can feel like an attack, even when there was no attack, and then conversation can quickly turn to war. Here are some tips for hearing your conversation partner and for conveying the message that you actually did hear.

Divisive Debates and Virulent Victories

When groups decide divisive issues, harmful effects can linger for weeks, months, or forever. Although those who prevail might be ready to "move on," others might feel so alienated that they experience even daily routine as fresh insult and disparagement. How a group handles divisive issues can determine its success.

Agenda Despots: II

Some meeting chairs crave complete or near-complete control of their meeting agendas. In this Part II of our exploration of their techniques, we emphasize methods for managing unwanted topic contributions from attendees.

Preventing Toxic Conflict: I

Conflict resolution skills are certainly useful. Even more advantageous are toxic conflict prevention skills, and skills that keep constructive conflict from turning toxic.

Unresponsive Suppliers: III

When suppliers have a customer orientation, we can usually depend on them. But government suppliers are a special case.

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