Tom Breur
22 November 2015
Retrospectives are a
cornerstone of Agile methods. In Agile Retrospectives (2006), Larsen
& Derby propose a series of
good practices to running effective (and safe!) retrospectives. Besides
establishing a safe environment for open communication, a lot has to do with
providing good feedback.
Feedback should be
factual. This I feel strongly about. Does feedback need to be accurate? Dunno. Sometimes
two people can be part of the same team, go through the same process, yet
experience the same sequence of events very differently. Exchanging (different)
viewpoints, can still be very effective. Especially if they turn out to see
things very differently.
A “safe” environment makes
a huge difference. It can mean resolving different viewpoints versus
headbutting… Unless you can sustain a true dialogue, enable both parties to
openly share (and hear!) their mutual perspectives, you quickly get into “head
butting.” I am often reminded of the metaphorical Giraffes swaying necks back
and forth, where both parties go out of their way to express their opinion, but
neither one of them moving an inch!
People give feedback as a
means to persuade. To lead, or to trigger change. But that doesn’t mean the
other party has to behave in a way they
would like. If I give feedback it merely implies I want to make a difference, I
want to be “heard.” If my partner now would like to explain to me why I am
“wrong” (misinterpreted the evidence I observed), then at least we engage in a
fruitful dialogue, a journey of fact finding. Then I’m “happy” to be wrong J
No comments:
Post a Comment