On the topic of encouraging the introverted folks to participate more, I've used an anonymous messaging web app with my team. It's effectively no different than postit notes and, between the small group size and context clues, it's not all that anonymous, but it did increase participation. My guess is people tend to feel more anonymous and safe typing on a web site, even if they know otherwise.
You mentioned people feeling like the retro is worth their time, I've found that's the biggest factor in participation. To that end, I'm iterating on methods of highlighting results to the team. Results themselves are often too subtle for a person to associate the benefit with the retrospective process. Saying directly, "Remember how you said in retrospective that you have too many meetings? Have you noticed you have fewer now? EH?" isn't subtle enough. Could I pick your brain for suggestions?
True full stack in #fintech. Analysis, solutionizing, developing and delivering.
Mostly working in dotnet and javascript, with a passion for process optimising!
Good idea Rieko! Inclusion can always be hard as some simply don't want to take part. I think you are definitely on the right track with the anonymous messaging if people don't want to openly discuss something. In this scenario I would still make sure I played back their message to the group, to give the author (or group) chance to correct it (Things may get lost in translation!)
You are right on the results. If people can't see things changing why would they come out their shells to suggest change?! It's something we have always struggled with, as it's hard to get buy-in.
This is what we (try) to do: At the end of each retrospective, agree which items should be focussed on. Be practical about the volume of items. We then assign a task or action into the upcoming sprint, so that way it technically becomes a "deliverable" (Easier for tangible items like "We need to increase test coverage" vs "We need less time in meetings".)
For items in the latter category, I would make a point of any time somebody took an action which had a positive result towards the goal. (I.e. Your team get a blanket invite to a meeting, you push back and ask if it's really a requirement the whole team goes, as they feel they spend too much time in meetings currently). Hell, even if the change isn't positive, I would still make a point of demonstrating an attempt!!
As well as the above, we also (try to) make a point to review any retrospective items added into the sprint, attributing each item to the person that raised it for a sense of ownership.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Good read, thanks!
On the topic of encouraging the introverted folks to participate more, I've used an anonymous messaging web app with my team. It's effectively no different than postit notes and, between the small group size and context clues, it's not all that anonymous, but it did increase participation. My guess is people tend to feel more anonymous and safe typing on a web site, even if they know otherwise.
You mentioned people feeling like the retro is worth their time, I've found that's the biggest factor in participation. To that end, I'm iterating on methods of highlighting results to the team. Results themselves are often too subtle for a person to associate the benefit with the retrospective process. Saying directly, "Remember how you said in retrospective that you have too many meetings? Have you noticed you have fewer now? EH?" isn't subtle enough. Could I pick your brain for suggestions?
Good idea Rieko! Inclusion can always be hard as some simply don't want to take part. I think you are definitely on the right track with the anonymous messaging if people don't want to openly discuss something. In this scenario I would still make sure I played back their message to the group, to give the author (or group) chance to correct it (Things may get lost in translation!)
You are right on the results. If people can't see things changing why would they come out their shells to suggest change?! It's something we have always struggled with, as it's hard to get buy-in.
This is what we (try) to do: At the end of each retrospective, agree which items should be focussed on. Be practical about the volume of items. We then assign a task or action into the upcoming sprint, so that way it technically becomes a "deliverable" (Easier for tangible items like "We need to increase test coverage" vs "We need less time in meetings".)
For items in the latter category, I would make a point of any time somebody took an action which had a positive result towards the goal. (I.e. Your team get a blanket invite to a meeting, you push back and ask if it's really a requirement the whole team goes, as they feel they spend too much time in meetings currently). Hell, even if the change isn't positive, I would still make a point of demonstrating an attempt!!
As well as the above, we also (try to) make a point to review any retrospective items added into the sprint, attributing each item to the person that raised it for a sense of ownership.