Retrospective That Didn’t Work: Explore a Case Where Retrospectives Felt Useless – Run a Retro Using a New Format Inspired by the Case
Retrospectives are supposed to drive improvement. But what happens when they don’t? This article explores a real case where a retrospective failed to deliver any meaningful value. We’ll break down what went wrong, why the team felt stuck, and how a simple but effective change in format made future retrospectives worthwhile.
The Case: A Retrospective That Felt Like a Waste of Time
The team was in its fourth sprint of a new project. Deadlines were tight, stress was high, and their third retrospective wrapped up in just under 20 minutes. Nobody raised issues. Nobody suggested improvements. The meeting ended with the Scrum Master saying, “Looks like everything’s fine, let’s keep doing what we’re doing.”
But nothing was fine.
Tension was rising. Developers were working late. The QA team had stopped flagging bugs. Two developers admitted, privately, they didn’t speak up because they didn’t believe anything would change. The retrospective felt like a box-ticking exercise—attended out of obligation, not belief.
Why It Didn’t Work
The failure wasn’t about the people—it was about the structure. Here’s what made that retrospective ineffective:
1. Lack of Psychological Safety
No one wanted to look like a complainer. The retrospective didn’t create a space where it was okay to speak honestly. Team members feared blame, even when mistakes were systemic.
2. Overused, Rigid Format
The team used the classic “Start, Stop, Continue” format every time. It had become mechanical. Team members went through the motions. They weren’t reflecting—they were performing.
3. No Follow-Up on Past Feedback
In earlier retros, someone had raised a concern about unclear product requirements. The team agreed it was an issue. But by the next sprint, nothing had changed. People stopped expecting results.
4. Power Dynamics at Play
The product owner sometimes joined retros. His presence discouraged engineers from voicing critiques about feature deadlines or scope creep.
What the Team Learned
After this failed retrospective, the Scrum Master asked for anonymous feedback. He heard the truth: retrospectives weren’t helping. People didn’t feel safe, they weren’t being heard, and the format felt stale.
Instead of forcing the same approach again, he decided to try something new.
The Solution: A New Retro Format That Actually Helped
Inspired by the team’s feedback, the Scrum Master introduced a new format called “The 4Ls Retrospective”. It asked team members to reflect on four categories:
- Liked: What went well?
- Learned: What new things did we discover?
- Lacked: What was missing?
- Longed For: What do we wish we had?
Here’s why it worked better:
1. It Encouraged Honest Reflection
The “Lacked” and “Longed For” categories gave permission to voice gaps and desires, without sounding negative. Team members felt they could express concerns without framing them as complaints.
2. It Broke the Routine
A new structure meant fresh thinking. People couldn’t fall back on rote answers. It prompted deeper, more personal responses.
3. It Focused on Emotional Insight
Rather than just listing actions, the format explored how people felt. That emotional context added clarity to underlying issues.
4. It Created Accountability
Each category was tied to action items. The Scrum Master followed up on every “Lacked” and “Longed For” item in the next planning session. The team saw results.
Running a 4Ls Retrospective: Step-by-Step
Here’s how to run this format yourself:
Step 1: Set the Tone (5 Minutes)
Explain the purpose and categories. Remind the team that the goal is improvement, not blame.
Step 2: Silent Reflection (10 Minutes)
Have team members write down responses under each of the 4Ls categories on sticky notes or a shared board.
Step 3: Group and Discuss (20-30 Minutes)
Cluster similar items. For each group, discuss:
- What is the underlying issue?
- Who is affected?
- What’s one thing we can try next sprint?
Step 4: Create Action Items (10 Minutes)
Turn reflections into commitments. Assign owners. Revisit them in the next retrospective.
Step 5: Close with Appreciation (5 Minutes)
Have each person thank someone for something they liked this sprint. It ends the meeting on a positive note.
The Result: A Team That Felt Heard
The change didn’t fix everything overnight, but it did shift the tone. Developers began opening up. The QA team raised a test coverage issue that had been building for weeks. The product owner was invited to a separate feedback session instead of retros. And by sprint seven, the team identified a major workflow bottleneck and resolved it within a week.
The retrospective finally served its real purpose—not just to review, but to evolve.
FAQs
1. What is the main purpose of a retrospective?
To help the team reflect on their process, identify areas for improvement, and commit to changes that enhance collaboration and productivity.
2. How often should you change retrospective formats?
Every 2–4 sprints. It keeps the process fresh and encourages different perspectives.
3. What if the team is reluctant to speak?
Use anonymous input tools or invite private feedback ahead of time. Building psychological safety is crucial.
4. Can the product owner attend retrospectives?
They can, but only if the team agrees. In many cases, their absence helps foster more open discussions.
5. How do you measure if a retrospective is successful?
Look for clear action items, team engagement, and follow-through. If nothing changes, it didn’t work.
6. What’s a sign your retrospective isn’t working?
If the same issues are repeated without resolution, or team members disengage, the format may need to change.
Conclusion
A retrospective that doesn’t work is more common than most teams admit. But instead of dropping the practice, it’s better to diagnose what went wrong and adapt. As this case showed, even a simple change in format can restore purpose, drive engagement, and bring real improvements. Retrospectives are only useless when they are static. When they evolve, they can transform a team.