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:

Social Safety Margins

As our personal workloads increase, we endure more stress and more time pressure. Inevitably, we have less time for the social niceties that protect us from accidentally hurting each other's feelings. When are we most at risk of incidental harm, and what can we do about it?

Directed Attention Fatigue

Humans have a limited capacity to concentrate attention on thought-intensive tasks. After a time, we must rest and renew. Most brainwork jobs aren't designed with this in mind.

Reframing Revision Resentment: II

When we're required to revise something previously produced — prose, designs, software, whatever, we sometimes experience frustration with those requiring the revisions. Here are some alternative perspectives that can be helpful.

Capability Inversions and Workplace Abuse

A capability inversion occurs when the person in charge of an effort is far less knowledgeable about the work than are the people doing that work. In some capability inversions, abusive behavior by the unit's leader might be misinterpreted as bullying.

Toxic Disrupters: Responses

Some people tend to disrupt meetings. Their motives vary, but their techniques are predictable. If we've identified someone as using these techniques we have available a set of effective actions that can guide him or her toward a more productive role.

See also Conflict Management and Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

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