[This post is part of Corinna’s Guide to Facilitating Retrospectives]
Welcome back, friend!
We’re at the midpoint of the course but it was actually the very last post I wrote. In fact, I almost forgot the topic altogether. Not because it’s not important but because it’s mostly invisible to me while I do it. The other parts of facilitation – proper preparation and follow-up – I block time for but the actual facilitation is the meeting itself, no “extra” event.
So much of what I do when I facilitate has become automatic. It is hard for me to drag it out of semi-awareness into the light to consciously inspect. There was a lot of “Okay, but how do I actually do this?”-reflection involved.
For the team, this is inverted: facilitation during the retro is the most visible part of my work with the biggest impact for the participants.
That might be, why it’s hard to learn how to facilitate a meeting from a book (or blog post for that matter). If there’s any way for you to take part in an actual in-person workshop on facilitation, do it! Additionally, take every opportunity to practice facilitating. Observing other facilitators is also a great idea, especially if you can shadow capable ones. Facilitation is a broad skill that will translate to any meeting, not just retrospectives.
So, how do I see my role during the retrospective?
I’m there to provide structure not content. For example, I set the categories in which we collect topics but not what topics get written down. As a Scrum master I may set the topic wholesale (after running it by the team: “I will bring topic X. If you see something else as more important or urgent, come talk to me”) but not what they do within the topic. I define how many votes each person can cast but not what to vote for. I allocate X minutes of discussion time but rarely influence the actual discussion.
The value I add as a facilitator:
- [Preparation]
Covered this in previous posts - Providing structure
With the activities I picked – already covered - My undivided attention and genuine interest
- Asking questions to bring out observations, clarify, and broaden what’s possible
More on this in a later email. Impatient? Check out the Debriefing Cube and Asking for a Better Future - Note taking during the discussion in a highly visible place
This validates people’s input and cuts down on repetitions - Making sure decisions happen, sometimes seemingly plucking them out of “thin air”
- Making action items more concrete
More on this in a later post - Intervene in the few situations I think it’s necessary
- Time-keeping
- [Follow-up]
More on this in a later post
Arriving at Decisions
After each inner loop – discussion of a topic until thumbs down – I take time to wrap it up by asking whether the team want to follow up on this topic with an action item, a todo or a rule change. There usually is. If a new discussion erupts about what exactly to do, I’d ask for another vote on whether to spend time on this or fold without an action.
I try to keep this “afterburn” short, like 2 to 5 minutes. This usually works, because I take notes of all the solution ideas that people suggest during the discussion. If it feels like a specific proposal had broad support I will just ask, “There seems to be broad support for suggestion X. Can I write it down as your action item?” If yes, we will then add details to make it more actionable.
If there was no clear favorite, I will present all options and ask, “What’s something small that you can try?” There are instances in which a team doesn’t want to take any action for a specific topic and if that doesn’t happen all the time, then that’s okay. I’d rather have few action items that get implemented than too many.
If you are only starting out as a facilitator, I recommend a more structured approach to action items, because people get really angry when you mark something as “decided” when they feel like they haven’t had a say in it.
I’m Hands-off
On the “explicitly steer the discussion vs. completely hands-off”-spectrum I am quite close to the “hands off” extreme. I talk very little and interrupt the flow rarely. When I do, it’s usually with a question. Almost every facilitator I had the privilege of observing, interrupts more than I do. This is an observation, not a judgment. I’m not saying that “hands-off” is better, it’s merely my style. I shifted towards it over the years nudged by my interest in clean language and solution-focused coaching.
Things that support my hands-off style:
- I sit to the side of the board and try to melt into the background. I want the participants to talk to each other, not to me. I’m there to provide structure and thought-provoking questions. I’m not a show master. Apart from instructions, I should not be the focus of their attention.
- For virtually every activity, I give time to think in quiet (and take notes) before participants go round robin. Not everyone is a chatterbox like me. Shy and/or introverted people have valuable perspectives to add. In order to make it more likely for them to speak up, I make everyone shut up and write first. That levels the playing field for less outspoken people and I don’t have to make sure that everyone gets a turn, because I create conditions for it to occur “naturally”.
- We all follow basic meeting etiquette and queue to speak. Teams can do a lot to co-facilitate. Chain questions are one specific example to deflect focus from you as the facilitator
- Setting a timer that’s visible to all
Having a countdown in a visible spot means that most people are aware of time and try to stay within the limit. And when the time is up, the timer beeps and I don’t have to interrupt. I’m not the bad guy, the timer is. For real, physical meetings in meat space I highly recommend TimeTimer. - If I work long-term with a team I will offer my observation after the retrospective. More on this here in the paragraph “Style Critique”
Maybe I’m lucky that I work with teams that need little guidance. But I think it’s also something particular to me. My mantra is “Everybody is the expert for their own situation” from Solution-focused Coaching.
Instead of “You are off-topic” I would say “Our topic was X. It sounds like you’re now discussing Y. Is that what you want?” Because who am I to say which of the two topics is more important to them. It’s their time, they get to decide how they use it.
Over the years I’ve often seen teams self-regulate: Approximately 10 seconds after I started wondering if now is the time to intervene and get a discussion back on track, someone from within the group will rein the them back in. I always love it when that happens, because I’d rather teach teams to do it themselves. Their discussions will be productive even when I’m not there.
Oh! Okay, writing that out actually revealed one of my big underlying goals! I’m always trying to make teams self-sufficient, to teach them so that they can do the basics themselves.
For the record, this is just my style and goal. It’s not “the right way” to do it. I’ve seen all kinds of facilitation styles work. My real-life boards are ugly, my digital boards look nice. I never bring sweets. I do follow up on action items. I’m hands-off. It’s how I roll. You’ll figure out what works for you, too.
When will I intervene?
Obviously there are situations that will make me intervene and cut into a discussion, e. g. these:
- When the discussion seems to be going in circles
This rarely happens if someone (usually me) takes notes on a board - When I suspect that the team avoids something, be it a topic or taking responsibility
- Disruptive behavior, esp. when repeated
I will neither let people talk over others, nor let one person drone on indefinitely - When emotions are running very high
People are getting visibly distressed, crying, personal attacks, raised voices, …
Complicating matters
There are circumstances that can render “hands-off” impossible. I can think of at least three:
1) Your job description (ie Scrum Master or Agile Coach) contains a teaching/steering component
I just said, “Everybody is the expert on their own situation” and I stand by it, but there might be situations when you have considerably more knowledge than the people you are holding space for.
When I see a team struggling to come up with solutions and I know a ton about the subject matter, I will deliberately step out of the facilitator role: “I have seen this solved in different ways. Would you like to hear the solutions I know about?” (It is okay for the team to say no but that hasn’t happened yet)
Another case is, when a team is honing in on a solution that violates agile principles in a company that’s striving to work more agile-y. I would let the team discuss all kinds of solutions, and hope that a team member objects to a non-agile solution. That’s more powerful than if I do it. But if they seem to settle on the non-agile solution I would point out the violation.
2) You’re part of the team you are facilitating for
This applies to me right now. I facilitate but I’m also a team member and it’s my retro, too. The lines are blurry but at least I am not in a position of authority over anyone. If there is no other order implied, I go last.
I’ve lately realized that I’m the only one who goes crazy with the reaction emojis in Google Meet. That’s just the way I am as a participant. Yet, the lines for me as facilitator are blurry and I wouldn’t want anyone to think that this is a judgment by the facilitator. Maybe that is a problem, maybe it isn’t. I don’t know yet. I’ll ask before the next retrospective.
If you are in a bigger company, maybe you can swap with someone in another team? I worked in a place with a Philipp-swap: Each team had a Philipp that at first facilitated his own team’s retrospective. Then they agreed on swapping and facilitating for the other team so that they could take part in their own team’s retro without the double role.
If that is not an option, in co-located retrospective you can use standing versus sitting to mark different roles. Stand when facilitating, sit down to participate in the discussion as a team member. Brian Tajuddin reports that this has worked great for him as a clear visual clue.
3) You’re in a position of authority
I’ve met quite a lot of team leads who started running retrospectives in their team. This is certainly better than not having any means for reflection and improvement but it’s not ideal. If it works in your case, congratulations on your Psychological Safety.
Be even more careful with your reactions, with showing approval and disapproval. Go last with your ideas and opinions so that the others will not prematurely conform to yours. Maybe you, too, can swap with someone else?
Wow, that was a long ass post. But you made it – Congrats and thank you for reading!
Take a minute:
What is your personal facilitation style so far? What would you like it to be? What feedback does your team give you about what works well for them?
Next week we start exploring follow-up. Wishing you a wonderful week,
Corinna
PS: Regarding the role of facilitation: I thought about what’s important to me and did not check whether it aligns with the definition of e. g. the International Association of Facilitators. So take mine with a grain of salt.
PS: Did you know there's a Retromat eBook Bundle? Ready-made retrospective plans for beginners and all activities from Retromat for experienced facilitators. Check out the Retromat books