Yesterday I had a wonderful experience leading a retrospective for 25 people.
I would like to share an activity we used to study the timeline. Going through every note is passive for most, and often reduces energy. Creating narratives of it is consolidating the mass of notes, and often adding new details. And narratives create meaning.
We had unusually long timeline, starting from 1970. No-one of those who started the company was anymore present, but stories were remembered.
First we created a standard history timeline. People swarmed around it and talked. I overheard people telling fragments of stories, and decided to use that idea.
Next smallish groups brainstormed the question: “What is the story that I would like to hear about this history?” The groups provided themes like “Personnel policy”, “Organizational culture”, “Market development”, “Evolving of the production work” or “Evolving of the IT-system”. If there are too many themes, you can prioritize by for example dot voting. Please improvise as needed.
Next I let people to self-organize around their favorite theme. I prefer to let people use their full body in the selection process. We assigned a place for each theme and people physically walked to their preferred theme. If no-one goes around a title, there will not be a story. It is OK, and potential observation material.
I gave a quite loose assignment to create a few minutes story in about 20 minutes. The groups were free to adjust the title if needed. Each story plus discussion lasted about ten minutes.
The stories were appreciated in the reflection in the end of the retrospective.
Finally I got the energy to publish this project. Quite impressive even after 10 years: 1000 people, 4 years, 100+ coaches. Unfortunately we did not know Agile back then, adding the technology and process perspectives would have made it a revolution. I hope you find this as an encouraging example.
- Long term
- Intensive co-work of the internal owner and the external consultant
- Own your own change – tailor the approach in a core team
- Work with individual, group and organizational levels
- Empowerment – reflection and freedom of choice. And coahcing support.
- A tailored training program for change agents
- Experiential learning sticks
- Adapt – work in the speed of the organization
Following is the abstract, 9 pages is downloadable at aritikka.com.
This report describes a large successful case of a goal oriented managed change, based on empowerment and reflection. The organizational culture and emergent nature of the change were respected by a continuously adaptive approach.
Significant improvement was reported in the atmosphere and work of teams, departments and leadership teams, and from personal perspectives.
Lately retrospectives have become popular as the reflective learning practice along the Agile SW development movement. I hope this report encourages to invest in a learning culture, let it be called Kaizen, learning organization or retrospectives.
The organization in question was Switching Platforms, Nokia Networks,about 1000 people in matrix organization, developing a distributed operating system for telecom switches. The change program was initiated bottom-up and sponsored by the strong management team of the SWP.
The program continuously adapted to the real conditions and capability. It was continuing to add value from 1998 to 2002 until ended with a radical organizational change. The following was achieved:
- An adaptive organization-wide development process lasting for 4 years
- A tailored approach, fit to the organization and situation, including tools, communication
- material, coach pool and the structure to lead and develop the change.
- A tailored training program for change agents/coaches. It was based on experiential learning, and eventually became a leadership training.
- 11 groups of 12 participants in the basic training of 1+2+2+1 days. Value for oneself 5.6/6, value for own development project 5/6.
- 3 groups of 8 people in the advanced training program of 1+2+1+2+1 days
- 3 internal coaches of coaches consulted the managers, facilitated workshops and supported the team level local development projects
- 150 recorded local projects, covering about 75% or the organization
- Coach network with meetings, reading circle, peer consultation
- Clear change in the culture, knowledge, personal growth, change resilience
Kati Vilkki main organizer and coach, Soile Aho consultant, Ari Tikka coach, Antti Heimonen, Seppo Taanila, Aila Laisi, Lauri Närhi, Leea afHeurlin, Kirsi Lagus, Jyrki Innanen, Sami Lilja, Raija Tamminen and dozens of other activists. Please notify me when you wish to have your name here.
The conversations about change resistance seems to be reopened regularly. Here is my contribution, practical perspectives to understand and to work with it.
Change resistance is a friend
- Resistance has an important psychological function. It guards against things that cause too much fear or anxiety, that would otherwise undermine the ability to function.
- Resistance prevents stupid things from happening. The more important thing is going to be changed, the more resistance.
- Resistance buys time to learn and adapt.
- As a leader, when I encounter resistance, I am able to work with it. No resistance – no work – no progress.
Change resistance is an everyday phenomenon. It is integral to all new; change, learning and doing my work now. You work with it when you wake up in the morning. Some people tend to resist more some less.
Many find resistance frustrating and would like just to get rid of it. That is like wishing for a physical world without friction. I sometimes hear about breaking the resistance by force. To me it sounds amusing – such an attempt would only make the resistance change shape.
The term resistance is easily taken as judgmental or offending. In reality it is a neutral defensive reaction, not targeted against anyone. When it happens in the organizational conversation, it effects different players’ interests and becomes subjectively good or bad.
In organizations you find change resistance especially when you touch personal and important things:
- The power structures are threatened
- People’s personal needs are threatened. Good guesses for the specific needs are autonomy, recognition, safety, rest, or connection.
- There is more work coming. Learning, by the way, is really hard work, which is too often forgotten.
Conscious resistance is easy to work with – it is fair challenging. Be happy when you encounter it! Unconscious resistance is delusive, undermining resolution, draining energy, dizzying, distracting, causing emotions, manifesting in strange actions.
Possible manifestations of (unconscious) resistance:
- Forgetting the basic task
- Forgetting the targets
- Strong feelings of lameness, stagnation, irrelevance or resistance
- Postponing and delaying
- Intellectual arguing about theory so that reality is blurred or forgotten
- Staying away, busying oneself with other things
- Delegating things away
- Shunning, being late, staying away, forgetting,
- Lack of commitment
- Not keeping contracts
- Not understanding and not asking – not caring
- Neglecting or denying the value of the topic
- Extended talking about irrelevant things
Obviously it is easier to work with the unconscious resistance, when you first recognize it. But how?
Human beings have delicate mechanisms to share mind states with each others (mirror neurons and so on). You can use yourself as an instrument: Whenever you feel strange, wake up and observe carefully!
Leading is working with resistance
Leadership constantly works with resistance, in oneself and others. The forms of resistance change and develop while the work progresses.
The guideline is to return to the principal task. Again and again. Just like meditation… finally leading to flow.
It is best to point out observations how the work is (not) progressing and ask how to continue. You may offer observations like “For the last 10 minutes we have talked about Y, while we agreed to talk about X.” Maybe there is resistance because X is too threatening. May be Y is actually more important. Or that we have not yet spotted the real roadblock Z.
When time is ripe, you may talk about the phenomenon of resistance, and let people themselves find out their own ways to resist. Usually it is wise to use a separate occasion for learning about the resistance phenomenon. Having the word in the organizations vocabulary makes a difference.
Resistance transfers from team to the leader. The leader needs to observe ones own resistance in order to be able to function. Ability to tolerate separation is very necessary for leaders.
Resistance is a very strong and contagious force. It is useful to prepare and have productive antidotes for the situation:
- Understand your own role, interests and goals. Keep available a note about them for yourself.
- Understand the principal task. Prepare with many ways to remind about it.
- Plan the meeting in question.
- Understand the phenomenon of resistance. Understanding group phenomenon and human interaction is beneficial.
- Regularly check Your posture, physical balance and breathing.
- Take a break. During a break talk with an ally or make contact with the most active resister.
- Take a distance from the group. Mentally, or physically by walking away from the group.
- Reflect the experience afterwards.
If a donkey is not willing to drag the cart, you pull it’s tail. It will resist the pulling and start dragging the cart.
The suggestive question “Why retrospectives”, might create pressure to conform, or to give the right answer. I have used the controversial question successfully a few times. Asking the opposite:
- Is actually the important question: “What is blocking you?”
- Everyone is working for the same goal 🙂
- Is often fun and creative
- Breaks the expected or established roles and games. Makes people change their position or perspective, even for a moment.
Feel free to use for any topic.
At Scan Agile we got the following list of reasons why not. Some advice between the lines.
- The value of retros is not perceived
- No experience of the benefit
- Actions are not done
- Experience of superficial retros
- Assumption that retros are “feeling stuff”, with no “real” benefit. People are not used to it
- Teams are (feel) unempowered
- Too many meetings even without retros
- Culture of conflict avoidance
- Fear of blaming
- Misunderstanding retrospectives
- Cost of delay is a good argument for actions
- Scrum does not resource retros explicitly
Some advice to use 2% to formal retros. 1% (hour/2 weeks) for iterations, 1% (1 day/quarter) to full product.
- lack of facilitation skill, person (with identity), role
- some people just don’t like to talk
- people have not learned to recognize their own feelings
- we don’t have the time
- boring, boring, boring (defense mechanism…)
- feelings are disconnected from the work context and identity
Technocrats may turn surprisingly talented in emotions. Just give them a thinking tool, a rational systems model, with which they can connect feelings with work. I have had success with Nonviolent Communication. Is frustration or anger a feeling? Significant? Is disappointment significant at work? Or joy of success?
The conclusion is, that we have not tried retrospectives, because we don’t have a positive experience. Kind of logical…
The advice would be to give it a try with good enough sponsoring and facilitation.
I use this opportunity to publish another list with the same theme… very similar findings.
Understanding why NOT retrospectives at the International Retrospective Facilitator Gathering UK 2007
Post-it’s by Ari (host), Eshter, Sandra, Sal, Gabby, Linda
- Poor facilitation
- Bad facilitator
- Only the strong get their thoughts come through
- Time zones / distributed team
- Chaotic retrospective
- We blame or action people not in the room
- No or poor facilitator
- Facilitator has favorites
- Everything is going well !
- Threatens illusions that reduce anxiety
- “they” are not doing their part (mgmnt team)
- no honesty
- too positive. Hard to be honest and burst bubble
- no-one tells what really happened
- everyone lies
- problmes are too big
- if we admit there’s a problem, we may have to d osomething about it
- not seeing your own part in the problem
- Im minority, so my contribution isn’t worth anything
- Team does not take it seriously
- (Fear of) losing control
- We just bring up the same old things
- Actions agreed upon does not come through
- Ae can’t do anything about it
- Uncover managemtn’s powerlessness
- Our action plans will be over-ruled by management anyway
- Culturally inappropriate (taiwan vs china)
- Too touchy feely
- It”s whacky stuff
- bringing personal issues to the job isn’t proefssional
- short term ebefit culture – ony this project matters
- you can’t express the benefit in hard numbers
- gap between management and team; no real knowledge nor/or understanding of significance
- power is elsewhere command & control
- no meeting rooms available
- developers can’t possibly understand what we (mgmnt) have to face
- it has not worked earlier
- sipmplistic retros that don’t uncover anything significant
- cultural differences (no common language?)
- I am leaving so I don’t care
- people feel powerless
- I’m not creative
- I have nothing to contribute
- I am ADD
- I have asberger syndrome
- I already have another forum (“Honest talk time at japan)
- Managers mistake system problems with individual problems
- retrospectives may discover unconventional solutions, which can’t be supported by management without their safety net. “What others did”
- 80% of problems are management problems… and they don’t want to deal with them…
- We’ll do it later
- Doing my real work is more important thatn going to meetings
- something more urgent came up
- we don’t have time!
- Takes too much time
- takes time away from real work
- Don’t want to look bad in front of..
- It disempowers me as a manager
- retrospectives may uncover bad (management) decisions
- fear of being blamed
- “what is my role” if they do decisions on their own.
- fear of criticism
- fear of conflict
- fear of admitting problems
- Im not comfortable expressing my feelings in a group
- we have to change. That’s scary.