Half an hour, seven people, and a general agreement that the last few weeks went reasonably well, the release was a bit rushed, and communication could always be better. The meeting finishes nine minutes early, everybody is faintly relieved, and nothing that happens next month is different.
It is easy to read that room as apathy. It is almost never apathy.
People stay quiet because the last three honest items produced no change, so speaking up has been priced accurately as a waste of thirty seconds. Or because the real item is about a specific person and nobody wants to open that in a group. Or because the person running the meeting is the person the truth is about, and everyone in the room can see it except them.
You can improve this without any authority at all.
Go first, and go small and factual. Not the release was rushed, which is an adjective and invites everyone to agree comfortably. We got the final scope on Thursday afternoon and shipped Friday morning, and that is the third time this quarter. A dated, countable thing cannot be nodded past, and it gives the next person a template.
Volunteer your own mistake before anybody else's. It lowers the price of honesty in the room by a surprising amount, and it takes the meeting out of the register where people are protecting themselves.
If you run the session, put the question on the process and not on the people. Ask what made the work slow rather than who was late. And close with exactly one change, with a name and a date attached to it. One change that visibly happens is worth more than eight good observations, because it is the only evidence the room has that this is not theatre.
Then do the quiet part. The things nobody will say in the meeting get said to you on the way back to your desk. Collect them, ask permission, and bring the pattern back to the group without the names on it.
Monday: take one concrete, dated observation into your next retro and say it in the first two minutes.
– Asael Shinder
Top comments (0)