You ask the question every retro starts with: “What went well, and what should we improve?” And then… nothing. The cursor blinks on the empty board. Someone studies their coffee very closely. Someone else says, “I think it was fine.” Two cameras are off. Three sticky notes show up, all from the same person.
If you have already moderated a few retrospectives, you know this moment. The strange thing is that you can feel that it is not fine. There is tension in the air. People who clearly have something on their mind decide it is not worth the risk. Everyone is present, but the real conversation is happening somewhere else: In the hallway, in a private chat, or not at all.
A silent retro is not a peaceful retro. Silence is not agreement, it is information.
In my previous blog post, I wrote about why retros matter. This time, it is about why they fail even when you hold them every sprint, and what you can do about it.
What is mostly missing in a silent retro has a name: Psychological safety. It describes the shared belief that you can speak up, ask a question or admit a mistake without being embarrassed or punished. It is not about being nice to each other or lowering standards. It is about making honest conversations possible.
There is research to back this up. Researchers at SINTEF Digital surveyed 236 team members in 43 software development teams in Norway. They found that psychological safety has a positive effect on team reflexivity and a direct effect on team performance.* “Team reflexivity” sounds academic, but it simply describes a team that regularly reflects on how it works and adapts. That is exactly what a retro is supposed to do.
In other words: Safety is the engine of “inspect and adapt”. Without it, a retro is just a meeting with sticky notes.
Three simple things that help to create a safe environment:
1. Start with a check-in round. One word or one sentence from everyone about how they feel. Once everybody has spoken, the ice might be broken and silence stops being the default.
2. Agree on a few ground rules. Some examples that work well for me: “We talk about situations, not people”, “What is said in the retro stays in the retro” and “Everyone did the best job they could, given what they knew at the time”. Saying them out loud gives you something to point back to when a discussion turns into finger-pointing.
3. Go first with your own mistake. If the person leading the room shows that being wrong is survivable, others follow.
As a Product Owner I have moderated a lot of retrospectives, and nothing improved the retro quality as much as taking care of safety. I never get tired of reminding my team to stick to the rules, especially when it comes to finger-pointing. With one of my last teams, I could see the difference clearly. The whole team committed to the retro rules and the atmosphere became noticeably more relaxed. Then I went first: “Alright, this time I’ll start with an apology – I made a mistake in the sprint plan and it caused a lot of confusion.” That opened the door to honest conversations and good ideas on how to improve, without any blame games.
Safety sets the scene, but a safe room is still a room full of different people and personalities. So let’s talk about how to get all of them on board.
A retro is a room full of different people, and one way of facilitating will never fit all of them. Three types I meet over and over again:
• The Quiet One has opinions but rarely shares them in a group. Let people write down their thoughts silently first and discuss afterwards, ask them directly but gently, and follow up one-on-one if something interesting shows up on their notes.
• The Dominator means well but crowds out the room. Time-boxed turns help, and so does a simple “I’d like to hear from someone who hasn’t spoken yet”. Giving them a role, like keeping time, can channel that energy.
• The Skeptic thinks retros are a waste of time. Not every skeptic is a safety problem; some have simply never seen a retro that led anywhere. Do not argue. Ask what would make it worth their time, and then follow through.
None of these types is “difficult” by nature. They just need different invitations to take part. Your job as a moderator is not to treat everyone the same, but to give everyone a fair chance to contribute.
What works for all three: Keeping your promises. Nothing makes the Quiet One feel more heard than seeing their note turn into an action. The Dominator finds a constructive outlet when they own an action instead of owning the airtime. And the Skeptic needs only one thing to change their mind: Proof that the last retro led somewhere. As I wrote in my last post, nothing kills motivation faster than an action item that quietly disappears.
The SINTEF study points to a second lever: Autonomy. Teams with more say over how they work felt safer.* For retros, that means letting the team own its improvements. Let them decide which actions to take, who takes them on and how the format looks. Keep it small and visible: one to three actions, each with an owner and a date, and open the next retro by reviewing them.
I recently moderated a retro with members from different teams, right after an intense project, the first one to follow a new development and release approach. Tensions were high, some team members were exhausted, and we were a group of 15 (which I usually try to avoid) with all three archetypes in the room. A recipe for a fierce retro. After setting the stage with the retro rules, I started with a special warm-up: “Look to your right and tell us how the person next to you feels after this project.” People were a bit shocked for the first few seconds, but then you could see everyone start to think, and empathy kicked in. On some faces I saw a drastic change from skeptical and demotivated to interested and focused. The ice was maybe not broken, but definitely cracked.
From there, a few simple tricks were enough. Time-boxing the dominant voices and asking the quiet ones directly gave us valuable discussions on the most important topics. The last skeptics changed their attitude when we built an action list together, with concrete next steps, owners and timelines, and prioritized it with dot voting so that everyone felt heard. And we are still following up on that list every two weeks.
Sooner or later, a retro will touch something tense: a missed deadline, a conflict, a decision someone disagrees with. The reflex is to look for the one to blame. Resist it.
Move the conversation from “who” to “what”. Instead of “Why did you miss it?”, ask “What made this hard to deliver?” This keeps the focus on the situation, which the team can change, instead of on a person, who can only feel attacked.
When emotions run high, a few things help me:
• Pause and name what you see, calmly: “I notice this is a sensitive topic.”
• Remind the team of the retro rules.
• Take what is purely personal out of the room and into a one-on-one afterwards.
Remember the two colleagues from my last post who simply stopped talking to each other? A retro is the place to open that conversation. Not by asking who is to blame, but by asking what made it so hard to talk.
Even the best format will not help if the wrong people are in the room. Before every retro, ask yourself who really needs to be there.
People tend to filter what they say when their manager, a senior stakeholder, a client or anyone who can influence their career is listening. That is human, not a lack of courage. The more hierarchy in the room, the more polished the conversation gets.
Make the retro a team space and a space of trust
If a stakeholder needs to hear something, share a short summary afterwards, or invite them for one specific topic only. Group size matters as well: the bigger it gets, the harder it is to speak up. Split a large team into smaller groups if possible, or use special warm-ups and time-boxing, as mentioned above.
By the way: Long-standing teams build trust over time, which helps. But close friendships can also hold honest discussions back, because people do not want to hurt each other’s feelings. As a moderator, keep an eye on this and have a one-on-one conversation if needed.
The moderator matters
You might ask yourself if it’s fine to moderate retros as Product Owner and part of the team. I’d say yes, as long as you are aware that your priorities are part of the discussion, and never use what is said in a retro in a performance conversation. My own rule: If I notice tension or a topic or project affects me personally, I step back, ask the Scrum Master or another colleague to take over and join the retro as a participant to share my thoughts.
1. Agree on ground rules, and repeat them when it gets tense.
2. Start with a warm-up that gets everyone talking: a check-in round, or “How does the person next to you feel?”
3. Think about your audience and their personalities, and make sure you set the stage for them so every voice counts.
*Source:
Buvik, M. P. & Tkalich, A. (2022). Psychological Safety in Agile Software Development Teams: Work Design Antecedents and Performance Consequences. HICSS 2022. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2022.880
Share article
