They are usually systemic and environmental. Often things that exist in this quadrant impact the other three. It’s critical to address this quadrant because by improving items here, you can see huge improvements everywhere else!
Many retrospectives are at best purely processed focused and at worst blame games. Only focusing on process can often lack a holistic view. I’ve created a retrospective based on Ken Wilber’s “Integral Theory” and after seeing the positive impact it’s had on teams, it’s now my go to retro!
Integral Theory, (also called the “Theory of Everything”) itself is beyond the scope of this blog post but simply put, it’s a way of looking at problems or situations from multiple perspectives to achieve the best outcomes possible.
It’s based in four quadrants:
• I = Personal: This is about “Me” – my psychological, inner world; how I see things, what I experience, my mindset.
• WE = Relationships and Culture – a shared vision and interpersonal dynamics among peers; how we interact, what we value together, the team micro-culture
• IT = Practices: Refers to the team structure, methods, metrics, processes, decision making patterns, organizational, leadership and team practices
• ITS = Systemic and Environmental: Everything external to the team; systems, including other value streams, handoffs, rules, corporate culture and policies
Here are the steps to execute this retrospective:
An Integral Approach
By starting from self, we are asking team members to reflect on what they have personally done well and what they can improve on. Before we can ask others or the team as a whole to improve, we should look at what we can do to help the team first. Our own knowledge, skills, happiness, motivation, and behaviors live here.
Next in the “We” quadrant lives team culture and relationships, it forces us to think about how we treat each other and interact. Team morale, culture, dynamics, and how we share knowledge and skills lives here.
The next quadrant to consider is the “IT” quadrant. All of our team process lives here. This is where majority of retrospectives are focused, but in this retro it’s treated equally with the other three quadrants.
Lastly but certainly not least is the “IT’S” quadrant. These are usually things outside of the teams control but not always. They are usually systemic and environmental. Often things that exist in this quadrant impact the other three. It’s critical to address this quadrant because by improving items here, you can see huge improvements everywhere else!
Here is an example retro using this technique.
My Biggest Takeaway from Observing Teams after this Retro
A sense of ownership and accountability! Members on the team seem to have a greater sense of personal responsibility by focusing on the I quadrant first. Combining this with Christopher Avery’s “The Responsibility Process,” has lasting effects on not only team chemistry but individual growth. Integral Theory and The Responsibility Process have both been impactful in my life and I love sharing them with teams I work with. If you are interested in whole team ownership of quality and growth, this could be a tool to try out with your teams.
For more information on Integral Theory, check out the book “The Theory of Everything” by Ken Wilber and for more information on The Responsibility Process check out the book “The Responsibility Process: Unlocking Your Natural Ability to Live and Lead with Power” by Christopher Avery.
Part of this blog post was done in collaboration with Andy Cleff @justsitthere on twitter. You can reach me @g4stroy.
What can you actually do to make effective retro a reality? The good news is, it’s not as difficult as you might think. We’ve broken it down into 5 elements to make it as easy as possible to massively improve your sprint retrospectives.
Most engineering managers instinctively think of productivity as complex processes like workflows, solutions, and deliverables expressed in purely quantitative terms. The result is a dynamic that’s usually counterproductive. But there is another way.
Often that dynamic plays out in metrics and misguided attempts at fostering engineer productivity, usually by measuring the wrong things and offering the wrong incentives. Fortunately, there are better ways to use metrics to genuinely empower engineers to accomplish more.