Retrospective become compliement to everyone
During our retrospective, As for `What did we do well`, it more and more become a compliment to each one. E.g., someone work hard to fix something, etc. Should we often explicit state the name of some members when state the good behavior? is it normally?
Does the team find value in this? Is it taking away from finding problems or improvements and planning changes to do better?
The primary purpose of the Sprint Retrospective is to give the team a time and place to inspect their way of working - the way they interact and communicate as well as the processes and tools that are in place. However, that doesn't need to be the only thing that happens here. Sometimes, reflecting on the positive is good and helpful. As long as it doesn't prevent the opportunities for improvement, I don't see any problems.
It sounds like a reasonable way to start a Sprint Retrospective. Why not relate any plaudits to Scrum Values which are being displayed?
During our retrospective, As for `What did we do well`, it more and more become a compliment to each one. E.g., someone work hard to fix something, etc. Should we often explicit state the name of some members when state the good behavior? is it normally?
I don't see anything wrong here if the team is comfortable doing it and complimenting someone who might have gone the extra mile is good. What is also equally important is the things not going on well and how can we improve on those come out. Getting people to write/state what did not go well is a challenge as they fear that they would be judged or that someone might shut that point down. In my experience anonymous retrospectives help till the point teams are comfortable to state the points without fear.
Does the team openly stating other's names and saying what wrong the other person did when they discuss "What didn't do well" ?? While they were giving complements to others, are they comfortable highlighting the problem when it is needed ?. if not, then it is not normal. "Openness" value has to lived up at all the situations. if there is no psychological safety with in the team, then conflicts will brew up which impacts the work they do.You need to observe that as well.
Does the team find value in this? Is it taking away from finding problems or improvements and planning changes to do better?
The primary purpose of the Sprint Retrospective is to give the team a time and place to inspect their way of working - the way they interact and communicate as well as the processes and tools that are in place. However, that doesn't need to be the only thing that happens here. Sometimes, reflecting on the positive is good and helpful. As long as it doesn't prevent the opportunities for improvement, I don't see any problems.
A feeling is: if member A compliment B, then B will also try to find something to compliment A, then they would tend to praise the point mostly just normally behavior in working.
When talking about `things needs to improve`, no one state the name of others.
Brief compliments are good. It is also good to emphasize what is going well. With only criticism teams and individuals do not know what to "keep doing"
Then to assign negatives to specific names in the same way positives are assigned to names. A few random thoughts.
- A mistake is seldom the fault of one individual.
- Promote team accountability.
- Informal rule: Don't say "you" when pointing out a mistake.
- Avoid creating a blane culture.
If a defect slip through, it is easy to blame the developer who did the coding. But if analysed properly there would be multiple failure points in the team. QA testing, BA functional testing can be failure points. Was the requirements ambiguous? Did the PO push for a release while the code was not fully tested, or put pressure on the dev team to release? Only a few examples.
Retrospectives are regularly, events. These can become regular hell events if not done well. Not to overstate, but teams can rip themselves apart here. To have a positive slant is not a bad thing.