A retrospective is not only something conducted within Scrum. Although in this framework inspection and adaptation have been shaped into a specific event called a retrospective, it is worth introducing a certain level of reflection on how we work and what we can improve in every way of working. Therefore, it should not be surprising that a group in a retrospective can be larger than 10 people. A retrospective is above all a good tool for developing solutions and introducing a feedback loop. Thanks to a facilitator who is not a member of the group, we can ensure impartiality, full focus on running the meeting, and most importantly we do not take away an important voice from a group member. According to Marc Loeffler, author of “Improving Agile Retrospectives”:
“A retrospective (Latin retrospectare - to look back) is a review, an analysis of the past. Retrospectives (…) involve looking into the past, but this is only the first step. Much more important is gaining knowledge and drawing conclusions from this activity. This knowledge and these conclusions help us derive wisdom from the past and allow us to adapt appropriately. We can learn from both successes and failures. What we do well, we can often do even better.”
When I had to run a retrospective for the first time in a group of more than twenty people, and in an online format, I had many concerns. One of the things I tried to explore was how to extract suggestions, feedback, and changes in a large group. Based on my experience, I will present a few exercises that can help you run such a meeting.
The one-to-all method has a high chance of failure in large groups. Usually, a few people dominate the conversation while the rest remain silent. Or in another common scenario, there is not enough time for anything, because before everyone says a sentence or two, 30 minutes or more have already passed. My favorite example is when, during a meeting of about 30 people, someone started a round of introductions. The whole thing took almost an hour, which was wasted for everyone.
An important aspect is dividing the group into smaller teams. This can be done using the classic breakout rooms option (online), so that groups do not exceed 5-6 people. Thanks to this, we reduce the number of participants in the discussion. The atmosphere becomes more intimate. Everyone has more time to speak. The team does not have to rush and can focus on the conversation. To avoid limiting people to the same experiences or voices, it is worth mixing participants between teams throughout the retrospective. This can be done by moving to the next exercise. However, there is also another option.
Using the world cafe. If each group has a different topic, for example they discuss different aspects of a problem, then during one exercise participants can move between groups. In each group there is a previously designated leader or host, who is responsible for gathering the knowledge developed in the group and passing it on to new participants. This increases the chance of generating new ideas by giving everyone space to speak. World cafe or its variations are good in retrospectives for developing specific solutions. We are dealing with a larger number of people, so it is not just one person’s opinion but is confronted with others. I recommend that during the retrospective, leaders (table hosts) also have the opportunity to change teams so they do not feel they are missing out. In such a situation, a leader stays in a group for two rounds and then moves on. From my experience, for extensive topics we can even run 6 rounds. However, we should not overdo it, because the more rounds, the more tired the teams may become, especially if the leaders (hosts) do not rotate. It is also important that the time per round is not too long. Depending on the problem, 3 to 10 minutes is sufficient.
Another way to divide the group into smaller parts is the cocktail party. In this case, we split the team into pairs that switch partners after a few minutes and move around like at a party. This tool can be used during icebreakers. Then we provide light discussion topics. It can also be the first stage of developing solutions by discussing them in pairs and then moving to larger groups so that as many people as possible can learn about as many ideas as possible. The cocktail party is also good for exchanging what we took away from the retrospective and for quick associations.
Marking on a scale, drawing, or another element. When we have a large group, it is worth giving up on a round. If we want to check something, it is better to use closed questions with a scale such as “agree - disagree”, “yes - no”, or numerical 1-5 or 1-10. This allows us to quickly diagnose the team and easily engage everyone. An example exercise is below.
Exercise: The facilitator reads several statements that participants should agree or disagree with. Beforehand, draw circles on a board (in Miro, Figma, or on paper) - as many as there are questions. Each circle corresponds to a different question. Each circle should consist of several rings, for example three rings, to clearly mark the center, which represents agreement with the facilitator’s statement. It is also worth preparing name labels for participants in advance. Participants should place their label in the very center if they agree with the statement, and the less they agree, the farther from the center they should place it. This exercise can also be done anonymously, without signing the labels. Besides labels, we can use various markers, shapes, or magnets. Instead of circles, we can draw a scale, an arrow, or another shape.
An aspect we must not forget is time. In every planned task where participants speak, not just mark something on a virtual or physical board, we should assume that each person in the group needs at least 1 minute to speak. We should remember that the group may become tired. If completing a task takes 30 minutes and discussing it takes 20 minutes, we already have one hour, which, with intensive work and focus, may exhaust participants. Therefore, remember - the goal is most important. Sometimes one or two well-chosen exercises can be more useful in developing a solution and next steps than 5-6 poorly chosen ones. If the retrospective is to last 2-4 hours, do not forget to include at least a short break.
Another aspect to consider when planning a retrospective for a large team is how we summarise the tasks. At some point, when we want to gather the knowledge developed in teams, the one-to-all approach appears again. It is important to maintain a timebox. Specify how much time each team has to present the results of their work and start a visible countdown. If we allow questions, we should indicate that there will be space for them after the presentation and state the timebox for that as well. Thanks to this, discussing a task in a 30-person team can take 9 minutes, and with questions up to 18 minutes. However, if we do not measure this time, the discussion itself may take 30-45 minutes and cause participants to lose interest.
Keeping these elements in mind, running a retrospective for a large team should not be a problem. Good luck!