Every agile team runs retrospectives. Almost none of them work well.
Not "work" in the sense of "the meeting happens." The meeting happens. People show up, write cards, vote on things, produce a tidy list of action items. The meeting works fine.
What doesn't work is the outcome. The same issues surface sprint after sprint. Action items accumulate in a Google Doc that nobody opens. The team's process doesn't actually improve. After a year of biweekly retros, the team isn't meaningfully better at delivering software than they were at the start.
If that describes your team, you're in good company. And the fixes are more straightforward than you'd expect.
The core problem: action items without accountability
Every retro failure traces back to the same root cause: the team identifies problems but doesn't actually fix them.
Not because they don't care. Because the system around the retro doesn't support follow-through:
- Action items get written in a retro board that nobody looks at after the meeting
- Nobody is assigned as the specific owner
- The items aren't added to the sprint backlog, so they compete with feature work informally
- At the next retro, nobody reviews what was committed to last time
Fix this one problem and most other retro issues resolve themselves. When action items get completed, people see the retro is useful. When people see it's useful, they engage. When they engage, they raise better issues. It's a virtuous cycle.
The fix is mechanical, not cultural:
- At the end of every retro, add action items to your sprint backlog as actual tasks
- Assign each one to a specific person by name
- Start the next retro by reviewing what happened with last sprint's items
- Celebrate completions publicly
That's it. No transformation needed. Just close the loop.
Five patterns that kill retros
1. The Groundhog Day retro
"Code reviews are slow" appears on the board for the sixth sprint in a row. Everyone nods. Someone writes "improve code review process" as an action item. Again.
Why it happens: The action items are too vague to act on. "Improve code review process" isn't something a person can complete by Friday. It's a wish, not a task.
The fix: Force specificity. Instead of "improve code reviews," the action item becomes: "Alex will create a team agreement that PRs under 300 lines get first review within 24 hours, starting Monday. We'll track compliance for 2 weeks."
The difference is the second version has an owner, a deadline, a specific change, and success criteria. It can be done or not done — there's no ambiguity.
If an issue has survived 3 retros without resolution, the team should ask: "Why haven't we fixed this yet?" Either the action items aren't specific enough, the team doesn't have authority to fix it (in which case, escalate to management with data), or it's not actually as important as the team thinks it is.
2. The everything-is-fine retro
Cards are all positive: "Great teamwork!" "Sprint went well!" "No complaints!" The facilitator smiles and wraps up early.
Why it happens: The team doesn't feel safe being honest. This could be because a manager is present, because past critical feedback was met with defensiveness, or because the culture penalizes "negativity."
The fix: Anonymous mode for card writing is the fastest intervention. When names aren't attached to cards, people write what they actually think.
But anonymous mode is a bandaid. The real fix is how you respond to critical feedback. When someone writes "sprint planning is chaotic and we never have clear requirements," the response needs to be "thank you for raising this — let's dig into it" not "well, that's not really fair because..."
One defensive reaction to honest feedback can set psychological safety back by months. Respond to hard truths with curiosity, not justification.
3. The complaint session
The opposite problem: the retro devolves into 45 minutes of venting about everything that's wrong, with no forward movement. People leave feeling worse than when they arrived.
Why it happens: The team has legitimate frustrations, and the retro is the only outlet. But venting without action is emotionally draining, not cathartic.
The fix: Acknowledge feelings, then redirect to action. After grouping and discussing themes, move firmly into "what are we going to do about this?" Use voting to force prioritization — you can't fix everything, so pick the top 2-3 and commit to those.
Also: spend real time on what went well. If your retro is 90% problems and 10% wins, the ceremony becomes associated with negativity. Aim for at least 30% of the discussion on strengths to amplify.
4. The domination problem
Three people do 80% of the talking. Everyone else sits quietly, occasionally nodding. The retro represents 3 perspectives, not 10.
Why it happens: In any group conversation, some people are naturally more assertive. Without structural intervention, they fill the silence. The quiet people, who often have the most thoughtful observations, never find an opening.
The fix: Silent card writing is the single most effective structural intervention. When everyone writes independently for 7 minutes before any discussion, you get input from 100% of the team, not just the loudest 30%.
During discussion, actively manage airtime: "We've heard from Alex and Jordan. Sam, you worked on this feature — what was your experience?" And use the chat (in remote retros) as a parallel input channel for people who prefer typing to talking.
5. The retro that takes forever
Ninety-minute retros that meander through tangential discussions, explore every card in detail, and produce 12 action items that nobody will complete.
Why it happens: The facilitator doesn't timebox, discussions go on tangents, and there's a misconception that more time means more value.
The fix: Cut to 45 minutes. Set visible timers for each phase. Discuss only the top 3-5 voted items, not everything on the board. Create 2-3 action items, not 10.
This feels counterintuitive — won't you miss important things? Maybe. But a focused 45-minute retro that produces 2 completed action items is infinitely more valuable than a 90-minute retro that produces 10 abandoned ones. You can always address deferred items next sprint.
A self-diagnostic
Answer honestly:
- Do the same issues appear in 3+ consecutive retros? → Your action items aren't specific enough, or you're not following up
- Do fewer than half your action items get completed? → They're not in the sprint backlog, or they don't have clear owners
- Does the team write mostly positive cards? → Psychological safety is low; try anonymous mode
- Do the same 3 people dominate? → You need silent card writing and active airtime management
- Does the retro regularly exceed 60 minutes? → You need stricter timeboxing
- Has the team suggested reducing retro frequency? → The retros aren't producing visible value
If you answered yes to 3 or more, start with one change: review previous action items at the top of every retro. That single practice addresses at least half the problems above.
The 4-week fix
If your retros are broken, you can meaningfully improve them in four weeks:
Week 1: Review previous action items at the top of the retro. Limit new action items to 2. Add them to the sprint backlog immediately.
Week 2: Switch to silent card writing. Set a 7-minute timer. No talking during writing.
Week 3: Try a different template than your usual one. Ask the team to vote on the format.
Week 4: Start the retro by celebrating what improved from Week 1's action items. Ask: "Was this month's retros better? What should we keep?"
These aren't revolutionary changes. They're mechanical adjustments to how you run the meeting. But they compound.
The teams that have the best retrospectives aren't the ones with the best facilitators or the fanciest tools. They're the teams that close the loop. They identify a problem, commit to a specific fix, implement it, and review whether it worked. That's it. That's the whole secret.
Try NextRetro free — built-in anonymous mode, voting, and phase management to keep your retros focused on what matters.
Last Updated: February 2026
Reading Time: 8 minutes
