Top 8 Red Flags in Agile Retrospectives
Written by: Yamila Solari
In Scrum, the Retrospective is a vital ceremony—a moment for the team to reflect on what went well during the sprint and what could be improved. It typically happens at the end of each sprint, just before the next one begins, giving everyone a chance to apply lessons learned from day one. It’s how we close the learning loop.
Just holding a Retrospective is already a step in the right direction—it encourages a growth mindset and signals that continuous improvement matters. But it’s not uncommon to see a team skip one… then decide to do them every few sprints… and eventually stop doing them altogether. That’s a red flag.
If your team is deprioritizing Retrospectives, it’s worth asking: why? Time constraints are often the default excuse. But if Retros are consistently the first thing cut, chances are they’re not delivering value. And that’s something worth digging into.
In my experience, even high-performing teams benefit from a well-run Retrospective. There’s plenty of advice out there on how to run one effectively. But in this article, I want to focus on something that often gets overlooked—the warning signs that a Retrospective isn’t doing its job. Below, you’ll find the red flags I see most often—the ones that quietly stall improvement and chip away at team performance over time.
8 Common Red Flags in Agile Retrospectives
1. No Action Items Come Out of the Session
If your team reflects but doesn’t leave with clear, time-bound, measurable action items—each with an owner—then you’re just talking in circles. Reflection without follow-through is one of the most common ways Retros lose value.
2. Not Enough Questions Are Being Asked
Curiosity fuels growth. If no one’s asking questions—Why did that happen? What else could we try?—you might be dealing with low engagement, surface-level conversations, or even fear of speaking up.
3. There’s No Follow-Up on Previous Action Items
Improvement only happens when we follow through. Starting each Retro with a check-in on the last action items keeps accountability alive and helps the team see real progress over time.
4. Team Members Avoid Talking About Questionable Behaviors
Healthy teams need to feel safe calling out what isn’t working—including behaviors or attitudes that quietly go against the team’s values. Silence here builds resentment, not trust.
5. The Same People Stay Quiet Every Time
Everyone brings value, and every voice matters. If the same folks are always quiet, even with techniques like sticky notes or anonymous voting, it might be time to rethink your facilitation approach.
6. The Team Spends Time on Issues Outside Their Control
Time is a limited resource. While it’s okay to acknowledge blockers outside the team, energy should be focused on things the team can influence and improve directly.
7. The Conversation Drifts into Product Strategy or Architecture
Retrospectives are about how the team works together—not what to build or how to architect it. These important conversations need their own time and space to be effective.
8. The Team Leader Holds Back Too Much
Some leaders avoid speaking up in Retrospectives to prevent dominating the discussion. But done with care, their experience and context can be invaluable—as long as it’s shared as input, not instruction.
Table: Red Flags → Symptoms → Risk → Next-Sprint Fix
Red Flag |
Typical Symptom |
Risk to Delivery |
Next-Sprint Fix (Owner · Measure) |
|---|---|---|---|
| No action items | Retro ends with discussion only | Issues resurface; morale dips | Facilitator enforces 1–3 SMART actions; publish in Confluence · % of actions completed by next Retro |
| Few/no questions | Silence; superficial comments | Low engagement; blind spots | Scrum Master uses “5 Whys” + round-robin prompts · # of unique voices contributing |
| No follow-up | Past actions never reviewed | Accountability erodes | PO + SM start Retro with action check-in · Completion rate & cycle time |
| Behavior topics avoided | “We’ll skip that…” | Unspoken tension, churn | Team uses “facts–impact–request” format · # of behavior items surfaced |
| Same people stay quiet | 2–3 voices dominate | Missed signals, bias | Facilitator applies silent-write → dot-vote → speak · Participation ratio |
| Focus on externals | Time spent on “can’t control” | Helplessness, drift | Team splits board: “Control / Influence / Observe” · % of actions in Control/Influence |
| Strategy/architecture hijacks | Debates derail Retro | Process issues persist | PO captures parking lot; schedules follow-ups · # of off-topic items redirected |
| Leader holds back too much | Lack of context, stuck | Decisions lag | Team Lead shares context as input (not mandate) · Decision latency between sprints |
Questions to Reignite Your Agile Retrospectives
If any of the red flags above hit close to home, consider asking your team:
- Are we noticing the same patterns?
- What’s really going on here?
- What would we gain if we changed this?
- What can we commit to as a team?
- What should our next Retro look like?
These questions can spark meaningful dialogue—and help you co-create a format that actually serves your team.
Conclusion: What Experience Has Taught Me
After years of working with Agile teams, one thing’s clear—Retrospectives are often the first thing to go when the pressure is on. And yet, they’re one of the most powerful tools we have to ease that pressure. They create space for reflection, clarity, and change. But they only work if we’re honest with ourselves about what’s not working.
If you’ve seen these red flags before, you’re not alone. They show up even in mature teams. What matters is what you do next.
Retrospectives don’t need to be perfect. They just need to be real. Consistent. Intentional. A little more effort here can make a big difference—not just in how your team works, but in how your people feel.
FAQs About Agile Retrospectives
-
Typically 60–90 minutes. Keep discussion focused on outcomes and ensure 1–3 concrete, owned action items.
-
Rotate formats (Start/Stop/Continue, 4Ls, Sailboat), vary facilitation, and always begin by reviewing last sprint’s actions.
-
Start with silent writing and anonymous voting, use neutral prompts, and explicitly separate people from process. Celebrate candor.
-
Leaders should contribute context as input, not instruction. Facilitate space for all voices, then help turn insights into owned actions.
-
One to three, maximum. Assign an owner and a measurable outcome for each; review at the start of the next Retro.
