Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

17716Re: ongoing peer feedback

Expand Messages
  • entretriens
    Dec 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Anonymous feedbacks are sometimes effective in that they sometimes get
      the teammembers to speak. But not always.

      What are the size of your teams?
      Who's being rated? Their role? Their status?
      What's the potential backlash for speaking openly?
      What's your team like? Are the feedbacks objective?

      Anonymous is well intentioned, but sometimes it's too easy to figure
      out who rated what on who, in which case it's not very anonymous.
      Moreover, it can potentially worsen morale if the rated think he is
      doing fine and then is slapped with low ratings from his peers.

      If there are barriers to feedback exchange amongst teammembers, then
      it might be worth taking a step back and focusing on bettering the
      relationships within the team. I don't refer to eventful morale
      boosters as the good feelings soon fade after the moments are gone,
      but measures that might improve the day-to-day interactions amongst
      teammembers. If people can't honestly talk to each other, then it's a
      sign of weakness on another level.

      If the relationships are strong within the group then formal feedback
      tends to work better regardless of what tool you use. Moreover, it's
      also important for feedback occur less formally in small conversations
      throughout the iterations in which case you can potentially fix and
      avoid some problems -- the PM/scrummaster should foster this behavior.

      For formal evaluations, I think a conversational element is important,
      but I for one am not against a numbered rating system: I think it's
      useful particulary for matrixed enviroments.

      Thank you Dr. Sutherland for your template, I give it a whirl in my
      upcoming releases.



      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Esther Derby" <derby@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi, Christophe -
      >
      >
      >
      > You wrote: "To break the mental barrier to providing feedback about
      people,
      > a suggested idea was to run anonymous quick peer reviews at the end
      of each
      > iteration (maybe with a 1 to 5 score), and provide everyone on the
      team with
      > their personal average peer score and the total team average, so
      they can be
      > made aware of the other teams member feeling about them while comparing
      > themselves to the rest of the team (without not knowing anything
      else about
      > anyone in particular). The assumption being that someone getting bad
      reviews
      > over and over by his team will do something about it, or at least not be
      > surprised when the team decides to reject him/her."
      >
      >
      >
      > People need to feel safe in order to bring up tough issues. So part
      of the
      > work in retrospectives is to help people agree on ground rules that will
      > help them be able to do that.
      >
      >
      >
      > Anonymous ratings won't help people feel safe. If someone receives
      a low
      > rating, he's likely to feel *less* trusting. Further, people don't
      know how
      > to change based on a number. They need clear descriptive information
      about
      > behavior/results and impacts.
      >
      >
      >
      > So rather than try an anonymous review system, I'd try to find out why
      > people don't feel safe and try to increase the level of safety. And I'd
      > train the team on how to give peer-to-peer feedback congruently.
      >
      >
      >
      > If you'd like to learn more about peer-to-peer feedback, I'll point
      you to
      > some articles.
      >
      >
      >
      > ED
      >
      >
      >
      > Esther Derby
      > Esther Derby Associates, Inc.
      > 612-724-8114 www.estherderby.com
      >
      > Now available: Agile Retrospectives: Making Good Teams Great, by Esther
      > Derby and Diana Larsen (Pragmatic Bookshelf, 2006)
      >
      > Secrets of Agile Teamwork PUBLIC workshop December 5-7. Email me for
      more
      > information.
      >
      > _____
      >
      > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Christophe
      Louvion
      > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:05 PM
      > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] ongoing peer feedback
      >
      >
      >
      > Trending committed story points vs. done at the end of each
      iteration is a
      > great feedback to the whole (taking too much on, getting stuff actually
      > "done" etc).
      >
      > We also have the retrospective: sharing the good, bad and ugly helps the
      > team be aware as a group of their current issues. You can only fix
      problems
      > you know about.
      >
      > Really well jelled teams will tackle any issues, including individual
      > issues. Nobody runs without making mistakes.
      >
      > But sometimes, team members are not providing much feedback to each
      other
      > (new to agile, cultural thing etc).
      >
      > One of my team is of the latter type. They will only discuss simple
      issues
      > and table some hard discussions involving resurrent troublemakers --
      > chickens do not participate to retros.
      >
      > To break the mental barrier to providing feedback about people, a
      suggested
      > idea was to run anonymous quick peer reviews at the end of each
      iteration
      > (maybe with a 1 to 5 score), and provide everyone on the team with their
      > personal average peer score and the total team average, so they can
      be made
      > aware of the other teams member feeling about them while comparing
      > themselves to the rest of the team (without not knowing anything
      else about
      > anyone in particular). The assumption being that someone getting bad
      reviews
      > over and over by his team will do something about it, or at least not be
      > surprised when the team decides to reject him/her.
      >
      > Has anyone done something like this? How did it go?
      >
      > Any alternatives for helping team members speak their mind during
      retros?
      >
      >
      >
      > Thank you
      >
      >
      >
      > C
      >
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic