Re: PO at retro

Having lack of trust between the PO and the team is a serious
organizational dysfunction, that, in traditionally structured organizations
(i.e., non-Teal organizations), should be addressed by Higher Powers.
Mediation by a shared or mutually trusted manager, or maybe an
enterprise-level coach, could be called for.

Solving such problems from below, in a hierarchical organization, requires
extraordinary diplomatic skill usually beyond the capabilities of team
members. Not that it can't be done, but a great employee could sacrifice
their career if they don't have the wiles, power or credibility to
negotiate this dangerous jungle. Sometimes the product itself gets
sacrificed. Anyway, the outcome can be bad if the team just tries to solve
these problems on their own. Or they can go into avoidance behavior, making
self-organization decisions behind the PO's back in their protected
Retrospective ... which leads to this next dysfunction:

I've often argued it's unreasonable to omit the Product Owner from a
Retrospective, simply because Value is an essential metric, and without the
Product Owner any experiments or outcomes created by the team in a
retrospective are likely to perversely emphasize the other metrics, such as
code quality or team happiness, sacrificing the thing that ultimately pays
them and produces societal good: value.

No easy answers. My sympathies!

Dan R. Greening — http://dan.greening.org  http://linkedin.com/in/greening

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Silvana Wasitova [email protected]
[SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> [Attachment(s) <#m_-7523623376986444101_TopText> from Silvana Wasitova
> included below]
>
> Hi Jean,
>
> re. Scrum Guide: the term "Scrum Team" is inclusive of PO, so the Scrum
> Guide is quite explicit about this. In fact, some improvements may need to
> be owned & done by the PO, so best to have that conversation with the
> relevant persons, e.g. re-define DoD, or clarify acceptance criteria.
>
> Highly performant teams I worked with have a smooth and trusting
> relationship with the PO, and include the PO in the Retro. The only times
> I've seen PO be explicitly excluded is when the PO-Dev Team relationship is
> strained; even then the aim is to look for ways to improve their
> relationship over time, and be inclusive in the (near?) future.
>
> Silvana Wasitova
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "'Jean Richardson' [email protected] [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT]" <
> [email protected]>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 12:13 AM
> *Subject:* [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] PO at retro
>
>
> I’m having the “should the Product Owner be at the retrospective”
> conversation again.  While, years ago, the Product Owner was optional in
> this meeting, a fair amount of learning has happened since then and a range
> of resources has come out advocating that the PO be present—not optional.
> The current edition of the Scrum Guide doesn’t help much here by referring
> only to the “Scrum Team” in the section on the retro, but, then again,
> maybe that’s intentional, and the Ken and Jeff now believe, based on
> feedback and experiments, that the PO should be present at the retro as a
> matter of course.
>
> In a situation where the relationship is not good between the PO and the
> Development Team of the PO and the SM, I’m wondering about the quality of a
> retro where the PO is not optional, but a required attendee.  The guidance
> I typically give is that the purpose of the review is to inspect the
> increment and the purpose of the retro is for the team to inspect their
> work processes.  The most intimates changes are often within the team, and
> those conversations require privacy and confidentiality to those present
> unless those present determine otherwise.  Therefore, I still am reasoning
> that the PO is optional and included with the agreement of the Development
> Team.
>
> Thoughts?  References?
>
> --- Jean
>
>
> *[image: gate.site.jpg]*
>
> *Jean Richardson*
> Azure Gate Consulting
> *~ **Repatterning the Human Experience of Work*
>
> *AzureGate.net*
> (503) 788-8998
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>