LEARN. PRACTICE. GROW.Separate the record from the story we tell
After a delayed close, someone concludes that RUN does not want to collaborate. The record contains two unanswered requests during one shift but does not explain people’s intentions. First write what was observed, including context and missing information. Then explore interpretations and consequences before choosing actions. The optional What, So What, Now What pattern, developed by Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless, helps separate these conversations. It is neither a Scrum rule nor a technique for proving blame. In this exercise, the result is a testable hypothesis and a question for the affected shift.
Make participation possible
In an international team, call attendance does not establish an ability to contribute. Three people may hear the discussion but be unable to use the board or follow a very fast exchange. Before deciding, provide an accessible channel, time to formulate ideas, and confirmation of understanding. Do not interpret tool-induced silence as agreement. A written summary may help if it allows corrections and does not turn the writer’s perspective into everyone’s position. Facilitation must preserve the conversation’s purpose and decision boundaries, including what an absent person will need to confirm.
Agree the kind of help
A colleague wants to think through approaching a conflict. Immediately responding with personal experience may provide advice when she asked for exploration. Confirm the intended outcome and adjust the intervention. Teaching may fit a missing understanding of accountability; mentoring may answer a request for experience; coaching may support developing personal options. These modes are not permanent labels attached to a person. Make a stance change explicit. Helpful support depends on the specific need and on preserving the colleague’s ability to decide within her responsibility rather than adopting the helper’s preference automatically.
Address error without losing quality
A Developer reveals that she skipped a check and shows its batch impact. Openness enables correction but does not mean the problem is resolved. Facilitate a conversation addressing the affected product, decision conditions, and recurrence prevention. Avoid turning the meeting into humiliation or an attempt to erase impact. Respect, responsibility, and quality can coexist. The team should leave with understood actions and sufficient information for people with authority over the incident. This fictional case does not replace internal incident-management procedures or imply that a retrospective owns every operational decision.
Distinguish closed action from observed improvement
Three actions are complete on the board. To learn, ask what changed in the problem, for which population, and over what period. If failures decreased while load also fell, the result does not isolate the practice’s effect. That does not make the observation useless; it makes limitations important. Record the hypothesis, expected outcome, unwanted effects, and next observation. A future comparison can retain more similar conditions or separate relevant groups. Do not promise causal proof unsupported by the data. The Scrum Master helps the team inspect experience and choose adaptations.
Practise an intervention and reduce dependency
In the guided exercise, one person presents the initial accusation, another facilitates, and a third observes how evidence and interpretation are separated. Exchange roles and compare the effects of different questions. The purpose is not to memorize a perfect phrase. It is to open investigation, preserve respect, and clarify the next step. Then transfer the practice to decisions the team already has authority to make. If the Scrum Master is absent, Developers need not freeze their plan until the return. Clear boundaries and later reflection help reduce dependency without abandoning support.
# Fictional discussion record, not an incident procedure
observation: two requests unanswered during one shift
hypothesis: routing omitted the on-duty operator
next_check: trace receipt and acknowledgement
review: compare outcomes without assuming intentRecord: two unanswered requests in one shift. Hypothesis: the channel does not reach the on-duty operator. Next step: confirm the path and test a bounded change.
Common pitfalls
Treating silence as agreement; attributing intent without evidence; advising before understanding the request; counting closed actions as benefit; making every decision depend on the Scrum Master.
Related topics: Facilitate participation and difficult decisions · Coaching, mentoring, teaching, and leadership · Organization, incentives, and systemic barriers
A useful intervention increases understanding and decision capability. Learning requires observing action effects as well as execution.
Reference: What, So What, Now What · PSM II; Scrum Guide November 2020; no public numbered exam revision