5 exercises on retro language — praising wins, raising improvements diplomatically, disagreeing politely and agreeing action items.
Key patterns
One thing that went really well… — open a positive.
One thing we could improve… — raise an issue without blame.
I see where you’re coming from, but… — disagree diplomatically.
Let’s make that an action item — owner + step + follow-up.
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
In the “what went well” round, you want to praise the team’s fast incident response. Which is the MOST natural phrasing?
“What went well” entries should be specific and genuinely positive.
One thing that went really well… — the standard opener for this round.
Name the concrete win (caught the outage within minutes) so it can be repeated.
Nice work, everyone — shares credit.
Why the others fail: “did okay I guess” is lukewarm and undermines the praise; “that’s all” is flat; “we did not fail” frames a positive as merely avoiding failure. Related openers: something I appreciated this sprint…, a real highlight was…, I want to call out….
2 / 5
You want to raise a problem — deploys were painful — without blaming anyone. Which is the MOST natural, diplomatic phrasing?
Frame improvements around the process, not people.
One thing we could improve is… — the diplomatic opener for this round.
releases took a lot of manual steps — describes the issue factually.
we’d save time by automating them — offers a constructive direction.
Why the others fail: “Whoever set up the deploys” and “someone needs to own that” point fingers, which kills psychological safety; “Deploys bad. Fix deploys.” is blunt and offers no insight. Retros work best with we language and a suggested next step. Related: it might help if we…, I’d love to see us….
3 / 5
A teammate suggests something you disagree with in the retro. Which response disagrees MOST diplomatically?
Acknowledge first, then voice the concern, then offer an alternative.
I see where you’re coming from — validates their view before disagreeing.
I’m worried that… — frames disagreement as a concern, not a verdict.
could we try… first? — proposes a path forward.
Why the others fail: “That’s wrong” and “No.” shut the conversation down; “You always…” is a personal attack. Diplomatic disagreement keeps the discussion open. Related: that’s a fair point, though…, I’m not sure that’d work for us because…, what if we…?
4 / 5
The retro is ending and you want to turn a discussion into a concrete action item. Which is the MOST natural phrasing?
Action items need an owner, a concrete step, and a follow-up.
Let’s make that an action item — explicitly converts talk into a commitment.
I’ll set up a ticket — names the owner (you) and the action.
we’ll review progress at next retro — builds in accountability.
Does that work? — confirms agreement.
Why the others fail: “Someone should maybe… at some point” has no owner and no deadline, so nothing happens; “anyway moving on” drops the issue; “fix everything… forever” is unrealistic. A good action item is specific, owned, and time-bound.
5 / 5
You want to give a teammate positive feedback during the retro. Which is the MOST natural, specific way to do it?
Specific feedback lands far better than generic praise.
Shout-out to Maria — a friendly way to recognise someone publicly.
Name the specific behaviour (paired with the new joiner) and its impact (helped them ramp up).
ramp up = get up to speed on a new project/team.
Why the others fail: “good job, you’re great” is vague — Maria doesn’t know what to repeat; “did some things that were fine” is faint praise; “no one else matters” diminishes the rest of the team. The pattern behaviour + impact is the core of good feedback.