Team Retrospective Questions Template: Better Lessons After Projects and Sprints

Structured team retrospectives turn gut feelings into concrete improvements. This template gives you ready-to-use team retrospective questions you can send as a short survey before a Retrospektive or Rückblick. You get clear scores, psychological-safety focused prompts, and pre-defined actions instead of endless discussions about “what went wrong”.

You can combine this survey with existing performance or engagement processes, for example with a modern performance management framework or regular 1:1s.

Survey questions for team retrospectives

Use these statements with a 1–5 scale from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (5). Send the survey 1–3 days before your Retro so people can reflect calmly.

2.1 Closed questions (Likert scale)

Q1 – I understood the goals of this sprint/project from the start.
Q2 – Success criteria (how we measure “done” or “good”) were clear to me.
Q3 – Our actual outcomes matched the goals we set.
Q4 – We discussed scope or priority changes early enough.
Q5 – Collaboration within our core team worked smoothly.
Q6 – Collaboration with other teams or locations worked smoothly.
Q7 – Our meetings were focused and helped us move work forward.
Q8 – Handovers (between roles, teams, shifts) were clear and reliable.
Q9 – Our processes (e.g. Scrum, Kanban, stage-gates) supported fast progress.
Q10 – Our tools (e.g. Jira, Miro, CRM) fit the work we had to do.
Q11 – We documented key decisions in a way everyone can find later.
Q12 – Blockers and risks were identified and addressed quickly.
Q13 – The workload during this sprint/project was sustainable for me.
Q14 – I could take breaks and time off without guilt.
Q15 – Stress levels in the team felt manageable.
Q16 – When things got tough, we adjusted scope or priorities instead of just working longer.
Q17 – We experimented with new ideas, methods or tools in this period.
Q18 – We reflected on what we learned and captured key insights.
Q19 – We turned at least one learning into a concrete change.
Q20 – I feel my skills grew through this sprint/project.
Q21 – We understood what our stakeholders/customers really needed.
Q22 – We collected feedback from stakeholders or customers during the work, not only at the end.
Q23 – Stakeholders/customers were satisfied with the results overall.
Q24 – Surprises from stakeholders/customers were rare and manageable.
Q25 – I feel safe to speak up about problems or mistakes in this team.
Q26 – When something goes wrong, we focus on learning, not blame.
Q27 – Different opinions and conflicts are discussed respectfully.
Q28 – Appreciation for good work is expressed openly in this team.

2.2 Overall rating question (0–10 scale)

Q29 – How likely are you to recommend this team as a great team to work with to a colleague? (0 = Not at all, 10 = Extremely likely)

2.3 Open-ended questions

O1 – What is one thing we should start doing in the next sprint/project?
O2 – What is one thing we should stop doing because it slows us down or harms wellbeing?
O3 – What is one thing we should continue because it works well for us?
O4 – Describe a moment in this period when you felt high psychologische Sicherheit. What made it possible?

Decision & action table

Questions / Area	Trigger threshold	Recommended action	Owner	Deadline
Q1–Q4 – Goals & outcomes	Average score <3.5	Run a 30‑minute session to clarify goals, success criteria and “definition of done”.	Product Owner / Project Lead	Within 7 days after Retro
Q5–Q8 – Collaboration & communication	Any item <3.0	Map typical handovers, remove 1 meeting, and define 2 communication rules with team.	Scrum Master / Team Lead	Within 14 days
Q9–Q12 – Processes & tools	Average score <3.5 or ≥1 “Strongly disagree”	Identify top 2 process pain points; design and test 1 small experiment next sprint.	Team, facilitated by Agile Coach	Experiment agreed in next planning
Q13–Q16 – Workload & wellbeing	Average score <3.0 or Q13/Q15 <3.0	Adjust scope, WIP limits or on‑call schedules; document agreed boundaries for working hours.	People Lead + Team Lead	Scope change decided within 7 days
Q17–Q20 – Learning & experiments	Average score <3.5	Plan 1–3 explicit experiments with success metrics and owners for next cycle.	Team, supported by Agile Coach	Before next sprint/project start
Q21–Q24 – Stakeholders & customers	Average score <3.5 or stakeholder satisfaction <70%	Schedule feedback talks with key stakeholders; co-create clearer expectations and check-ins.	Product Owner / Project Lead	First talks within 10 days
Q25–Q28 – Team culture & psychological safety	Any item <3.5 or >20% “Disagree/Strongly disagree”	Run a dedicated psychological safety Retro; agree on 2–3 behavioural norms and experiments.	Team Lead + HR / Agile Coach	Dedicated session within 14 days
Q29 – Recommend this team (0–10)	Score <7.0 or >25% scores ≤6	Do a deep-dive Retro using this template; feed key themes into team development plans.	Area Lead + HR	Action plan within 30 days

Key takeaways

Use pre-Retro surveys to focus conversations on facts, not anecdotes.
Link each score range to a clear action, owner, and deadline.
Protect psychologische Sicherheit by separating learning from blame.
Turn insights into 2–5 small, testable experiments per cycle.
Review themes quarterly to inform performance and talent decisions.

Definition & scope

This Retrospektive survey measures how well your team works together across goals, processes, collaboration, workload, learning, stakeholder alignment and psychological safety. It is designed for cross-functional teams after sprints, projects or quarters. Results support decisions about team experiments, coaching, process changes and, combined with a broader engagement and retention strategy, longer-term culture and performance improvements.

Themed team retrospective questions for live workshops

Besides the survey, you often need live team retrospective questions for sticky notes, Miro boards or breakout discussions. Below you’ll find question blocks per theme with open prompts, quick rating scales (0–10) and fast votes (dot‑voting, traffic‑light). Pick 1–2 prompts per theme depending on your timebox.

Goals & outcomes

On a scale from 0–10, how clear were our goals this period?
What outcome are you proudest of, and why?
Where did we deliver output, but not real impact?
Which goal felt unrealistic in hindsight?
Traffic-light: Green = clear and realistic; Yellow = unclear; Red = unrealistic.
Dot-vote: Which goal should we refine or drop next period?

Collaboration & communication

When did collaboration feel “in flow”? What made it work?
Where did handovers or communication break down?
Rate our cross-team collaboration from 0–10; what would move it +2 points?
Mad/Sad/Glad: Share one moment for each around collaboration.
Dot-vote on the most painful collaboration friction to address next.

Processes & tools

Which process step helped us most, and which slowed us down?
On a 0–10 scale, how fit-for-purpose are our current tools?
If we had to remove one meeting, which one and why?
4Ls (Liked, Learned, Lacked, Longed for) focusing on processes and tools.
Traffic-light our main tools: Green = keep, Yellow = tweak, Red = replace.

Workload & wellbeing

On a scale from 0–10, how sustainable was our pace?
When did stress become too high? What were the signals?
What trade-offs did we accept that you wouldn’t repeat?
Dot-vote: Top 2 changes that would most improve wellbeing next sprint.
Start/Stop/Continue specifically about workload habits.

Learning & experiments

What did we try for the first time, and what did we learn?
On a 0–10 scale, how well did we turn learnings into changes?
Which experiment should we keep, tweak or drop?
4Ls focusing only on learning: what did we Learn and where did we Lack knowledge?
Dot-vote on 1–3 experiments to run in the next period.

Stakeholders & customers

Where were stakeholders surprised by our results or timelines?
Rate stakeholder alignment from 0–10; what would move it +2?
What feedback from customers or other teams surprised you most?
Traffic-light: Green = great stakeholder collaboration; Yellow = mixed; Red = painful.
Start/Stop/Continue specifically for stakeholder communication habits.

Team culture & psychological safety

When did you feel safe to speak up, and when not?
Rate our psychological safety from 0–10; what would lift it by 1 point?
Mad/Sad/Glad focusing on how we handle mistakes and conflict.
What behaviours make this team feel inclusive? Which ones hurt that feeling?
Dot-vote on 1–2 cultural behaviours we commit to strengthen next.

Classic retrospective formats and example prompts

Start/Stop/Continue: “What should we start, stop, continue to improve delivery and wellbeing?”
Mad/Sad/Glad: “What made you mad/sad/glad during this sprint or quarter?”
4Ls: “What did we Like, Learn, Lack, and Long for?”
Sailboat: “What are our winds (helps), anchors (blocks), rocks (risks) and island (goal)?”

Retrospective agendas and formats

Use these blueprints to plan your Retro timeboxes. They combine the survey, live team retrospective questions and concrete follow-ups. Adapt timings to team size and remote/hybrid setup.

60‑minute sprint Retrospektive (single team)

0–5 min – Scrum Master shares survey highlights (top 3 highs/lows).
5–20 min – Silent writing: Start/Stop/Continue on process and collaboration.
20–40 min – Group similar topics; dot-vote; discuss top 2–3 themes.
40–55 min – Define 2–3 experiments (owner, success metric, timeframe).
55–60 min – Close with appreciation round; confirm next check-in.

90‑minute project Lessons Learned (cross-functional)

0–10 min – Project Lead presents survey patterns, timeline and outcomes.
10–30 min – 4Ls exercise in mixed groups (Liked, Learned, Lacked, Longed for).
30–60 min – Breakouts per theme (Goals, Processes, Stakeholders) to propose improvements.
60–80 min – Shareback; consolidate 3–5 cross-team actions with owners.
80–90 min – Decide where to document learnings and how to track follow-up.

90‑minute quarterly team health Retro

0–15 min – Compare this survey with previous quarters; note trends.
15–35 min – Deep dive into Workload & Wellbeing and Psychological Safety scores.
35–65 min – Sailboat exercise for the next quarter’s “island” and key risks.
65–85 min – Prioritise 3 health-focused experiments (e.g. meeting hygiene, on-call, feedback).
85–90 min – Decide check-in cadence and how to sync with 1:1s or team OKRs.

120‑minute cross-team Retrospektive (several teams)

0–15 min – Facilitator shares aggregated survey results across teams.
15–40 min – Mixed-group Mad/Sad/Glad about collaboration between teams.
40–75 min – Breakouts by theme (e.g. Tooling, Stakeholders, Dependencies) with clear problem statements.
75–105 min – Plenary: share solutions; dot-vote top 5 org-level improvements.
105–120 min – Assign owners (often Area Leads or HR) and target dates for each top item.

Scoring & thresholds

For the survey, use a 1–5 Likert scale and treat 0–10 ratings separately. As a rule of thumb: average <3.0 is critical, 3.0–3.9 needs improvement, ≥4.0 is strong. For 0–10, scores <7 signal risk. Convert scores into actions, not labels, and keep people out of blame mode.

Scrum Master or Team Lead calculates theme averages within 24 h after survey closes.
HR or Agile Coach defines company-wide default thresholds (e.g. workload critical <3.0).
Team discusses only the 2–3 lowest themes in the Retro, not every question individually.
Where scores are <3.0, facilitator ensures follow-up experiments are logged with owners.
Quarterly, HR reviews patterns across teams and links them with skill development initiatives.

Follow-up & responsibilities

Retros only work if someone owns the follow-up. Define clear responsibilities before you run the first survey. Keep responsibilities simple: team-level experiments, area-level escalations, HR-level patterns and support.

Team Lead or Scrum Master documents Retro decisions and experiments within 24 h.
Each experiment has a named owner from the team and a review date (≤30 days).
HR/People team reviews open actions monthly and supports blockers (training, coaching).
Area Lead escalates structural issues (e.g. staffing, tooling budget) within 14 days.
If you use a tool like Sprad Growth, configure automatic reminders for action items and owners.

Fairness & bias checks

Survey-based Retrospektiven can hide unequal experiences. Look at results by role, location, tenure or remote vs. office if sample sizes allow anonymity. Goal: spot patterns, not individuals. Keep Betriebsrat and Datenschutz in mind when slicing data.

HR analyses scores by relevant groups only where ≥5 responses to protect anonymity.
If one location reports much lower psychological safety, Area Lead and HR run a local Retro.
If new joiners score goals clarity much lower, update onboarding and expectations materials.
HR checks wording of team retrospective questions annually for bias or unclear phrasing.
Betriebsrat is consulted on data usage, retention and aggregation rules before rollout.

Examples / use cases

Example 1 – Low psychological safety. A product team scores Q25–Q28 at 2.8 on average. Comments mention harsh reactions in stand-ups. The Team Lead and Agile Coach run a dedicated psychological safety Retro, agree new meeting norms and rotate facilitation. Two sprints later, the score rises to 3.7 and more people speak up early about risks.

Example 2 – Sustainable pace. An operations team delivers strong outcomes, but Q13–Q16 are <3.0. In the Retro they map all current work, introduce WIP limits and block Friday afternoons for deep work. Within 6 weeks sick days drop, and throughput stays stable.

Example 3 – Cross-team dependencies. Several teams report weak scores on Q6 and Q8. A cross-functional Retrospektive leads to shared rules for handovers and a weekly “dependency sync”. After two months, rework rate drops and stakeholder satisfaction improves.

HR captures these stories in a simple playbook linked to your talent development strategy.
People Leads reference Retro learnings in 1:1s and performance reviews for context, not ratings.
Area Leads invite teams with strong scores to share their practices with others.
Agile Coaches run quarterly meta-Retros on how Retros themselves work.

Implementation & updates

Start small: pilot this survey with 1–3 teams for 2–3 cycles, then refine questions and thresholds. Align with Betriebsrat and Datenschutz early, especially if you store open comments or combine this with other employee surveys. A talent platform such as Sprad Growth can automate sends, reminders and follow-up tasks.

HR and 2–3 Team Leads select a pilot group and define goals for the first three Retrospektiven.
Data Protection Officer verifies survey setup, storage and retention rules before launch.
Managers get a 60‑minute training on facilitation, psychologische Sicherheit and bias.
After 3 cycles, HR and pilots review items, thresholds and agendas and update the template.
Track metrics: response rate (aim ≥80%), average scores per theme, number of experiments, completion rate of actions, changes over 2–3 quarters.

Conclusion

Structured team retrospective questions shift your Retrospektive from opinion battles to evidence-based learning. You detect problems earlier, talk more calmly about tough topics, and focus your limited time on the themes that move delivery, wellbeing and stakeholder trust. Psychological safety stays central because the survey lifts issues without putting individuals on the spot.

Use this template to run a small pilot, not a big-bang rollout. Pick one team, set up the survey in your preferred tool, agree on thresholds and owners, and run three cycles. Then adapt the questions and agendas to your context and connect key themes with your broader performance, feedback and engagement processes.

With that loop in place, each sprint, project or quarter becomes a chance to test 2–3 concrete improvements, learn fast and build a healthier, more effective team culture over time.

FAQ

How often should we run this Retrospektive survey?

For Scrum teams, run it before every sprint Retro or at least every second sprint. For project teams, use it at key milestones and at project end. For stable teams with quarterly health Retros, once per quarter works well. The key is consistency: same questions over time so you can see trends, not just one-off spikes.

How do we handle very low scores or harsh comments?

First, thank people for their honesty. Then separate two tracks: immediate care (e.g. workload crisis, conflict) and structural change (processes, staffing). In the Retro, focus on themes, not single comments, and agree 1–3 actions you can start within 7–14 days. If psychological safety looks severely low, consider a dedicated session or external facilitator.

How do we ensure psychological safety with a survey like this?

Keep responses anonymous for teams large enough (usually ≥5 people) and communicate clearly how data will be used and who sees what. According to research summarised by Amy Edmondson at Harvard Business School, learning-focused framing and non-blaming responses are key. In practice: no calling out individuals, no using Retro data for performance ratings, and visible follow-up on agreed actions.

Can we link this Retrospektive survey with other HR surveys?

Yes, and you should. Many companies combine team retros with engagement or pulse surveys to see patterns between team habits and retention. Just avoid survey overload: short, focused instruments work best. Coordinate topics and timing with HR so results can also inform your performance management cycles or 360° feedback without duplicating questions.

How do we keep Retros fresh and avoid “same old discussion” fatigue?

Rotate formats (Start/Stop/Continue, Mad/Sad/Glad, 4Ls, Sailboat) while keeping the core survey stable. Change which theme you deep-dive each time based on scores. Involve team members in facilitating parts of the Retro. Every few months, review the question set with the team and remove items that no longer add value, then add 1–2 new prompts that reflect current challenges.

Jürgen Ulbrich

CEO & Co-Founder of Sprad

Jürgen Ulbrich has more than a decade of experience in developing and leading high-performing teams and companies. As an expert in employee referral programs as well as feedback and performance processes, Jürgen has helped over 100 organizations optimize their talent acquisition and development strategies.