Ask your team how to make this worse
A 30-minute workshop called TRIZ turns a comedy round into a confession booth — the most valuable half-hour you’ll spend this quarter.
Six people. One sticky.
A SWOT analysis at the top of a planning workshop. Strengths quadrant — a dozen sticky notes inside ten minutes. Opportunities, fine. Threats, fine. Weaknesses — one sticky.
The team has been together a year. Mixed group, some senior, some junior, some remote and some local. They’re smart — and obviously not weak in just one way. But one is all they were willing to write down, in front of each other, with their names attached. So the Weaknesses quadrant sat there, embarrassed and underfed, while the rest of the wall filled out around it.
Most retrospectives end this way. Most planning meetings, the same. The team knows. The team won’t say.
There’s a 30-minute exercise that breaks this open. It’s not subtle. It’s not high-tech. It’s a borrowed word from Soviet engineering, an inversion trick from a 19th-century mathematician. It takes a team from laughter to honesty to commitment in less time than your average standup. It’s called TRIZ — the Liberating Structures version, which I’ll come back to — and it’s the cheapest unlock I know for a team that won’t speak its own dysfunctions out loud.
Here’s how it works, why it works and how to run it next week.
If you’re new, welcome to Customer Obsessed Engineering! I publish about one article each week. Free subscribers can read about half of every article, plus all of my free articles.
Anytime you’d like to read more, you can upgrade to a paid subscription.
The wrong question
The silence in that Weaknesses quadrant is not random. It’s the predictable shape teams take when the question goes the wrong way.
“What are we doing wrong?” is one of the worst questions you can ask. It demands that someone you work with every day be the source of bad news, of blame — in a setting where their answer goes on the record. The forces working against honesty are stacked: the social cost of singling out a behavior, the political cost of singling out a person, the personal cost of being the one who said the thing nobody else was willing to say. So people hedge. They write harmless stickies. They give safe answers and stay quiet about the rest.
This isn’t about psychological safety being too low, exactly. It’s about requiring more safety than most teams I’ve known. An unusually safe team — the rare ones — can handle the direct question. Most teams can’t, even good ones. The Goldilocks zone for direct critique is narrow, and most teams sit just below it.
The wrinkle: the same team, asked the question a different way, will answer it. Same people, same room, same dysfunctions. The information is there. The mechanism for getting it out is what’s broken.
That’s the gap TRIZ fills.
Inversion
The 19th-century Prussian mathematician Carl Jacobi had a habit, when stuck on a problem, of saying man muss immer umkehren — “one must always invert.” If you can’t see how to make a thing succeed, see if you can describe how to make it fail. Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett’s late partner, popularized the move a century and a half later: “Invert, always invert,” he’d repeat, crediting Jacobi each time.1
Inversion is a cognitive shortcut. The forward question — “how do we make this succeed?” — runs into the usual social and intellectual walls. People hedge. People defer to whoever spoke first. People say what they think they’re supposed to say. The inverse question — “how do we guarantee it fails?” — jumps every one of those walls, because there’s no commitment. They’re describing a failure. They can be specific, vivid and sometimes uncomfortably accurate, and the room laughs instead of getting defensive.
Once the failure is on the wall, naming the parts of it that already exist is a much smaller step. You’re not confessing. You’re confirming.
That’s the whole engine of TRIZ.
Why it works on teams that won’t speak up
If you’ve never run TRIZ you’re probably thinking, “why does this work at all?” Why does asking a team to describe failure produce honesty when asking them to describe weakness doesn’t? It’s the same people in the same room talking about the same problem.
Here’s four reasons I keep coming back to. They aren’t independent — pull on one and the others move — and there are probably more I haven’t named. Their common thread: all four lower the cost of saying the thing.
Hypotheticals are cheap. Saying, “we could skip estimation entirely” carries no social cost. Nobody is suggesting it. Saying, “we do skip estimation” costs you — especially if the person who set up the no-estimation pattern is in the room. TRIZ collects the cheap version first. It builds a list of behaviors the team is willing to discuss because the team isn’t yet committing to whether they’re real.
Confirmation is easier than confession. By the time Movement 2 starts, the behavior is already on the wall. The team isn’t introducing a new criticism — that’s the hardest move. It’s confirming an existing one — that’s a much smaller move. “Ah, yea, we do that,” is far easier to say than, “we have a problem with X.” The board already said it. The team is just agreeing.
Laughter changes the room. Ten minutes of laughing at exaggerated worst-case behaviors changes the social register. The same conversation about the same behaviors, started cold, would feel like an accusation round. Started after the comedy, it feels like camaraderie. Defensiveness drops. People interrupt themselves. The room is in a different mode.
The quiet people speak. This is the move I see most reliably. In nearly every TRIZ I’ve facilitated, the first person to circle a behavior in Movement 2 — the first to commit to, “yea, that one” — has been the person who hadn’t said much yet. The senior engineer who watches more than she talks. The new hire who’d been listening for three months. They’d seen the dysfunction the whole time. They didn’t have a frame to say it. TRIZ gave them one.
You can put psychological safety theory on this if you want. You can talk about face-saving, about politeness norms, about the asymmetry between criticism and praise. All of it holds. But the practical version is simpler: it’s a lot easier to say things about hypotheticals than about reality, and TRIZ exploits that gap to get a team to say what it already knows.
That’s why a 30-minute exercise can do work that an hours-long retro can’t.
This newsletter grows by word of mouth… I’d really, truly appreciate it if you could refer a friend. Your referrals make it worthwhile.
The three movements
The exercise has three movements. Together, they take 30 minutes if you keep the timing tight; you can stretch to 45 on a hard problem or compress to 20 with a small confident team. Each movement has a single question, and each question is doing different psychological work.
Movement 1: the worst-possible-outcome brainstorm (10 minutes). Frame the outcome the team cares about — high-functioning sprint planning, a retrospective that actually changes things, a release process you’d be willing to demo. Then ask the inverted question: what could we do to guarantee the worst possible version of this? Wild, exaggerated, funny answers welcome. Suppress nothing. Two minutes of silent sticky-writing first, in 1-2-4-All style, then a round-robin share.
The laughter is the point. A team that’s laughing at “we could just cancel the retro and send an email instead” is a team becoming willing to say real things. Don’t rush this part — the comedy is what unlocks the next movement.
