SSM Supporting Team Events Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✓

  Use a structured activity like silent brainstorming or a round-robin to give everyone a turn to contribute without interruption.

  Why this is correct

  Structured activities such as silent brainstorming or round-robin ensure that every team member has an opportunity to contribute, reducing the pressure on quieter members and preventing dominant voices from taking over. These techniques are especially effective when a team is hesitant or new to retrospectives. They promote balanced participation and help surface diverse perspectives, which is essential for identifying meaningful improvements and building a safe, inclusive environment.

• ✗

  Read the team the SAFe principle of 'Assume variability; preserve options' and explain why they should not be hesitant.

  Why it's wrong here

  Lecturing the team about a SAFe principle does not create psychological safety or encourage participation; it may come across as patronizing and increase hesitation. The team's quietness is likely due to interpersonal dynamics, not a lack of knowledge about SAFe principles. The Scrum Master should use facilitation techniques that actively involve team members, not deliver a lecture. Understanding principles is valuable, but it does not replace the need for a safe, engaging environment.

• ✗

  Ask the Product Owner to lead the retrospective and provide feedback on each team member's performance.

  Why it's wrong here

  Having the Product Owner lead the retrospective and evaluate individuals shifts the event from team self-inspection to performance review, which destroys psychological safety. Retrospectives are for the team to inspect its own processes and create improvements; external evaluation discourages honesty. The Scrum Master should facilitate the event, not delegate it to someone who may be perceived as an authority figure. This action would likely increase silence and defensiveness.

• ✗

  Set a rule that each team member must identify at least one failing of a colleague to ensure accountability.

  Why it's wrong here

  Requiring team members to blame colleagues for failures creates a culture of fear and defensiveness, directly undermining psychological safety. Retrospectives should focus on systemic issues and collective improvement, not individual blame. This rule would likely silence the team further and damage trust. The Scrum Master should promote a blame-free environment where people can speak honestly about process problems, not force negative personal feedback.

• ✓

  Share a personal example of a mistake you made and what you learned to model vulnerability and openness.

  Why this is correct

  Modeling vulnerability by sharing a personal mistake demonstrates that it is safe to admit errors, which helps break the ice and encourages others to speak openly. This technique builds psychological safety, a prerequisite for honest retrospective discussion. It also positions the Scrum Master as a facilitator who participates in the spirit of improvement, not as an evaluator. This action directly addresses the team's hesitation and sets a constructive tone for the event.