Openess vs Psychological Safety

To encourage openness during a retrospective, the so-called “Las Vegas principle” is often applied. This means promising that statements made during the retrospective will not be shared outside the group. However, this can be problematic if the improvements require the cooperation of managers or other teams. And what does the Scrum Guide actually say about this?

🔹 1. Official Basis: What the Scrum Guide Actually Says

The Scrum Guide (2020) defines the Sprint Retrospective as follows:

“The purpose of the Sprint Retrospective is to plan ways to increase quality and effectiveness.”
“The Scrum Team inspects how the last Sprint went with regards to individuals, interactions, processes, tools, and their Definition of Done.”
“The Scrum Team identifies the most helpful changes to improve its effectiveness.”
“The most impactful improvements are addressed as soon as possible.”

👉 Important:
The Scrum Guide does not say that the contents or results of the retrospective must “stay within the team.”
The so-called “Las Vegas Principle” (“What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas”) does not appear in the Scrum Guide or any other official Scrum sources (Scrum.org, Scrum Alliance, etc.).

So this principle is a community interpretation or cultural practice, not an official rule.

---

🔹 2. Origin of the “Las Vegas Principle”

The idea comes from the belief that the retrospective should be a safe space for honesty and openness.
It’s often used in the agile community as a cultural guideline to build trust:

“What’s said in the retro stays in the retro.”
— except for the agreed-upon improvement actions.

📘 This approach is frequently recommended by agile coaches and trainers (e.g., in the Agile Alliance or Liberating Structures community) to create psychological safety — but again, it’s not part of official Scrum.

---

🔹 3. Why This Can Be Problematic

Keeping everything within the team can cause several serious issues:

a) Lack of Transparency Across Teams

If a team identifies problems that involve another team or management decisions but doesn’t share them,
systemic issues remain hidden.

➡️ Result: The team treats symptoms instead of causes.

b) Lack of Organizational Learning

Scrum is based on empiricism and transparency.
If retrospective insights never leave the team, the organization cannot learn collectively.

➡️ This conflicts with the Scrum value of Openness.

c) Misalignment with Scrum Roles

The Scrum Team, especially the Scrum Master, is responsible for improving the entire system, not just the internal team.
If results are kept secret, the Scrum Master’s impact is greatly limited.

---

🔹 4. How to Minimize Negative Effects

It’s about balancing trust and transparency effectively:

✅ a) Make Explicit Team Agreements

Teams should jointly define what stays confidential and what can be shared.
Example:

• Personal statements → remain private.

• Structural or organizational issues → can be shared, framed objectively and respectfully.

✅ b) Use the Scrum Master as a Bridge

The Scrum Master can act as a mediator, communicating systemic impediments appropriately and without personal blame.

✅ c) Hold Cross-Team or System Retrospectives

If multiple teams are affected, shared retrospectives (“Overall Retros” or “System Retros”) can help make problems transparent and address them collaboratively.

✅ d) Foster Psychological Safety

Organizations should create a culture where teams can speak openly about problems
without fear of blame or punishment. That reduces the need for secrecy.

---

🔹 5. Summary

---

🧭 Conclusion

The “Las Vegas Principle” may be well-intentioned, but if applied rigidly,
it can undermine the very transparency and continuous improvement that Scrum depends on.

A healthy Scrum Team should protect personal trust —
but not hide systemic insights that could help the entire organization grow.