I really liked this chapter. I was wondering if the topic of Psychological Safety has a place here or in another section? When it comes to providing feedback and sustaining teams, Psych Safety is the number one success criteria.. and is also hard to put in place & maintain without clear leadership & org support.

Some minor typos found: (let me know if you don't want me to point these out)

• p. 4: row 1, col 2: "swamped with requests at time" >> should be "times"
• p. 5: row 4, col 2: (a) "geographically distribution" >> should be "distributed". (b) "FTF" >> should be "F2F" (as in the row/cell above)
• p. 6: row 1, col 1: "306 degree" >> 360?
• • Aside: On this topic of 360 degree feedback, I have seen this abused by a highly dysfunctional team that wanted to get rid of a great performing team member. A bunch of jerk team members collaborated on what they were going to say on the 360 feedback to make it look like the good person was terrible/evil and got her fired. I couldn't believe what I saw. =(
• p. 7: row 1, col 2: "we know what are we assessing.." >> "what we are .."

Final question/observation:

Page 6 topic on Annual reviews: under Trade-offs > Annual Reviews tend to focus on the individual and supports individual competition (e.g. often for salary bonuses) as opposed to supporting team-building efforts. It's a decidedly counter-team mindset, and often opposite to an agile/growth mindset. There are many references on this topic. I feel like this trade off should be included here in some way.

Valentin, great stuff.  We've fleshed out the text around Improve Skills and Knowledge.

As far as capturing the lessons learned we focus on that elsewhere, in particular the Continuous Improvement process blade.

Principle – The 3 goals are inter-related

Sum of local optimizations is not an optimum for the whole. Team and team members must grow at the same time. Here some convergence points/practices

• Whole team, non-solo work, feedback from team and groups retrospectives   

So:

• We need to specify the convergence of these three goals & some of the convergences points/practices; we need to recommend the mentioned practices (bold) and specify the importance

Non-solo work – very important growing factor (Bold)

Here some reasons. It if is used opportunistically, in context, could be the Leanest option (efficient & effective at the same time).

Can be the cheaper variant:

• you grow & learn while doing the work, not in offline training activities.
• If is used opportunistically and not as “full time” pair programming, you can even save time and cost even on short term.  
• If you already spent a lot of money on dedicated training only for some of the team members: it is very efficient to share their knowledge.  

Can be very/the most effective:

• You learn by doing the real work, not unrelated exercises
• You learn from “coaches” that have experience with your context
• Will fill the knowledge gaps! (where these gaps are continuously growing otherwise)
• It is the only real Just-In-Time growing related practice
• It is the most synergic: by collaboration, you can get output skills & knowledge bigger than the inputs  

Why is Lean (more):

• one of the main sources of waste for a team/organization is to have “islands” of skills and knowledge and do not distribute them.   
• t is the ONLY way to take benefits from team retrospectives and implement continuous improvement
• It is a mandatory ingredient in Whole Team approach

Whole team - more

Retrospectives are much more effective in this case and will help all team members to improve. Growing will be also streamlined focused on what is really needed.