4Ls Retrospective Template: Liked, Learned, Lacked, Longed For

The 4Ls retrospective is for the sprint where a normal retro would flatten too much.

Start Stop Continue asks what the team should change. That is useful. But sometimes the team needs to name what the work actually felt like, what it learned, what was missing, and what it wishes had been true.

That is what the 4Ls gives you.

The four columns are:

You can run it in the browser with the free 4Ls retrospective prompt generator, or use the template below in a doc, Miro board, FigJam file, or Slack thread.

The 4Ls template

Copy this into your retro board:

Liked
What worked well?
What gave the team energy?
What should we protect next time?

Learned
What did we learn about the work?
What surprised us?
What do we understand better now?

Lacked
What was missing?
Where did we feel under-supported?
What slowed us down?

Longed For
What did we wish we had?
What would make this better next time?
What kind of team or process are we trying to become?

Keep the wording plain. A retro template is not better because it sounds clever. It is better when people know what to write without asking for an example.

When to use 4Ls

Use 4Ls when the team needs reflection, not just a fix-list.

It works especially well after:

• A project launch.
• A hard sprint.
• A release that technically went fine but felt rough.
• A new hire's first month.
• A team restructure.
• A cross-functional project.
• A quarter where the work changed shape.

It is not the fastest format. That is the point.

If you have 20 minutes and need two action items, use Start Stop Continue or DAKI. If you need to understand the texture of what just happened, use 4Ls.

How to run a 45-minute 4Ls retro

Use this agenda:

Silent writing matters. If you open with discussion, the loudest or most senior person sets the frame for everyone else.

Start with Liked. Teams under pressure often want to skip straight to what was broken, but Liked is where the team remembers what is worth protecting.

Spend the most discussion time on Lacked and Longed For. That is where the future changes live.

Example 4Ls retrospective

Here is what a real board might look like after a product launch.

Liked

• The release checklist caught two issues before deploy.
• Support and engineering paired well on the customer messaging.
• The daily launch thread kept everyone aligned.
• QA found the edge case early enough to fix it.

Learned

• The migration took longer in production-sized data than in staging.
• Customers used the export feature differently than we expected.
• We need design sign-off before implementation starts, not after.
• The docs page got more traffic than the launch email.

Lacked

• Clear ownership for the rollout plan.
• Enough time for accessibility review.
• A single place for launch decisions.
• Better visibility into customer-facing edge cases.

Longed For

• A calmer final week.
• Earlier involvement from support.
• A reusable launch template.
• Fewer surprise dependencies from adjacent teams.

The action items should not try to solve every card.

Pick one or two:

• Create a launch owner role for every future release.
• Add accessibility review to the release checklist before code freeze.

That is enough. A retro with twelve actions usually produces zero changes.

Lacked vs Longed For

This is the part teams confuse.

Lacked is present-tense missing.

Examples:

• We lacked clear acceptance criteria.
• We lacked enough testing time.
• We lacked context on why the deadline mattered.
• We lacked a decision-maker in the room.

Longed For is future-facing.

Examples:

• We longed for fewer last-minute surprises.
• We longed for a cleaner handoff between design and engineering.
• We longed for more trust to make small calls ourselves.
• We longed for a launch week that did not feel like a fire drill.

Lacked usually creates concrete fixes. Longed For creates direction.

You need both. If you only discuss Lacked, the retro becomes a complaint list. If you only discuss Longed For, it becomes a wish board. Together, they move from frustration to change.

Remote 4Ls retrospective

The 4Ls works well remotely because it does not rely on physical sticky notes or room energy.

Run it like this:

1. Open a shared board or doc with the four columns.
2. Give people five minutes of silent writing.
3. Let people add notes anonymously if trust is low.
4. Cluster similar notes together.
5. Discuss the clusters, not every single card.
6. Vote on Lacked and Longed For.
7. Commit to one or two changes.

For distributed teams, you can also run the writing async. Open the board on Monday, ask everyone to add notes by Wednesday, then meet for 30 minutes to discuss and commit.

The async version often gets better writing because people have time to think.

Common mistakes

Skipping Learned.
Without Learned, the 4Ls becomes a feelings board. The learning column is what updates the team's operating system.

Letting Lacked dominate.
Lacked can become blame if the facilitator does not move the group toward Longed For and action.

Writing vague cards.
"Communication" is not a retro note. "We did not know who owned customer comms until the day before launch" is a retro note.

Creating too many actions.
Choose one or two changes. If the team does them, the retro worked.

Running it every sprint forever.
4Ls is useful, but any template goes stale. Rotate it with Start Stop Continue, KALM, DAKI, or Sailboat.

4Ls compared with other retro templates

For a wider menu, see the full guide to retrospective templates.

The bottom line

The 4Ls retrospective is useful because it separates four things teams often blur together:

What worked.
What changed our understanding.
What was missing.
What we want next time.

That is enough structure to make the conversation honest without turning it into a process audit.

Run it when the team needs to learn from the work, not just file an action item against it.

---

Want the prompts without building the board yourself? Use the free 4Ls retrospective generator, then copy the result into Slack, Miro, FigJam, or your team doc.