Q&A

How to Debug Team Problems Before They Derail Delivery

• By David Ramel
• 04/16/2026

Developers know how to debug software: identify the signals, isolate the issue and fix the problem before it causes something bigger to break. But in modern engineering organizations, some of the most disruptive failures are not rooted in code at all. They begin in team dynamics -- unclear communication, hidden workflow bottlenecks, misalignment and the kind of small organizational breakdowns that can quietly compound until they affect releases, productivity and morale.

That broader view of debugging is the focus of Debugging Like a Coach: Fixing Team Bugs Before They Crash the Game, an upcoming session at Visual Studio Live! @ Microsoft HQ set for July in Redmond, Wash. In the session, Amber Vanderburg will apply ideas from sports coaching to engineering leadership, showing how game film analysis, real-time feedback loops and proactive team debugging can help organizations catch dysfunction early -- before small missteps turn into major release failures or full-scale team meltdowns.

For development teams, that message lands at a time when engineering effectiveness depends on more than technical skill alone. As delivery environments become more complex, leaders need better ways to detect risk earlier -- not just in logs, dashboards and test results, but in how teams collaborate, raise concerns and react under pressure. Vanderburg's session reframes those challenges in language developers already understand: if you can debug a program, you can debug a team.

Vanderburg, founder of Pathwayz Group, brings a leadership and team-development perspective to the topic, combining experience in communication, EQ, leadership and critical thinking with an approach designed to give attendees tools they can apply immediately. Her session also includes a live "debugging" exercise focused not on broken code, but on common team dysfunctions and how to address them in practical, time-efficient ways.

Ahead of her July 29 session, we asked Vanderburg what inspired the talk, how engineering leaders can detect hidden team problems before they derail delivery, and why the best retrospectives focus less on blame and more on learning how the system really behaved.

VisualStudioMagazine: What inspired you to present on this topic?
Vanderburg: If you can achieve your dreams all on your own, you're not dreaming big enough. "Debugging teams" is a fun take on one of the biggest indicators but overlooked aspects of product performance - the people! In this session, learners are encouraged to ask their burning questions about leadership confusions, frustrations with business decisions, irritations with team miscommunication, and any other "bugs" teams experience and gain real insight and tools to help address challenges. It's designed to help you address these "bugs" so your team can move forward together!

At my company, The Pathwayz Group, we've worked with more than 1 million professionals in the tech industry to develop skills in leadership, communication, EQ, and critical thinking, and I also have a background in corporate HR and leadership, which adds a fun perspective to the conversation. I love this session because every time it's different, it's specialized to the learners in the room -- oftentimes learners are encouraged to find community, solutions and mindsets, and they are able to gain a few tools to apply that day within our session.

In your "live debugging" example, what is one early signal that looks minor at first but usually predicts a bigger team failure later?
The biggest mistake in communication is the assumption that it has taken place. Misalignment or miscommunication is one of the biggest indicators of team challenges. What makes this even more challenging; is that most of the time there has been a meeting to discuss alignment, but the communication and questions didn't bring the desired results.

In the "live debugging" a learner gives a specific situation in their work and we walk through the types of questions to ask. Most of the time the sentiment of the question is the same as the original, but it's refined with more context, depth, and iterations for more meaningful conversation -- and approached in a way that doesn't take hours. I believe the time investment is one of the biggest encouragers of communication assumptions so I really try to provide tools that are 3-10 minutes in length. One of my favorite alignment activities take about 2.5 minutes with about 3-5 minutes of debrief.

What does "game film analysis" look like in an engineering context without making people feel watched or blamed?
In any environment -- sports, surgery, or engineering -- effective "game film analysis" starts with trust.

I draw on Amy Edmondson's work here. The goal is to create an environment where people feel safe to examine what happened without feeling watched or blamed. One way I do that is by modeling it myself -- I'll openly share my own misses or decisions I'd approach differently. It sets the tone that we're all learning, and that improvement is expected. I often say, "I reserve the right to be better tomorrow than I am today." That mindset only works if it's genuine -- teams can quickly spot when it's not.

In practice, I frame "game film" as a system review, not a person review. We're looking at:

• What signals did we have at the time?
• What decisions did we make based on those signals?
• Where did the system support us -- or fail us?

This shifts the conversation from "Who made the mistake?" to "How did our process, communication, or assumptions shape the outcome?"

I also think about trust through Stephen Covey's lens of character and competence. For a team to engage honestly in these reviews, they need to trust both:

• That their teammates have good intent (character)
• And that they're capable of doing the work (competence)

If either is missing, people hold back. But when both are present, teams can have very direct, honest conversations without it becoming personal.

Ultimately, "game film analysis" in engineering works when it's positioned as a shared tool for learning -- grounded in trust, focused on systems, and aimed at getting better together, not assigning blame.

Which team metric do you trust most when you are trying to spot a hidden workflow problem before a release is affected?
In 2012, Google asked this very question -- and I love where they landed. They spent two years studying 180 of their teams -- 115 in engineering and 65 in sales -- examining 250 different team attributes through what they called Project Aristotle. They uncovered psychological safety as the most important metric: the consistent presence of open dialogue, risk-sharing, and early problem surfacing. The metric I trust most is whether people are actively speaking up about risks, uncertainties, and mistakes while there's still time to act.

You can see it in small, observable moments -- who contributes in meetings, whether ideas are challenged, how honest retrospectives really are. When those signals shift -- less participation, fewer questions, more polished updates -- it often points to issues being quietly worked around instead of addressed. Most workflow problems start subtly, building beneath the surface before showing up in delivery. Psychological safety serves as an early indicator that something needs attention, giving teams the opportunity to resolve challenges while they are still manageable and before they impact the release. Observations are a strong indicator. If desired, formal assessments like Edmondson's survey, the LeaderFactor 4 Stages Survey, and the Psychological Safety Index (PSI) can provide additional structure and validation.

What is one question an engineering leader should ask in a retrospective to get beyond safe, surface-level answers?
One way to get beyond surface-level answers is to add intentional context to your questions. Instead of asking something broad like, "What worked?" or "What didn't?" -- which often leads to generic responses -- I'll anchor the question in a specific area. For example:

"What worked well in our communication as a team? Where did we miss the mark and had miscommunication?"

Open-ended questions are good, but without context the team can default to the surface level answer, with context you set the stage at a deeper level.

How do you give real-time feedback during a project in a way that improves performance without disrupting momentum?
I had a mentor who told me that great communication boils down to the right message, at the right time, delivered in the right way, to the right audience.

In the moment, I'm asking:

• What's the right message here?
• Is now the right time, or should it wait?
• What's the most effective way to deliver it?
• And who should be included in this conversation?

That helps me prioritize and avoid over-intervening.

I don't treat feedback as only a formal, occasional event. The most effective teams normalize it as part of how they work -- quick, specific, and ongoing -- so it consistently improves and refines performance without disrupting momentum.

If it is direction-altering, scope-changing feedback, there's a balance between maintaining momentum and creating space for improvement. Teams need time to develop ideas, but also moments to challenge and refine them. Too much uninterrupted execution can lead to missed opportunities, while too much feedback can slow progress, create confusion, or feel like micromanagement. So I focus on being intentional about when and how I step in.

When communication issues and process issues look similar on the surface, how do you tell which one is the real root cause?
It's rarely only communication or only processes, it's usually a combination of a few things. Maybe the inefficient processes have led to inefficient communication practices.... I typically look at this from several angles:

• Process analysis
• Resource analysis (wrong/inefficient tools)
• Team analysis (communication, team alignment etc)
• Project analysis (typically for longer-scope: events, initiatives, sprints within the larger scope)

How can attendees learn more about this topic and prepare for your session?
If you go onto our company website at thepathwayzgroup.com you'll find resources and tools to help you right now with debugging teams and building tech leadership within your organization. You can also reach out to me on LinkedIn -- I'm the only Amber Vanderburg so pretty easy to find!

Note: Those wishing to attend the session can save money by registering early, according to the event's pricing page. "Save $400 by registering by the May 15 Super Early Bird Savings deadline!" said the organizer of the event, which is presented by the parent company of Visual Studio Magazine.