Are your After Action Reviews failing?

After Action Reviews (AAR) are one of the best team tools to come out of the Army. When done well, AARs produce valuable changes in individual and team commitments, mindsets, and behaviors.  

Yet last week three different clients echoed a lack of effectiveness of their AARs. 

One concern is the AAR rehashes the past which is tiresome and painful.

Another complaint is that the AAR process tends to be too empathic or impersonal and lets people off the hook instead of helping them take responsibility and accountability for their actions.

The third observation is that people focus on the objective process instead of the more uncomfortable factors of leadership / personal effectiveness, team dynamics, and culture. This denies these crucial factors in any endeavor.

I came across this HBR article, A Better Approach to After-Action Reviews

It addresses the issues above with a narrative and human-centered approach. (see Link in comments)

I also like to add Chris Argyris’ “double loop learning” to AARs. 

This is an important part of part 1 “What did we expect to happen?”

Double-loop learning spurs people to think more deeply about their assumptions and beliefs and to express what their mindsets were at the onset of the project.

With each person’s narrative of “What did we expect to happen?” probe:

• What assumptions and beliefs led you to have these expectations?  

• What other factors underpinned your purpose, goals, standards, etc. implicit in your expectations?

As you go through the following three steps, connect the dots from the mindsets and contradictions discovered in step 1 to the behaviors, outcomes, and consequences in steps 2 and 3. This will significantly enhance step 4, “what can we do better?” and the overall impact of AARs.

https://hbr.org/2023/01/a-better-approach-to-after-action-reviews