Better Than Post-Mortems: After-Action Reviews

From the Marshall Memo #434

In this intriguing Wharton Leadership Digest article with K-12 implications, Penn professor Todd Henshaw (formerly Director of Military Leadership at West Point) describes the U.S. Army’s “after-action review” process, which was developed in the 1970s to help soldiers learn from mistakes and achievements. After-action review, which has been called one of the most successful organizational learning methods ever devised, consists of an active discussion of four key questions:

• What did we intend to accomplish – i.e., what was our strategy?
• What did we do – i.e., how did we execute relative to our strategy?
• Why did it happen that way – i.e., why was there a strategy/execution gap?
• What will we do to adapt our strategy or refine our execution for a better outcome – OR how do we repeat our success?

Henshaw says after-action reviews have been extremely helpful in the military, but attempts to use them in the corporate world have often been unsuccessful, largely because they are reduced to what Peter Senge calls a “sterile technique.” 

For after-action reviews to improve team performance (and become a catalyst for cultural change), Henshaw says “leaders must create a climate of transparency, selflessness, and candor where team members can challenge current ways of thinking and performing. Everyone – leaders included – must openly share where their own performance may have contributed to a team failure, and to acknowledge the people and practices that helped create the team’s success.”

Here are Henshaw’s suggestions for making after-action reviews a “living practice” that transforms team performance and becomes part of the organization’s DNA:

• Schedule after-action reviews consistently. “‘Postmortems’ have a negative connotation that discourages participation and enthusiasm,” says Henshaw. Leaders should hold after-action reviews immediately after successful or unsuccessful events, “using the positive positioning of improving your own performance and not that of someone else.” 

• Gather relevant facts and figures. Specifically, what went well? What didn’t?

• Make participation mandatory. Everyone on the team should be involved in the discussion. “Each participant will likely have a different perspective on the event, and this serves as a key input into the after-action review,” says Henshaw. “Open-ended questions that are related to specific standards or expectations will encourage involvement.”

• Focus on three things: the performance of team members, the leader, and the team as a whole. “Keep the attention on facts and outcomes,” Henshaw advises. “What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?” This keeps the discussion centered on what the team can control, as opposed to external factors.

• Follow the “rules of engagement.” To encourage honest participation and mutual trust, there must be: confidentiality (joint learning is shared, individual comments are not); transparency; focus on individual and team improvement and development; and preparation for “next time.”

• Share learning across the organization. This might mean using meetings and blogs to make the lessons of after-action reviews available to other teams. “It’s inefficient to withhold key learnings from other teams and allow them to make the same mistakes or prevent them from replicating best practices,” says Henshaw. 

• Consider a before-action review. Before your next significant challenge, why not convene the team and review lessons learned and how they can be put to work?

“After-Action Reviews” by Todd Henshaw in Wharton Leadership Digest – Nano Tools for Leaders, Apr. 24, 2012,

http://wlp.wharton.upenn.edu/LeadershipDigest/nano-tool-after-actio...