After Action Review
Reconstruct what happened, then decide how to perform better next time
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 99%
An after action review brings participants together after an event to answer two questions: what actually happened, and what should change next time. McChrystal explains that people in the same battle or exercise observe different slices of reality and often leave with conflicting conclusions. The review searches for truth by combining their accounts with available evidence, then examines what worked and what failed. Its learning value depends on candor: junior and senior leaders must tolerate having their errors exposed in front of one another. Repetition builds the thick skin needed to accept mistakes and opposing viewpoints. The output is a more accurate shared picture plus specific adjustments that improve the next performance.
Origin
McChrystal says after action reviews grew from Second World War experience showing that participants in the same battle left with different views of what happened.
Core principles
- 01Every participant sees only part of an event
- 02The first task is to search for what actually happened
- 03The second task is to improve the next attempt
- 04Mistakes must be discussable across rank and role
- 05Different viewpoints improve the shared account
How to run it
- 1
Assemble the participants
Bring together the people who experienced different parts of the event. Include multiple levels and roles so one viewpoint does not dominate the account.
Pro tip Gather the group while details are still recoverable.
Watch out A review built only from the leader's perspective will reproduce the leader's blind spots.
- 2
Reconstruct reality
Compare what each person saw and use available sights, sounds, pictures, or records to build the sequence. Search for truth rather than agreement with the original plan.
Pro tip Use conflicts between accounts as prompts for investigation.
Watch out Participants may confidently remember a partial or incorrect version.
- 3
Identify strengths and failures
Name what went right and what went wrong, including leadership errors. Keep the examination focused on learning rather than humiliation.
Pro tip Apply the same candor to bosses and subordinates.
Watch out Protecting rank from scrutiny weakens the shared search for truth.
- 4
Choose the next adjustments
Translate the reconstructed event into changes for the next mission or attempt. Make each lesson specific enough to alter behavior.
Pro tip Tie every adjustment to evidence from the review.
Watch out A truthful account without a next-time change remains incomplete.
- 5
Build review resilience
Repeat the process until people can hear uncomfortable findings without shutting down. Normalize mistakes as material for better performance.
Pro tip Model openness from the highest level present.
Watch out If candor carries social punishment, participants will stop supplying it.
In the wild
McChrystal recalls long reviews after major training missions where pictures, slides, sights, and sounds exposed his mistakes in front of peers and senior leaders. His boss's weaknesses were also discussed in front of subordinates.
→ The painful review developed openness to mistakes and different viewpoints rather than preserving a comfortable but inaccurate account.
Common mistakes
Accepting one person's account
Each participant sees only part of the event, so a single perspective cannot reliably establish what happened.
Turning candor into punishment
If exposed mistakes become a reason for blame or status protection, people will resist the truth-seeking the review requires.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best after missions, projects, incidents, or training where multiple people experienced different parts of the same event.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal in cultures that use review primarily to assign blame or protect senior people from criticism.
From the transcript
“One, to figure out what happened, and then to figure out what they should do about it next time to be better.”
“So, the first part of that was getting everybody together and going through and searching for truth.”
“So, the effort was to create a thick skin to understand that everybody makes mistakes.”
From the episode
#535: General Stanley McChrystal — Mastering Risk: A User's Guide