By Dave Bushy, PCC
I’ve often asked clients “How did it go?” The question might be focused on a major initiative, a critical negotiation or a project undertaken by a team. Or any number of other things.
You’d be surprised how often I get an answer like, “We’re going to do a post-mortem next week when we get the team together.”
As a coach, I am always curious. That curiosity emerges in the questions I ask clients. And I have to confess that those questions are shaped and informed by my life and professional experience, which began a long time ago when I served as a young officer in the U.S. Army. In the armed forces, we continually engaged in “After-Action Reviews” of training, operations and major exercises. Everything we did was about continuous learning. We focused on what went well and what didn’t and we worked to discover how to learn from every aspect of it. And then we pulled together as a team to put those lessons into action.
We never used the term “Post Mortem.” When I hear this term when coaching executives, it piques my interest:
“I’m curious why you use the term “Post-mortem.”
“Well, that’s just a way of analyzing how the project went.”
“Doesn’t “mortem” mean death?” I ask, with a slight smile. “Did anybody die on this project or metaphorically expire?”
“Well, no.” I get a grin back.
“What thoughts are initially conjured up by the participants when you frame a discussion in terms of the words ‘Post Mortem?’”
That’s often when something clicks for a client. They might answer, “I guess it starts off somewhat negatively, doesn’t it?”
My favorite, “Tell me more,” might lead to:
“Well, sometimes we forget that a lot of things were successful. Maybe it would be a great place to start by asking what went well and what we learned from that.”
“Sort of “Lessons Learned” exercise,” I add.
“Exactly. Sometimes the best learnings are from what went smoothly and how we can use those for future projects and meetings. We can listen to the different perspectives of individuals at all levels who worked on it.”
“How would you do that?”
“By inviting all the participants to first share what they observed to go well, from the planning stages through the execution. And we would focus on those positives first and build from there.”
“And how would you proceed after that?”
“Then we could identify areas that could be improved and points that just did not go well. But our intent would always be what we learned and how we could improve.”
“Sounds like you’re applying some continuous improvement into your thinking.”
“Yeah, and I can sense that people will see this as a positive exercise, not a sort of corporate autopsy,” the client might add with a sardonic grin.
Here are some thoughts about Military Action Reviews:
In a 2022 article in “The Journal of Military Learning,” Cates and Banghart wrote: “After action reviews (AAR) have been the foundation of the U.S. Army training life cycle for decades. These reviews function as collaborative post training meetings to allow the team to engage in self-learning and self-correction (Morrison & Meliza, 1999). The meeting, typically led by a unit leader or facilitator, focuses on asking the group (a) what was planned during the training, (b) what occurred, (c) why the events unfolded the way they did, and (d) what should be modified before the next training.”
I agree. I often reflect on the fact that my military experience was the best graduate school I could have ever attended. It gave me a perspective that young, committed people in uniform could achieve great things through continuous learning and improvement. And I have been able to use that throughout my life.
Dave Bushy of Boston Executive Coaches – bostonexecutivecoaches.com – is a an ICF-certified coach who was trained at the Gestalt International Study Center (GISC). Dave is a former U.S. Army officer and senior airline executive who works with leaders throughout the world.