16

Learning From Successes and Mistakes

I bet that each day at work, you do lots of things that are successful. And you may also make some mistakes or take some actions that don’t turn out quite like you had expected. If you’re really disciplined, you pause periodically to reflect on all this. You may ask yourself and others, what am I doing that’s working well that I need to keep on doing? And what am I doing that’s not working as well that I need to adjust or do differently? You may engage in some soul searching and talk with some trusted colleagues as you try to improve your performance and learn from both your successes and your failures.

The same applies to change initiatives at work. Despite all the challenges you’re facing, you and your project team will do a lot of things right. You’ll do things that just work out really well. Congratulations! And sometimes you and your team will take steps that don’t quite hit the mark. You’ll do things on your project that you’ll find aren’t working at all. You’ll be underwhelmed by the results you’re getting.

If you and your project team are following sound project management discipline—if you’re paying attention to the hard side of change—you’ll pause periodically to reflect. You’ll meet as a team and maybe ask some stakeholders to join in the conversation. You’ll ask yourselves, “What do we need to keep doing because it’s working so well? What do we need to adjust because it’s not producing the results we need?” You and your team will try to improve the outcomes you’re getting on your change initiative by learning from your successes and from your mistakes.

In this chapter, we’ll look at a change management tool—the action review process—that you and your project team can use to identify what’s working that you should keep on doing and what isn’t working that you need to fix. You’ll see how you can use the tool to create better project plans, execute your plans more effectively, and increase the chances that your project will lead to the outcomes you had intended. You’ll see that for action reviews to work, you need to create a climate in which honest reflection and candid dialogue can occur. You’ll see that although the action review process is designed to help you address the hard side of change, for the tool to serve its purpose, you need to focus on the soft side too.

What Is an Action Review?

An action review is a meeting of the key players involved in a change initiative, in which you focus on openly and honestly discussing and documenting the answers to three central questions:

• What is supposed to happen? What is the objective we are working toward?

• What actually is happening and why? What’s working well that we need to keep on doing, and what’s not working well that we need to improve? What are the root causes for the results we’re getting?

• What should we do about it? What actions will we take to ensure we keep doing what’s working? What actions will we take to fix what isn’t working? And what lessons have we learned that we can apply during this change initiative and to other initiatives we embark on in the future?

An action review is a change management tool that’s based on the after action review process developed by the US military during the Vietnam War (Darling and Parry 2000). The military introduced after action reviews to help soldiers and their leaders better understand the “ground truth” about what was happening during training exercises and on the battlefield. During each after action review, soldiers met to discuss and share their observations, from their varying viewpoints, about the operation or maneuver they’d just completed. What were the goals of the operation, and what results did they actually achieve? Which tactics were successful, and which ones weren’t? Why? The military also wanted to help its members share what they’d learned on the battlefield across different platoons. What did we discover that we—or others—should do the same? What do we need to do differently to produce a better result? The stakes were high. If you could identify and share lessons learned and ideas for improvement, lives could be saved.

In the decades that followed the war, many for-profit and not-for-profit organizations adapted the after action review process for their own use. Their goal was to improve the outcomes they achieved on projects and change initiatives. Some organizations began using the process before projects even began to anticipate and better plan for the obstacles they thought they might encounter along the way. They conducted before action reviews. And others started conducting reviews periodically over the entire course of their projects, so they could figure out where adjustments and course corrections were needed while their projects were still ongoing. They led during action reviews. Today, organizations use many different names to refer to their after action, before action, and during action review processes. To keep things simple, we’ll refer to these processes collectively as action reviews.

Let’s now turn to why the review process can be so important to managing change.

Why Conduct an Action Review?

During the crush of a change initiative, it’s easy to want to keep things moving forward. As deadlines loom, you and your project team may want to keep plowing ahead so you can stay on schedule. Maybe you tune out feedback that’s streaming in from stakeholders. Or you ignore questions that are amassing during software testing. You have a milestone to hit. That makes sense, right? But what if you’re rushing down the wrong path? Or what if the path your project is on isn’t as efficient as you need it to be? Ignoring these signals and just moving forward won’t help you achieve your end goal.

Maybe this was the situation Kate and her team faced in the TCW relocation case you read in chapter 15. They had a deadline to reach. They had a relocation date to hit. So they disregarded the little—or not so little—issues that crept up, and they kept moving ahead with their project plans. Conference room not ready yet? Ignore it and keep going. Furniture for the training room on back order? Forget about it and plow ahead. Need to take critical systems offline during the first two days of the move? No time to discuss it. Just send out a quick email and hope everyone reads and understands it. As the TCW relocation project progressed, the team barely took a breath to consider whether it was delivering the results its members had committed to when they first began work on the project. They just kept pushing ahead to meet the move date. They never paused to discuss which shortcuts and compromises were acceptable and which might not be. So they failed to consider if they were really ready for the move to occur on schedule. And if the date for the move was fixed and couldn’t be adjusted, they failed to discuss how they could prepare TCW employees for the challenges they’d experience during their first few days and weeks at the new location, where things weren’t quite yet ready.

An action review forces you and your project team to take that pause, even momentarily, to reflect on the objectives you’re trying to reach and the results you’re getting, so you can make course corrections if needed. It’s a process that helps you make sense of all the noise you’re hearing on your project, because it forces you to stop and consider what’s really happening, what’s important, and what to do next. Think of an action review as a comma in a really long sentence. Rather than a full stop, like a period, the soft pause helps you and your team take a breath and understand something that’s otherwise pretty complex.

When you pause periodically to conduct action reviews throughout the course of your project, you’re creating space to intervene while your actions can still have an impact. You’re investing time now to avoid the blame game later. To a certain extent, Kate in the TCW relocation case was right to question why she and her team were meeting to conduct a postmortem well after her company’s relocation was complete. Kate and her team missed the opportunity to make things better while their project was in progress. They needed to meet and conduct action reviews while their project was ongoing so they could intervene and make things right.

An action review involves a discussion during which participants share what they see happening and why from different vantage points. So the process also helps you gain a broader perspective about where your efforts are succeeding and where you need to take a different approach. It provides you with a reality check, so you can compare your observations to the experiences and observations of others. Based on what you hear in an action review, you may decide to continue going down the path you were on. Or, you may decide to make some adjustments based on your new, expanded insight.

Maybe you, like Edie, the project manager in the TCW case, think everything is going fine with your project. That may be true, or maybe someone on your project team holds a different view. Maybe they’re experiencing a problem that you don’t see, because you play a different role on the project. An action review provides an opportunity for you and your team to examine your work from many different points of view. What do you see happening? How is that the same and different from what others are experiencing? Given that broader view, are there decisions you need to revisit?

When you invest time in an action review, you have the chance to bounce ideas off of others and hear their ideas for resolving problems and issues you might be encountering. Maybe you’ve established an excellent working relationship with a key stakeholder, yet one of your teammates is experiencing more challenges during their interactions with this same individual. An action review provides the opportunity for you to talk this through—for you to say, “Here’s what I do during my conversations with the stakeholder that really seem to work. This approach might work for you too.” An action review provides a formal opportunity for you, your team, and others to use the power of the team—and your varying observations and experiences—to more accurately determine what’s working well, what isn’t, and how you can best proceed.

How an Action Review Helped Me Regain Control of My Training Project

We were implementing a new, critically important safety protocol across the organization, and I was responsible for developing the training. It seemed like everyone on the steering team wanted to have their say about what should and shouldn’t be included and how the training should be delivered. Lawyers, safety engineers, HR staff, senior executives—everyone weighed in and made their demands. Say this first. Use this word. Show this video, but only at this point in the program. Don’t say this. I tried my best to create a program that addressed their varying needs and demands and that still would make sense from a pedagogical perspective. But ultimately I relented. By the time I had incorporated everyone’s feedback, I knew I had a mishmash on my hands. The steering team thought that the training program was great. I was confident it was not.

I voiced my concerns one last time, and got the team to agree to a compromise of sorts. We’d pilot the training with a single group of employees, and then immediately conduct an action review that steering team members and a few trainees from the pilot program would participate in.

During the action review, steering team members listened intently as trainees who participated in the pilot program shared their views. This is what worked. This is what didn’t work. This is where they paid attention. This is where we lost them. This is what we should do the same and this is what we should do differently going forward. “Terrific,” I thought. “More feedback! Just what I need.” But the approach the trainees recommended wasn’t all that different from the approach I had been advocating for all along. So I felt confident I knew what to do next.

The meeting was about to conclude and I summarized the action plan we had agreed to. As I read my notes aloud, the steering committee chairperson interrupted. “You’re the expert,” she acknowledged, nodding her head in my direction. “You do what you think is needed to make the program better.” And so I did.

Do You Have an Opportunity to Conduct Action Reviews?

Think of a recent change initiative you were a part of where you faced a barrage of complaints about what went wrong.

• Would it have been helpful for you and your team to pause along the way to discuss what was happening and to brainstorm ideas for getting back on track?

• Do you understand all the reasons your project went off the rails? Were there signals you and your team missed or ignored as you worked hard to meet scheduled due dates? What would have happened if you’d paused and considered taking a different approach?

• Are there different perspectives you wish you had considered? Did others see issues or have ideas that you wish you’d had more insight about?

• Do you and your team understand what you should do the same and what you should do differently when you work on your next project?

Now think of a change initiative that was a success, but where you failed to document what went right along the way.

• Do you understand all the reasons your project went so smoothly?

• Can you remember the problems you encountered during the course of your project, and the steps you took to successfully address them? Do you understand what you can do, as you work on change initiatives in the future, to prevent these problems from occurring or to quickly resolve them?

• Do you have a broad enough perspective about what you did that worked so well and why? Would it be helpful to hear from others who might view your work from a different perspective?

• Do you know what you and your team did that worked well that you should repeat as you work on other change initiatives in the future?

How to Conduct an Action Review

Maybe you and your project team already meet for periodic status updates throughout the course of your project. Maybe your organization already conducts postmortems when you reach the end of each key initiative. Are these meetings helping you and your organization hear about what’s working and what isn’t from different vantage points? Are they helping you understand the root causes behind the results you’re achieving? Are they helping you identify and commit to actions that will sustain what’s working and fix what isn’t? Are they helping you learn from one project to the next, so you and your organization keep improving the way you execute change? As reviews occur, do participants speak openly and honestly? If so, that’s great. Keep at it! But if you need ideas for implementing review sessions—or if you need to improve how reviews are conducted so you avoid the blame game and focus more on continuous improvement and learning—consider using the action review format as your guide.

Here are steps you can follow to conduct an action review meeting for your change initiative.

Before the Meeting

Decide on the scope and focus of the meeting. Is this a regularly scheduled status check-in, during which you expect to hear updates from participants about the actions they’d agreed to in the last action review, and plan to discuss any new issues that may have arisen since that meeting? Or are there a few key topics you need participants to focus on and drill down into during the meeting? Perhaps your action review will focus entirely on how training for your change initiative is going. Or you may decide to conduct an action review after you complete the first of many town hall meetings that you have scheduled. The focus of that action review will be to assess what worked and what didn’t work during the initial town hall meeting, so you can embed lessons learned in the subsequent town hall sessions that you have planned. Or is this a project close-out meeting—a postmortem of sorts—during which you need everyone to take a step back and consider lessons they learned throughout the project that they can apply to other change initiatives in the future? Help meeting participants prepare by letting them know in advance what the meeting will focus on and what you hope participants will get out of it.

Decide who will participate. An effective action review typically includes all key members of the team working on the change project. This could be your core project team. Or you may want to expand the meeting to include a few key stakeholders too. When deciding on attendees, make sure that all perspectives on the project are represented, but also be careful not to invite so many people that the meeting becomes unwieldy. Typically the meeting includes one or more representatives from each of the functions working on the project. It’s important to include attendees who can provide the execution perspective—the ground truth. And it’s also important to include leaders who can reflect on decisions that were made and who have the authority to approve any recommended actions. If your project involves internal or external customers, you may want to invite them as well.

If you find you have too many people who need to attend, consider breaking down the action review into multiple meetings. For example, you can have members from each functional area conduct separate action reviews focused on their function’s experience. Then a single representative from each of the functional areas can bring the results from their functional action review to a consolidated meeting.

Decide who will facilitate. The most effective action reviews are led by a facilitator who helps to keep the review discussion on track. The facilitator ensures participants understand the objective and scope of the meeting, guides participants through the structure of the meeting, and enforces meeting ground rules. Through their careful line of questioning, the facilitator helps participants reach their own conclusions about what is working well, what needs to improve, and what actions should be taken next. They also work at creating and maintaining an environment in which honest dialogue will occur.

We have all been to meetings where there is little to no participation during the actual meeting, but where attendees engage in heated discussion after the meeting adjourns about “what is really going on.” The goal of the action review facilitator is to elicit that honest and animated, but also respectful, discussion during the meeting itself.

For your action review meetings, choose a facilitator who has the skill to create and maintain the appropriate meeting climate, draw out each participant, and keep the discussion focused and moving. If possible, consider rotating who facilitates the action review, providing an opportunity for each member of the project team to lead one meeting over the course of a project. This helps further involvement of team members, provides an opportunity for your organization to strengthen its meeting facilitation capacity, and affords talented team members a chance to lead.

Decide what supporting information participants should review to prepare for the discussion. Depending on the scope and focus of your action review, consider the documents you need participants to read in advance or come prepared to discuss. Should they review the project charter, project plan, or minutes from past action reviews? Should they come prepared to discuss the communications plan, the training plan, or the resistance management plan? Would it be helpful for them to review a template for the action review minutes (Table 16-1), so they’ll understand the questions they’ll be asked during the meeting? Help meeting participants prepare by letting them know in advance what they should review before they attend. And think about the documents and materials you, or others, should bring to the meeting. In addition to the documents we just discussed, will it be helpful to have the stakeholder analysis on hand? Should you bring the RACI matrix, so you’re clear about whose input or authorization is needed before you and your team decide on a new action to pursue?

Table 16-1 Action Review Template

During the Meeting

Action review meetings typically unfold in four phases:

• The meeting opening

• A quick review of what is supposed to happen

• Discussion about what actually is happening and why

• Agreement about actions that will be taken and lessons learned

Let’s review each in detail.

Open the meeting. Open the meeting by reminding participants about the meeting purpose, describing the meeting timing and flow, and helping the team agree on ground rules. Let participants know that the focus of the meeting will be on continuous improvement and learning, not on pointing fingers or assigning blame. Explain that the goal is to understand what’s working well so you can keep doing that, and what isn’t working as well so you can fix it. Discuss ground rules that need to be in place to ensure full participation and respectful interaction. The facilitator can lead off the discussion by suggesting a few, such as:

• Treat everyone with respect.

• Listen with an open mind.

• Focus on solutions, not blame.

• Leave titles at the door.

Be sure to ask participants if they concur with these, and provide participants with an opportunity to add their own. Because you likely will be holding multiple action reviews over the course of your project, you don’t need to spend time establishing new ground rules each time you meet. Just remind participants by reposting the ground rules you agreed on at the initial meeting, and ask participants if they have anything they need to add or change.

What is supposed to happen? After opening the meeting, lead a quick discussion about the overall objective for the change project and the key milestones that should have been accomplished at whatever point you are in the initiative. The goal here is to ensure that meeting participants agree on what is supposed to have happened. Where should we be in the project right now? What should we have accomplished? What results should we be seeing?

This part of the meeting may transpire quickly if participants have already reviewed the charter and project plan that was created for your initiative. If that’s the case, you can quickly review objectives, deliverables, and milestones that are stated in these documents and ask participants if they agree that that’s what should have been achieved by this point in time.

But don’t be surprised if you end up having lots of conversation here. Sometimes a team will discover that they disagree on many of the details of the project objective, deliverables, or project plan, and that they have very different perspectives on what is supposed to happen. Here is where a skilled facilitator can help participants share their concerns and hopefully agree on some common goals. And you and your team may learn some important lessons from this discussion. You might discover that you need to modify or clarify the objectives, deliverables, or milestones that were set for your project. You may find that the original project plan is acceptable, but that considerable work needs to be done to better explain it to your stakeholders. Or you may find that given all the compromises you made and shortcuts you took during the project, you’ve forgotten what you and your team originally committed to deliver. Imagine if Kate and her team from the TCW relocation case had conducted an action review right before their scheduled move date. Would they agree on all the work they should have completed before proceeding with the move? Would it have been helpful for them to take a step back and ask, “What did we commit to deliver by this point in the schedule? What did we tell employees would be ready before they moved to the new location? What should we have accomplished by this point in the project?”

Remind participants about the overall objectives for your change initiative and what should be happening by this point in time. And, if needed, allow participants time to talk this all through.

What actually is happening and why? In this phase of the meeting, lead a discussion about the results you are actually getting and the progress your team is making, compared with the overall project objective and milestones you have set. And discuss what’s working and what isn’t working that’s helping or hindering your team from achieving the desired results. In this phase of the meeting, you’re focused on getting at the ground truth. Given the project objectives and milestones you should have accomplished by this phase of the project, what actually is happening, and what are the root causes for these results?

You may want to start off by quickly reviewing project schedules and budgets and by asking meeting participants to comment on what’s on track and what isn’t. From there, ask each participant to share their perspective about what is working well and why. The action review is an appreciative process, and you want to make sure you and your team identify steps that are contributing to your success that you should keep on doing. You also will want to ask each participant to share what isn’t working as well and probe for root causes about why that is happening.

As the discussion proceeds, capture the key points on a flipchart or in notes that are projected (if you’re meeting in person) or shared (if you’re meeting online). You are trying to get a comprehensive and accurate sense of what is contributing to and detracting from project success. You don’t want to affix blame. So record what was said, not who said it. If needed, go around the room in order, asking each participant to share what they see is working well and what they see needs to improve. Keep the discussion moving. Ask participants to identify the most important issues they think need to be discussed, then focus there.

Ask open-ended questions to clarify details and better understand what participants really have experienced. Ask questions like:

• How did you reach that conclusion?

• Why is that significant?

• What were you assuming when that happened or when you did that?

• Can you give us an example?

Dig below the surface on issues and probe for root causes. Try asking “why” multiple times until it’s clear participants have identified something that, if addressed, could have real impact. If you’re familiar with tools such as the fishbone diagram or force field analysis, consider using them here to help participants really get at why an issue is occurring. Openly thank participants for sharing, especially when it is clear they are speaking about something they are reluctant to discuss.

What should we do about it? In this final phase of the action review, focus discussion on identifying steps your team will take to keep doing what is working well and to address what isn’t working as well. During this part of the meeting, your team might also agree on some overall lessons they have learned about the change initiative, themselves, and the organization. The goal here isn’t to generate a laundry list or wish list about what would be nice to have. Instead, as the facilitator, ask participants to share what they think is needed most to keep the change initiative on track or to get the initiative back on track. Participants may list ideas that they can implement themselves without any needed approval. When these ideas come up, ask participants if they in fact can commit to doing them. Participants may list other ideas that they can’t implement themselves or that they need approval to implement. Check your RACI matrix to confirm who might need to provide input or authorization before you proceed. If needed, ask for a volunteer to discuss the idea with the person or department that can implement or approve the idea, and ask them to report back at the next action review.

As participants propose ideas, probe and ask open-ended questions to ensure that the actions agreed to will have the intended impact. Consider asking questions such as:

• Why do you think we should do that?

• Why is _________ better than _________?

• How would that affect ___________?

• Tell us more about this idea.

• Tell us how that would work.

Remind participants to keep an open mind here. It’s not always easy to hear someone recommend ways for you to do your job better! But if you listen, you might discover a way to achieve a whole new level of effectiveness!

Wrap up the action review by asking attendees to share any lessons they have learned—or that the organization should learn—from this change initiative. Sometimes it helps to ask participants to state their lesson learned using the following structure: “When you are doing X, do Y.” Or, “If your situation is A, do B.” The goal is to identify lessons that members of the project team, or anyone in the organization, can apply as the project moves forward, or when similar projects occur in the future.

After the Meeting

Document your discussion. Summarize what was discussed by preparing and distributing meeting minutes. Consider using the action review template (see Table 16-1). At minimum, document and circulate the action items you and your teammates agreed to complete.

Take action. During an action review, you and your team typically focus on the past. You’re looking backwards and asking, what happened? Why did it happen? But the process doesn’t serve any purpose unless you focus on the future too. You need to act. What did you and your team agree to do to get your project back on track? Do that. Which stakeholder did you decide you need to re-engage? Meet with them. Which best practice did a teammate share that you agreed to try? Try it. Complete the action items that you and your team agreed to during the action review. And apply the lessons learned that you identified.

Tips for Facilitating an Action Review

Set a distinct period of time for brainstorming. Say something like, “Let’s spend 10 minutes identifying everything that’s working well, and then we’ll spend another 10 minutes identifying everything that isn’t working as well.” Keep the ideas flowing by asking participants to hold their evaluation and criticism. You want everyone to share their observations and perspectives.

• If someone is dominating the discussion, consider going around the room in round-robin fashion.

• Watch for participants who are silent or who seem disengaged during the discussion. Do they have a point of view that needs to be heard? Should you direct questions specifically to them during the meeting? Or should you check with them during a break or after the meeting concludes?

• Watch for too much consensus and agreement. Are you really hearing everyone’s perspective? Has your team really identified what’s causing the problem? Will the action you’ve identified really resolve the issue? Do you need someone to play the role of devil’s advocate—or do you need someone from your red team to review what you’re proposing?

• Thank participants for sharing their ideas and observations, especially when their views differ from the views of the majority. Encourage honest and candid dialogue by recognizing those who speak openly, respectfully, and with candor.

When Should You Conduct Action Reviews?

When you conduct an action review, you’re taking time out of your busy day to reflect on what’s working and what isn’t working. You’re investing time that you assume will pay off as you identify actions that will make your project more efficient and effective. You’re committing resources now with the goal of identifying lessons that will improve your performance in the future. Think about when it makes the most sense to invest your time and the time of your colleagues.

Review Both Big and Small Change Projects

You can conduct action reviews during large-scale change initiatives that take many weeks or months to complete, but the process can be useful during smaller change projects too. Just ask yourself, would it help if participants had a constructive opportunity available to talk about what’s working well that needs to keep happening and what needs to improve. If the answer is yes, conduct an action review. Maybe all you need is a 10-minute huddle. Maybe you need half a day to review something really large in scale. Adjust the timing of your action review to match the magnitude of your project and the amount of discussion you expect will occur.

Review the Good and the Bad

Sometimes companies plan and conduct action reviews only when things are going off the rails. They think they will save time by allowing projects that are going well to unfold without reviews. This is a mistake. There are lessons you can learn from successful—and less successful—initiatives. It’s a lost opportunity if you focus only on what’s going wrong that needs to improve. You want to figure out what is going right that you need to keep doing too. And every project, even the most successful ones, experiences some hiccups that represent opportunities to do things better.

You also don’t want to create the misperception that your organization devotes time and attention only when bad things occur. Build a habit within your organization of self-reflection, self-criticism, continuous improvement, and learning. Conduct action reviews on change initiatives that are going badly and on those that are going well.

Review Projects at the End, in the Middle, and at the Beginning

Some organizations already have a practice of conducting a review discussion at the conclusion of each change project. After the flurry of project activities has come to an end and people are beginning to settle into their new routine, it’s not uncommon for employees to want to look back and talk about what worked well and what could have gone better. Action reviews provide the opportunity for that discussion to happen in a way that is focused on learning and continuous improvement, rather than on assigning blame. It doesn’t matter if your organization won’t repeat the exact same project again. Each time your organization embarks on changing something—whether it’s a technology or a process or a physical setting or an organizational structure—there is much to be learned about how well your organization made decisions, how well those decisions were executed, and how decision making and execution could be improved in the future. When you conduct an action review at the conclusion of your project, you have the opportunity to identify lessons learned that you can readily apply to other types of change.

But beware of falling into the postmortem trap, where you wait until the very end of a change initiative to meet—where you generate a laundry list of what worked and what didn’t and wonder if any of it matters anyway. The damage is already done. Isn’t it too late to fix anything? That’s what happened to Kate and her team in the TCW relocation case. They missed the opportunity to identify actions their project team needed to take while their project was still ongoing, before anyone moved into facilities that weren’t quite ready. Organizations with strong change management capability use the action review process throughout their entire project life cycle, meeting at each key milestone or on a regularly scheduled basis, from the very beginning of a project, to support continuous improvement and learning. They ensure their action reviews lead to action, because they conduct them when there’s still time to intervene.

Conduct an action review at the start of your project, to set it off on the right course; periodically throughout your project, to help you stay on course; and at the end of your project, to help wrap up loose ends and identify lessons learned that can help you succeed on future change initiatives. Although the basic format for your meetings will be the same, the intent and the structure of the questions you ask will be somewhat different depending on when you hold the meeting (see Table 16-2).

Table 16-2. Conducting Reviews at the Beginning of, During, and After a Change

A Review at the Beginning of a Change?

A group of architects recognized that they needed to change the way they worked with their clients. Their last few projects hadn’t gone well, and now they were about to start work on a mammoth renovation project they knew could make or break them. How could they start this project on the right foot, avoid mistakes they experienced in the past, and better address their client’s needs? The architects hadn’t conducted action reviews before, and they hadn’t documented the problems they experienced in prior initiatives. But they agreed to participate in an action review before they started work on their newest endeavor. Here’s what they discussed:

• What did they anticipate would go well? They realized the project kickoff sessions they conduct with their clients typically helped get things started on the right foot. They had a good format for these meetings, clients found the meetings to be productive, and the architects got the information they needed to create initial plans. This was something they decided to keep doing as they moved forward with the new renovation project.

• What did they anticipate would go less well? Thinking back to their work with other clients, they admitted to doing a poor job managing architects and space planners that they subcontracted work to. They recognized that on the new project, at least one of them would need to be present whenever a subcontractor met with their client. They saw that in their rush to keep things moving forward, they sometimes would fail to keep clients up-to-date about the status of a project. They committed to scheduling regular status-update sessions with their new client. And they recognized that some key leaders on their new client’s team were less than enthusiastic about the project. They committed to paying extra attention to the needs and concerns of these more reluctant partners, so they’d better understand their reservations and hopefully find ways to address them.

The architects met for more than a day, discussing what they anticipated would go well and what wouldn’t. In the end, they committed to about a dozen actions—one of which was to conduct periodic action reviews throughout the course of their new project! Yes, they encountered some unexpected hiccups and issues as their new project unfolded, but the architects were pleased to see that, because of their advance discussion and planning, they didn’t repeat the same mistakes that had plagued their other projects.

Reviewing Your Action Reviews

After conducting action reviews on several projects, consider doing a second-tier review, during which you read through your notes and documentation from several action reviews. See if you can identify trends in what was discussed, obstacles that were encountered, and lessons that were learned. You may find that the same issues come up over and over again across multiple projects. We discovered that in one company I worked with. In almost every action review employees participated in, they talked about how they failed to establish clear roles and responsibilities at the outset of their project and how that led to lots of problems, delays, and misunderstandings. Once we recognized this trend, we knew we could help teams avoid this issue in the future by teaching them how to construct a simple RACI matrix.

If your organization repeats the same mistake over and over again, you’re inadvertently feeding employees’ perspective that the organization isn’t good at managing change, that change should be resisted, and that “these kinds of projects just don’t work.” The answers may already be there in your action reviews; it’s just up to you and your organization to apply these lessons.

Or you may find that your company is incorporating ideas discovered during earlier change projects into the work plans for subsequent change initiatives. And some of these ideas may really be helping these projects succeed. Good for you! You are building your organization’s change management capability. You are also creating employee confidence in the way your company handles change.

How an Action Review Saved Me From Saying “I Told You So”

The business unit was about to embark on a multiyear process and technology change initiative that would affect thousands of employees. Leaders in several departments voiced their opposition. Did it really make sense to invest so much right now? After all, the business unit was still recovering from a recent financial setback. Why did the company select this vendor to partner with? They had advocated for a different approach. And who decided the project should focus on financial systems first? Everyone knew that manufacturing operations was where the business unit really needed an overhaul.

I knew that for this project to succeed, we’d need to assign a project leader who would listen to all these varying viewpoints, help key stakeholders feel involved, and still find a way to keep things moving forward. So when the project sponsor told me who was being considered for the project leader role, I objected vigorously. “He has a reputation for being an autocrat,” I protested, “and that’s the opposite of what’s needed here. He’s famous for playing the blame game. He doesn’t hold himself accountable for anything. And he leaves a trail of bodies behind him on every project he works on.” The project sponsor listened. He confirmed he had heard that feedback from others too. But then he said, “We’re moving ahead with him anyway.”

“Lucky thing I’m not working on this project,” I chuckled to myself. I understood that change management would be led by the vendor, under the direction of the project leader. But still, I feared—I knew—that I’d be called in at some point to help clean up all the carnage. I shrugged as I left the project sponsor’s office. “I tried,” I sighed. “Oh, well.”

I wish I could say my predictions were wrong, but six months into the project, it was clear the business unit had a disaster on their hands. Project meetings deteriorated into name-calling sessions. Employees whose knowledge and skills were sorely needed resigned, leaving the business unit struggling to figure out how to get day-to-day work done, let alone the work of the project. And the project leader kept defending his own misbehavior, claiming he was working with incompetent people, so how could they expect him to meet scheduled deadlines?

In the end, the project was put on hold. The project leader left the organization to pursue other endeavors. And I found myself meeting with the project sponsor yet again. As expected, he wanted me to get involved to help fix some of the organizational damage that had occurred. “Sure, I’ll help,” I said. “But I need your help too. Every cell in my body wants to say ‘I told you so’ right now. I warned you about the mess this project leader would create. I told you about the damage he would cause. But you went ahead anyway. Help me figure out what I should say to you now. Because I really want to say ‘I told you so.’ But I won’t.” (OK, maybe I did just say it.)

The project sponsor listened intently as I spoke. He nodded and smiled. “Why don’t we conduct an after action review?” he proposed. “Just the steering team, me, and you. We’ll talk through what just happened here. And why. You know, we thought we picked a great project leader, given the technical skills and experience he brought to the project. But we were wrong. What were the signals we missed? What should we have considered when we were selecting a project leader? And let’s talk through why we didn’t listen to the people who told us we were going down the wrong path. Maybe we missed what you were telling us. Maybe you could have provided your feedback to us in a different way. Maybe you could have suggested we hire a coach for the project leader. We can do better, and maybe you can do better too.” I paused and considered that maybe the project sponsor had a point.

And so we conducted the action review. The steering team members learned some lessons they vowed to apply the next time they selected a project leader. They learned some lessons about listening to their employees. I learned some lessons too. I learned some new ways to communicate with the executive team so my ideas were really heard. I learned that I still had an opportunity to contribute even after—or maybe especially after—a decision is made that I disagreed with. And I learned that conducting an action review means never having to say “I told you so.”

Addressing the Soft Side With the Action Review

Although the action review is a tool for keeping projects on track—it helps you focus on the hard side of change—to benefit from using the practice, you need to simultaneously focus on the soft side. You’re using the practice to gather input and to generate ideas so your team will make more informed project decisions. But to get that input and those ideas, you need to create an environment in which people feel they can honestly share their observations and perspectives. Here are some tips for creating that climate so your action review meetings can be most productive.

Train employees and leaders on how to engage in productive and respectful dialogue. Consider offering training that helps employees develop their emotional intelligence, so they’re better attuned to what others may be feeling and better equipped to manage their own emotions as they process feedback received during an action review meeting. Help employees build skill in conducting frank and honest, yet respectful, dialogue by encouraging them to read Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. Or provide employees an opportunity to participate in Crucial Conversations training (see VitalSmarts.com). Check out the Interaction Management training program offered by DDI (see DDIWorld.com); it’s a great resource for helping you build a climate of trust and psychological safety, where honest and candid conversation can occur. And encourage employees to read Change Your Questions, Change Your Life before they participate in an action review meeting. They’ll see how they can embrace the learner mindset—as opposed to the judger mindset—and discover how to ask more insightful questions of themselves and others so the action review meeting can be most productive.

Conduct separate reviews for each organizational level—the pros and cons. Some organizations conduct multiple action reviews, with participants segregated by organizational level. For example, a company may decide to have one action review attended by lower-level employees, where the focus is on project execution; a second attended by managers, where the focus is on project decision making; and a third attended by a few representatives from each of these groups, where the focus is on integrating these two perspectives. The benefit of this approach is that lower-level employees may feel more comfortable sharing their ground truth, discussing where they could have improved their own performance, without their managers present. And likewise, managers may feel more comfortable critiquing their own decision making without their employees watching on. However, separating participants by level could send an unwanted message about lack of trust between management and employees. Also, there is a rich opportunity for learning that is missed when employees don’t hear about the factors their managers weighed when making decisions—right and wrong—and when managers don’t hear firsthand from employees about what they experienced as they tried to implement those decisions. Consider what will work best in your organization.

Enforce ground rules. A key responsibility of the action review facilitator is to monitor and enforce adherence to the meeting ground rules. Ground rules can help create the kind of climate that’s needed for honest discussion to occur. Keep the ground rules posted throughout your meeting and don’t feel shy about referencing them if you begin to see violations. Remind participants that the purpose of the meeting is continuous improvement and learning, not affixing blame. If appropriate, use some humor to gently prod participants back into compliance. Help participants reframe and restate their questions and comments when needed so others are more open to listening to them. Encourage participants to make “I” statements, such as “I was confused when I read the email,” instead of “You” statements, such as “You didn’t explain things clearly enough in the email.”

Identify key issues before the meeting. Do some homework before the action review occurs, meeting one-on-one with key participants, to get a read on the issues that are likely to bubble up—or that need to be discussed but that may be suppressed during the meeting. Check in with a few members of the transition-monitoring team to get a sense of which problems they think might come up—or which issues ought to be discussed—during the meeting. Find out where the sensitivities are. Then, during the meeting, place yourself in the role of empathy expert. Look around the room and ask yourself, “What is this person thinking and feeling right now? What can I say to encourage them to open up here?”

Ask leaders to model self-criticism. Before the action review occurs, meet privately with a more senior member of the team who will be attending the meeting. Ask them to serve as a role model of self-reflection and self-criticism, by admitting during the meeting to missteps they made and by agreeing to take action to address those mistakes.

Consider the connection to performance management. Some organizations are so committed to ensuring honest discussion during their action reviews that they have made this formal commitment to employees: There is no connection between what is said during an action review and an employee’s performance appraisal. The thinking is that with that commitment, employees will feel free to engage in honest self-criticism, and will also feel free to openly discuss what their peers—and their managers—are doing that helps and hinders the change initiative. You may want to explore if that approach makes sense for your organization.

Decide if you need an outside facilitator. Typically a member of your project team can facilitate the action review. However, if you expect the action review meeting to be particularly contentious, see if it makes sense to ask someone from outside the project team to facilitate so the appropriate meeting climate is established and maintained. Talent development staff often have strong meeting-facilitation skills and are cued into the sensitivities and political and emotional dynamics that may be present on a project team. Consider asking them to facilitate your action review, if needed.

About to Begin?

Do you need help convincing your organization to use the action review process during change initiatives? Conduct action reviews on your own work and projects and invite internal clients and project sponsors from other areas to participate. You will be exposing other areas to the value of the action review process, and will be doing so in a nonthreatening setting. After all, you will be providing another area with an opportunity to discuss your work—not theirs! Once your internal clients see the value of the action review process, offer to facilitate, or co-facilitate, one or more reviews on the projects they conduct in their areas.

And to build skill conducting action reviews, consider using the practice first on projects that are proceeding fairly well before you move on to less successful, more challenging initiatives. It’s likely that employees will be more willing to engage in self-reflection and honest discussion about what might be done differently when things generally are going well. After employees become comfortable with the process, then you can expand it to cover more challenging initiatives, and ultimately make the process a standard for all your change projects. Build a habit of self-criticism and honest conversation when things are less threatening, so employees will be more willing to open up and talk about the tough stuff when it’s really needed.

Of course, sometimes things really do go off the rails. Despite your best efforts, you may feel at a loss for what to do to get your project back on track. In chapter 17, we’ll take a look at some common issues that can arise during change initiatives. We’ll also look at adjustments you can make to get your project moving again on a better path.

Learn more. Check out:

Salem-Schatz, S., D. Ordin, and B. Mittman. 2010. Guide to the After Action Review. cebma.org/wp-content/uploads/Guide-to-the-after_action_review.pdf.