Contents
The exercise is over. The soldiers sit in the field, exhausted. An umpire steps forward and announces how the engagement turned out – according to his own judgment. For a long time, this was the standard debrief in the U.S. Army: the “performance critique.” It was seen as lacking credibility and met with resistance. Whoever had lost disputed the result. Little was learned. What the Army made of it is now a well-researched teamwork tool: the After Action Review, or AAR for short. It is a textbook case of the Team Principle of the Scoreboard: only a team that knows where it stands can adjust course.
From Verdict to Record
Situation
The development is traced in a 1999 report for the U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) by John E. Morrison and Larry L. Meliza. A forerunner existed as early as World War II: the military historian S. L. A. Marshall interviewed units in groups immediately after combat. Between 1973 and 1975, the ARI developed the engagement simulations SCOPES and REALTRAIN. They gave rise to the first systematic procedures for reviewing an exercise after it ended. In 1982, force-on-force exercises began at the National Training Center. The MILES laser system recorded hits objectively. In the mid-1980s, the networked simulation SIMNET was added, supplying even more data.
Connection to the team principle
The first step was a credible score. As long as an umpire decided the outcome, the troops argued about the umpire. Only once hits were measured could they talk about their own performance. A score the team does not trust is useless for adjusting course. It is good only for self-justification.
The Unit Reviews Itself
Situation
An AAR is led by observers, the “Observer/Controllers.” They facilitate rather than judge. The unit is meant to draw its own conclusions. The Army’s 1993 manual, Training Circular 25-20, describes the AAR, in essence, as a professional discussion of an event, focused on performance standards. In it, soldiers discover for themselves what happened, why it happened and how to sustain strengths and improve on weaknesses. The ARI report sets out the differences from the old critique: active rather than passive soldiers, discussion rather than lecture, an open rather than defensive climate, objective data rather than subjective judgment.
Connection to the team principle
The second step: the team reads the score itself. A number on the scoreboard tells you that something went wrong. It does not tell you why. Only the people who were there have that answer. That is why it is not enough for the leaders to know the score and announce it. The manual’s three questions lead from the result to the cause, and from the cause to the next action. Only that last step is actually adjusting course.
Immediately and at Every Level
Situation
The review takes place immediately after the exercise. It is staggered by level: a platoon needs about 30 to 45 minutes, a company about an hour, a battalion and higher echelons about two hours. There are also two formats. Formal AARs have a trained facilitator. Informal ones are very short, and the team leader runs them personally.
Connection to the team principle
A score goes stale quickly. If you review weeks later, you are reviewing memories. And each level needs its own score. The platoon needs to know how it moved. The battalion needs to know whether its plan worked. The two cannot be settled in a single meeting. The informal format also shows that no big apparatus is needed. Ten honest minutes after a mission are better than an elaborate review that never happens.
Beyond the Army
Situation
The Army’s own opposing force (OPFOR), which plays the enemy in training exercises, and the oil company Shell were early adopters. In Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), the AAR is increasingly used to improve patient safety. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust introduced it in 2008.
Connection to the team principle
The method is not tied to the battlefield. It fits wherever a team has done something that can be observed and compared against a standard: a surgical operation, a project phase, a client meeting, a church service.
What the Research Says
Situation
In a 2013 meta-analysis, Scott I. Tannenbaum and Christopher P. Cerasoli analyzed 46 samples. Compared with control groups, debriefs improved performance by about 25% on average – for teams and individuals alike. In 2021, Nathanael L. Keiser and Winfred Arthur Jr. found a similarly clear effect across 61 studies. It was stronger when the debrief was based on objective records.
Connection to the team principle
The findings support what the Army learned from experience. They show an average effect, not a guarantee in every individual case. And the evidence is strongest for tasks with observable performance, such as training, the military and medicine. For work that is hard to measure, choosing the yardstick is itself the real task.
Key takeaways
Key Lessons
- Make sure there is a score everyone trusts. Record the facts before you and your team discuss interpretations: figures, times, logs, recordings.
- Let the team carry out its own review. Facilitate rather than judge. Your job is to ask the questions, not to deliver the verdict.
- Ask three questions: What happened? Why did it happen? What do we keep, and what do we change?
- Review immediately. A short session right after the job beats a big retrospective next quarter.
- Give every level its own review. A small team has different questions from those of division leadership.
Summary
The U.S. Army replaced a debrief in which an umpire announced the result with a conversation in which the unit itself works out what happened and why. This became possible once hits were recorded objectively. Since then, the review has taken place immediately after the exercise, at every level. Meta-analyses show that such debriefs clearly improve performance on average. The example makes the Team Principle of the Scoreboard tangible: the score has to be accurate, and the team has to read it for itself. Then it can adjust course.