Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures
- Contributors
- Book part
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Premeeting Activities and Context
- Part III The Meeting Itself
- Part IV Special Types of Meetings
- Postevent Meetings
- 26 Debrief
- 27 Implementing After-Action Review Systems in Organizations
- Virtual Meetings
- Part V Synthesis and Conclusion
- Book part
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
26 - Debrief
The Learning Meeting
from Postevent Meetings
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2015
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures
- Contributors
- Book part
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Premeeting Activities and Context
- Part III The Meeting Itself
- Part IV Special Types of Meetings
- Postevent Meetings
- 26 Debrief
- 27 Implementing After-Action Review Systems in Organizations
- Virtual Meetings
- Part V Synthesis and Conclusion
- Book part
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Abstract
Debriefs are an effective tool for increasing learning and performance within organizations. They are regarded as “one of the most promising methods for accelerating learning from experience” (Eddy, Tannenbaum, & Mathieu, 2013, p. 976), and meta-analytic evidence supports their effectiveness (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013). Research also suggests that the success of a debrief is reliant on proper execution techniques. In this chapter, we identify and define debriefs and review scientifically supported strategies for achieving a well-executed debrief. Moreover, we present a table of recommendations based on this review of the debrief literature. Our intention is that these recommendations will serve as guidelines for the practical application of debriefs.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science , pp. 617 - 633Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
Allen, J. A., Baran, B. E., & Scott, C. W. (2010). After-action reviews: A venue for the promotion of safety climate. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42, 750–757. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.11.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arafeh, J. M., Hansen, S. S., & Nichols, A. (2010). Debriefing in simulated-based learning: Facilitating a reflective discussion. Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 24, 302–309. doi:10.1097/JPN.0b013e3181f6b5ecCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, T. T. (1992). Effects of alternative modeling strategies on outcomes of interpersonal-skills training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195–202. doi:10.1002/job.82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. J. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors: Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42, 151–173. doi:10.1518/001872000779656561CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dismukes, R. K., Jobe, K. K., McDonnell, L. K. (2000). Facilitating LOFT debriefings: A critical analysis. In Dismukes, R. K. & Smith, G. M. (Eds.), Facilitation and debriefing in aviation training and operations (pp. 13–25). Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Dismukes, R. K., McDonnell, L. K., & Jobe, K. K. (2000). Facilitating LOFT debriefings: Instructor techniques and crew participation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 35–57. doi:10.1207/S15327108IJAP1001_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dismukes, R. K., & Smith, G. M. (Eds.). (2000). Facilitation in aviation training and operations. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Dunn, A. M, Scott, C. W., Allen, J. A., & Bonilla, D. (2014). Quantity and quality: Increasing safety norms through after action reviews. Paper presented at the INGRoup Conference, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
Eddy, E. R., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Mathieu, J. E. (2013). Helping teams to help themselves: Comparing two team-led debriefing methods. Personnel Psychology, 66, 975–1008. doi:10.1111/peps.12041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelson, D. P., Litzinger, B., Arora, V., Walsh, D., Kim, S., Lauderdale, D. S.,…& Abella, B. S. (2008). Improving in-hospital cardiac arrest process and outcomes with performance debriefing. Archives of Internal Medicine, 168, 1063–1069. doi:10.1001/archinte.168.10.1063CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. doi:10.2307/2666999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 857–871. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.842CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, S., Ganzach, Y., Castle, E., & Sekely, G. (2010). The effect of filmed versus personal after-event reviews on task performance: The mediating and moderating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 122–131. doi:10.1037/a0017867CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanning, R. M., & Gaba, D. M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 2, 115–125. doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180315539CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flanagan, B. (2008). Debriefing: Theory and techniques. In Riley, R. H. (Ed.), Manual of simulation in healthcare (pp. 155–170). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaba, D. M., Howard, S. K., Fish, K. J., Smith, B. E., & Sowb, Y. A. (2001). Simulation-based training in anesthesia crisis resource management (ACRM): A decade of experience. Simulation & Gaming,32, 175–193. doi:10.1177/104687810103200206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez, L. F., & Ballard, D. I. (2011). Communication for change: Transactive memory systems as dynamic capabilities. In Shani, A. B., Woodman, R. W., & Pasmore, W. A. (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 19, pp. 91–115). Binkley, UK: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Group for Organizational Effectiveness. (2011). DebriefNow. The Group for Organizational Effectiveness. Retrieved from https://www.groupoe.com/products/p-debriefnow.htmlGoogle Scholar
Halamek, L. P. (2008). The simulated delivery-room environment as the future modality for acquiring and maintaining skills in fetal and neonatal resuscitation. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine,13, 448–453. doi:10.1016/j.siny.2008.04.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinni, T. (2003). Pride goeth before a profit. Retrieved December 30, 2008, from Harvard Business School Working Knowledge: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/3688.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Heffner, T. S., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283. doi:10.I037t/0021-9010.85.2.273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, J. E., & Meliza, L. L. (1999). Foundations of the after action review process (Special Report 42). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 946–953. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.91.4.946CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate. In Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R., & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 565–594). New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2004). Improving dynamic decision making through debriefing: An empirical study. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 256–260. Finland: ICALT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roebuck, D. B., Brock, S. J., & Moodie, D. R. (2004). Using a simulation to explore the challenges of communicating in a virtual team. Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 359–367. doi:10.1177/1080569904268083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ron, N., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2002). How organizations learn: Post-flight reviews in an F 16 fighter squadron. Organization Studies, 27, 1069–1089. doi:10.1177/0170840606064567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., Rivard, P., Dufresne, R. L., & Raemer, D. B. (2007). Debriefing with good judgment: Combining rigorous feedback with genuine inquiry. Anesthesiology Clinics, 25, 361–376. doi:10.1016/j.anclin.2007.03.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salas, E., Klein, C., King, H., Salisbury, M., Augenstein, J. S., Birnbach, D. J.,…& Upshaw, C. (2008). Debriefing medical teams: 12 evidence-based best practices and tips. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 34, 518–527.Google ScholarPubMed
Salas, E., Nichols, D. R., & Driskell, J. E. (2007). Testing three team training strategies in intact teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 38, 471–488. doi:10.1177/1046496407304332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, E. & Rosen, M. A. (2009). Performance assessment. In Schmorrow, D., Cohn, J., & Nicholson, D. (Eds.), The PSI handbook of virtual environments for training and education: Developments for the military and beyond (pp. 227–235). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. (2000). The psychological life of organizations. In Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. xvii–xxvi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Scott, C., Allen, J. A., Bonilla, D. L., Baran, B. E., & Murphy, D. (2013). Ambiguity and freedom of dissent in post-incident discussion. Journal of Business Communication, 50, 383–402. doi:10.1177/0021943613497054Google Scholar
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2008). Guided team self-correction: Impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39, 303–327. doi:10.1177/1046496408317794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Johnston, J. H., & Payne, S. C. (1998). Measuring team-related expertise in complex environments. In Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 61–87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Zeisig, R. L., Acton, B., & McPherson, J. A. (1998). Team dimensional training: A strategy for guided team self-correction. In Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 271–297). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, S. I. (2013). Using debriefs – A simple, powerful experiential learning tool. Paper presented at the meeting of the Organization Development Network, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, L. R., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Conducting team debriefs that work: Lessons from research and practice. In Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Cohen, D., & Latham, G. (Eds.), Developing and enhancing teamwork in organizations (pp. 488–519). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55, 231–245. doi:10.1177/0018720812448394CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., Chan, , & D. W. L., (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 692–709. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.692CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge?. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 973–993. doi:10.1111/1467–6486.00268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villado, A. J., & Arthur, W. J. (2013). The comparative effect of subjective and objective after-action reviews on team performance on a complex task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 514–528. doi:10.1037/a0031510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimbush, J. C., & Shepard, J. M. (1994). Toward understanding of ethical climate: Its relationship to ethical behavior and supervisory influence. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 637–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Z. (2007). Human factors in project management: Concepts, tools, and techniques for inspiring teamwork and motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by