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
27 - Implementing After-Action Review Systems in Organizations
Key Principles and Practical Considerations
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
Actors in high-reliability organizations often form meetings to discuss incidents and learn from them. Such after-action reviews (AARs) are structured opportunities for shared retrospective learning, innovation development, and continuous improvement. Research on AARs has examined the meeting-level antecedents and outcomes associated with various elements of AARs, but has generally stopped short of considering how they should influence and respond to the organizations in which they are situated. After connecting the functions of AARs using the theoretical frameworks of collective sensemaking, organizational learning, and knowledge management, this chapter presents an input-process-output model of AAR systems that accounts for a range of extra-meeting factors that influence and are influenced by the content of retrospective discussion. It also describes best practices and directions for future research associated with these inputs, processes, and outputs.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science , pp. 634 - 660Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
Abrahamson, D. E. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2014). Impediments to information and knowledge sharing within policing: A study of three Canadian policing organizations. Sage Open. doi:10.1177/2158244013519363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J. A., Baran, B. E., & Scott, C. S. (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
Allen, J. A., Beck, T., Scott, C., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2014). Understanding workplace meetings: A qualitative taxonomy of meeting purposes. Management Research Review, 37(9), 791–814. doi:10.1108/MRR-03–2013–0067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J. A., Scott, C. W., Tracy, S. J., & Crowe, J. D. (2014). The signal provision of emotion: Using emotions to enhance reliability via sensemaking. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 6, 240–260. doi:10.1504/IJWOE.2014.065758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axley, S. R. (1984). Managerial and organizational communication in terms of the conduit metaphor. Academy of Management Review, 9, 428–437. doi:10.5465/AMR.1984.4279664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bantz, C. R., & Smith, D. H. (1977). A critique and experimental test of Weick's model of organizing. Communications Monographs, 44, 171–184. doi:10.1080/03637757709390129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baran, B. E., & Scott, C. W. (2010). Organizing ambiguity: A grounded theory of leadership and sensemaking within dangerous contexts. Military Psychology, 22(S1), S42–S69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baran, B. E., Shanock, L. R., Rogelberg, S. G., & Scott, C. W. (2012). Leading group meetings: Supervisors' actions, employee behaviors, and upward perceptions. Small Group Research, 43, 330–355. doi:10.1177/1046496411418252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2958.1975.tb00258.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovating. Organization Science, 2, 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Browning, L. D. (1992). Lists and stories as organizational communication. Communication Theory, 2, 281–302. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2885.1992.tb00045.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 325–370. doi:10.1007/BF00122575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284–295. doi:10.5465/AMR.1984.4277657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, A., Scott, C. W., Bonilla, D. L., & Allen, J. (2014, July). Quantity and quality: Increasing safety norms through after action reviews. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Network for Group Research. Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. doi:10.2307/2666999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, N. (1991). Values, sympathy, and individual differences: Toward a pluralism of factors influencing altruism and empathy. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks, Risk Analysis, 14, 1101–1108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86, 109–120. doi:10.1225/R0803HGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (2000). Organizational learning, performance, and change: An introduction to strategic human resource development. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.Google Scholar
Hallett, T., Harger, B., & Eder, D. (2009). Gossip at work: Unsanctioned evaluative talk in formal school meetings. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38, 584–618. doi:10.1177/0891241609342117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (1995). Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 292–316. doi:10.1037//0021–9010.80.2.292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iverson, J. O., & McPhee, R. D. (2008). Communicating knowledge through communities of practice: Exploring internal communicative processes and differences among CoPs. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 176–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keltner, J. S. (1989). Facilitation catalyst for group problem solving. Management Communication Quarterly, 3(1), 8–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, M. W. (2003). Managing uncertainty in organizational communication. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers of group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science, social equilibria, and social change. Human Relations, 1, 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92–120. doi:10.5465/AMR.1991.4278997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, M. W., & Moore, P. C. (2000). The lessons we (don't) learn: Counterfactual thinking and organizational accountability after a close call. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 737–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Information seeking within organizations. Human Communication Research, 28, 229–242. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2958.2002.tb00805.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. A., & Anderson, J. C. (1987). Message flow and decision making. In Jablin, F. M., Putnam, L. L., Porter, L. W., & Roberts, K. H. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 704–731). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Patriotta, G. (2003). Sensemaking on the shop floor: Narratives of knowledge in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 349–375. doi:10.1111/1467–6486.00343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1969). Knowing and being: Essays by Michael Polanyi. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.Google Scholar
Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41, 248–265. doi:10.1080/10510979009368307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter-Palmon, R., Kennel, V., Allen, J. A., Jones, K., & Skinner, A. (2004). Naturalistic decision making in after-action review meetings: The implementation of and learning from post-fall huddles. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. doi:10.1111/joop.12084Google Scholar
Rhodes, C., & Brown, A. D. (2005). Narrative, organizations, and research. Journal of Management Review, 7, 167–188. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2370.2005.00112.xGoogle Scholar
Ron, N., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2002). How organizations learn: Post-flight reviews in a F-16 fighter squadron. Organization Studies, 27, 1069–1089. doi:10.1177/0170840606064567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultze, U., & Stabell, C. (2004). Knowing what you don't know? Discourses and contradictions in knowledge management research. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 549–573. doi:10.1111/j.1467–6486.2004.00444.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, R. M. (1994). The skilled facilitator: Practical wisdom for developing effective groups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Scott, C., Allen, J. A., Bonilla, D., Baran, B., & Murphy, D. (2013). Ambiguity and freedom of dissent in post incident discussion. Journal of Business Communication, 50(4), 383–402. doi:10.1177/0021943613497054Google Scholar
Scott, W. C., & Tretheway, A. (2008). Organizational discourse and the appraisal of occupational hazards: Interpretive reservoirs, heedful interrelating, and identity at work. Journal of Applied Communication in Research, 36, 298–317. doi:10.1080/00909880802172137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior (50th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Stohl, C. & Putnam, L. L. (1994). Group communication in context: Implications for the study of bona fide groups. In Frey, L. (Ed.), Communication in context: Studies in naturalistic groups (pp. 285–292). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of group behavior. In Worchel, L. & Austin, W. (Eds.), The psychology of group behavior (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.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
Teboul, R. (1996). Introduction a l'oeuvre de Mane. Paris: Ellipses/Edition Marketing.Google Scholar
Thackaberry, J. A. (2004). “Discursive opening” and closing in organisational self-study culture as trap and tool in wildland firefighting safety. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(3), 319–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Army. (2011). A leader's guide to after-action reviews (Training Circular 25–20). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Author.Google Scholar
Waring, J. J. (2009). Constructing and re-constructing narratives of patient safety. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 1722–1731. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.09.052CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E., & Ashford, S. J. (2001). Learning in organizations. In Jablin, F. M. & Putnam, L. L. (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 704–731). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409–421. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. A. (2007). The story behind an organizational list: A genealogy of wildland firefighters' 10 Standard Fire Orders. Communication Monographs, 74, 415–442. doi:10.1080/036377507017165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5
- Cited by