
This much I know: 9 leadership lessons from global CEOsâŻÂ
From absorbing stress to finding your authentic voice, nine leaders of global companies share the wisdom that has helped them excel in their roles.⯠...
by Ben Bryant Published October 1, 2021 in Brain Circuits ⢠4 min read
Team
reviews and learning dialogues have become common practice in many organizations.
However, the potential for real learning from these dialogues has only scratched
the surface of what might be learnt.
The most common tool, adopted from the US military is the âAfter-Action Reviewâ (AAR). After the conclusion of a project or episode, the team shares what went well, what didnât go well, and what should be done differently next time. This process is recommended regardless of success or failure. There is no doubt that for project teams with a clear task and goal, this tool will work well. Five questions ensure that lessons are learnt, and changes made for the next time. However, for more complex projects with ambiguous or changing goals, the AAR is limited by two things: its timing, and its focus on task.
Timing the review: After an event is over, people and teams are already rewriting history to justify the outcome. That history will be different according to the emotional end-state of the team; these emotional end-states can alter the narrative of what actually happened. If the narrative is positive, they tend to justify their success based on everything and anything they have done. The outcome is justified or rationalized, without thinking critically. If the narrative is not so positive, they will wonder whether itâs worth going into difficult issues now that the project is over. If the team wants to move forward and forget about the difficult moments, they will. Why raise the uncomfortable stuff now? They may gloss over anything that might have been. Different explanations will emerge in private conversations.
The focus on task: The AAR tool is designed to keep emotions at bay and focus purely on task-related problems, rather than the relationships and emotions that also affect outcomes. That can give people the sense that everything is rational and that any mistakes were plausible errors of awareness, interpretation, or judgement. In this way, project outcomes are rationalized, giving the team the belief that if they had done something differently, they would have performed better. While that makes perfect sense, we know that when emotions are suppressed, they tend to trigger defense mechanisms that distort reality. Emotions and feelings must be included in team reviews.
When and how to engage? People often think team development needs to happen at transition points, but if you do an after-action review at the end of the day, people just want to go home. The most effective team development appears to happen when they are right in the middle of something. To this end, leaders should rethink how they create learning as an integrated part of their teams. Learning dialogues should be spontaneous, at midpoints, at start points, as well as at the end. They should invite emotional release so that the less distorted and perhaps less rational narratives can emerge.
For example, if you are in a meeting and everybody is looking very bored or frustrated or checked out, perhaps itâs a good time to say, âWeâre going to take an hour here and just talk about exactly whatâs going on in this group.â That is the time where you want to look at getting the team unstuck and helping them get their energy back.
Pull out a flip chart and take the temperature of every team member, find out what they are feeling at that exact moment. Then write it up on the chart â it changes and engages the dynamic because people hold so much stuff inside in a group, there needs to be some mechanisms for release.
Checking in often will save time in the future: This isnât a one-off, but something that needs to be integrated into your routines. The dynamics of a group move in a way such that this will give some relief. And although people will move forward after such dialogues, they will eventually become stuck again.
Team leaders also need to set aside half a day every three months, or a full day every six months, where you really focus on team dialogues. This may seem like a big time investment, but without it you will probably spend more time on your primary task. If you are not setting aside time once a week, then at least do it every three to six months. This doesnât mean conflict will go away, but people feel more engaged because you are talking about whatâs really going on for them.
Professor of Leadership and Organization at IMD
Ben Bryant is a is a highly skilled educator, executive team coach, and speaker. He is Professor of Leadership and Organization at IMD in Lausanne and Director of the IMD CEO Learning Center and the Transformational Leader program. He was previously the Kristian Gerhard Jebsen Chair for Responsible Leadership.
July 10, 2025 ⢠by Jean-François Manzoni in Brain Circuits
From absorbing stress to finding your authentic voice, nine leaders of global companies share the wisdom that has helped them excel in their roles.⯠...
July 8, 2025 in Brain Circuits
According to the World Health Organization, depression and anxiety cost the global economy $1tn each year, predominantly from reduced productivity. âŻHere are six simple habits, taken from design thinker Vishakha Singhâs SHIFT...
July 4, 2025 ⢠by Rachel Polla in Brain Circuits
How many times did I secretly wish for my father to leave the business and leave me the sole âQueenâ on board? Ten years later, I cannot imagine working without him by...
July 3, 2025 ⢠by Eric Quintane in Brain Circuits
Entrepreneurial talent who work with other teams often run into trouble with their managers. Here are ways to get the most out of your âboundary spannersâ...
Explore first person business intelligence from top minds curated for a global executive audience