| | It is so easy to get bogged down in the busyness and stress of life and work and lose sight of how effective and impactful we have been. I'm writing this in November of 2020 - a year that has profoundly impacted everyone. Nothing was as we expected; little was as it seemed; much was completely out of our control. For many it was a brutal year filled with setbacks; for some it was replete with opportunities, but no less brutal. I have just returned from a most welcome short holiday in the mountains, where I love to walk, take in the sunshine, swim in mountain streams and spend time with loved ones. |
Those hours of walking gave me pause to think about 2020 and to review what happened and how effective I have been. My personal review is not the topic for this article. Believe me! It is a mixed bag! This is more about the art of the review.
I call it art in the same sense as my previous article "The Art of Conversation". A review is also a kind of conversation, even if you are doing a personal review. The best and most flexible process for a review is one I came across in a book called "On Being a Supervisee: Creating Learning Partnerships". The authors, Michael Carroll and Maria C. Gilbert, quote a review process used by the American military called the After Action Review - or AAR. After any military operation, small groups of soldiers gather with their commanders. The basic ground rules are that:
1. Nobody will be penalised in any way for anything they contribute to the discussion;
2. No blame or fault is acceptable.
The discussion has 6 questions:
1. What did we set out to do?
2. What happened?
3. What worked/went well?
4. What didn't work/went badly?
5. What have we learned?
6. What will we do differently next time?
These 6 questions can be used in slightly different wording across a wide range of situations. Here are some examples:
A. Project/Strategic Review
1. What were our goals?
2. What did we achieve? What actually happened?
3. What worked/went well?
4. What didn't?
5. What have we learned?
6. What do we need to do now?
B. Progress Review (on a Project or Strategy)
1. What are we trying to achieve?
2. What is actually happening? What progress have we made?
3. What have we done well?
4. What have we not done well?
5. What lessons must be learned?
6. What do we need to do now (to get things back on track)?
C. Personal Review
1. What were my goals for this year?
2. What have I achieved? (And what have I not achieved?)
3. What did I do well?
4. What did I not do well?
5. What have I learned?
6. What am I going to do now/What are my new goals?
D. Performance Review
No matter what the admin process is around formal performance reviews, the actual conversation is along the same lines:
1. What did you set out to achieve in the last x months?
2. What did you actually do?
3. What went well?
4. What did not go well?
5. What have you learned?
6. What do you want to do now? PLUS And how can I support you?
I have used this process in various contexts many many times and have never failed to be enthused by how inspiring and rewarding it has been for the participants. I love that the questions are asked in a way that does not brook blame or fault. When people know that the purpose of the review is to learn rather than to apportion blame, they are willing to be quite frank about their experiences - and this is how one creates a learning organisation. Simple! Not necessarily easy though.
I call it art in the same sense as my previous article "The Art of Conversation". A review is also a kind of conversation, even if you are doing a personal review. The best and most flexible process for a review is one I came across in a book called "On Being a Supervisee: Creating Learning Partnerships". The authors, Michael Carroll and Maria C. Gilbert, quote a review process used by the American military called the After Action Review - or AAR. After any military operation, small groups of soldiers gather with their commanders. The basic ground rules are that:
1. Nobody will be penalised in any way for anything they contribute to the discussion;
2. No blame or fault is acceptable.
The discussion has 6 questions:
1. What did we set out to do?
2. What happened?
3. What worked/went well?
4. What didn't work/went badly?
5. What have we learned?
6. What will we do differently next time?
These 6 questions can be used in slightly different wording across a wide range of situations. Here are some examples:
A. Project/Strategic Review
1. What were our goals?
2. What did we achieve? What actually happened?
3. What worked/went well?
4. What didn't?
5. What have we learned?
6. What do we need to do now?
B. Progress Review (on a Project or Strategy)
1. What are we trying to achieve?
2. What is actually happening? What progress have we made?
3. What have we done well?
4. What have we not done well?
5. What lessons must be learned?
6. What do we need to do now (to get things back on track)?
C. Personal Review
1. What were my goals for this year?
2. What have I achieved? (And what have I not achieved?)
3. What did I do well?
4. What did I not do well?
5. What have I learned?
6. What am I going to do now/What are my new goals?
D. Performance Review
No matter what the admin process is around formal performance reviews, the actual conversation is along the same lines:
1. What did you set out to achieve in the last x months?
2. What did you actually do?
3. What went well?
4. What did not go well?
5. What have you learned?
6. What do you want to do now? PLUS And how can I support you?
I have used this process in various contexts many many times and have never failed to be enthused by how inspiring and rewarding it has been for the participants. I love that the questions are asked in a way that does not brook blame or fault. When people know that the purpose of the review is to learn rather than to apportion blame, they are willing to be quite frank about their experiences - and this is how one creates a learning organisation. Simple! Not necessarily easy though.
RSS Feed
