Getting better results from your lessons learned.
An After-Action Review preserves the gap between expectation and reality long enough to learn from it. Establish what you believed would happen, examine what actually happened and why, then turn that diagnosis into a specific change or practice worth repeating.
Bill writes about After Action Review (AAR) in chapter 12.
Get the book →An After-Action Review, or AAR, is a short structured conversation you run right after a project, meeting series, or milestone wraps up. It walks a group through four questions in a fixed sequence: what you expected, what actually happened, why the two differed, and what you’ll sustain or adjust going forward. The order isn’t arbitrary. Comparing expectation to reality first, before anyone starts explaining why, keeps the group from jumping straight to blame or credit.
Most post-project debriefs skip straight to opinions: who dropped the ball, whose idea worked, what should’ve happened instead. That’s the exact trap an AAR is built to avoid. When a team argues about causes before agreeing on facts, the conversation splinters into competing memories and hurt feelings, and the actual lesson gets lost in the argument. An AAR forces the group to establish what happened, together, before anyone is allowed to interpret it.
Run consistently, an AAR turns experience into something your team can actually use next time, instead of relearning the same lesson on the next project. It works for a team retrospective, a review of a project’s performance, or a solo review of your own week. Here’s how to run it in four steps.
Before you look at results, write down what you expected, in plain terms and before anyone starts discussing performance. This step exists to strip out hindsight bias. Once people know the outcome, they unconsciously edit their memory of what they thought was going to happen, so capturing the original expectation first keeps the comparison honest.
Example: Before launching a new onboarding email sequence, the team expected it to raise 30-day retention from 42% to 50% within two months.
Report the actual outcome next, using numbers and observable facts. Resist the urge to soften a miss or downplay a win while you're stating it; the judgment comes later. If people in the room have different accounts of what happened, put both versions on the table instead of picking one to argue over. The differences don't need to be resolved yet, only documented.
Example: 30-day retention landed at 44%, two points above the prior baseline but eight points short of the 50% target.
Dig into why the gap exists, and separate two explanations that get lumped together. One is that your assumptions were wrong. The other is that your actions didn't produce what a reasonable plan should have. Mixing those up costs you the lesson. Walk through the assumptions, constraints, decisions, and outside conditions that shaped the result, and be specific about which ones held up and which didn't.
Example: The team assumed subscribers would read the full sequence in order, but the open data showed 60% only opened the first email, so the retention lift depended on content most people never saw.
Close the review by naming two short lists: what worked and should continue, and what needs to change. For each item on the change list, assign a single owner and a date, and note who else needs to know. An insight that doesn't get an owner and a deadline tends to disappear once the next project starts.
Example: The team decided to keep the personalized subject lines and assigned the marketing lead to redesign the email order so the retention message appears in email one, due before the next cohort launches in three weeks.
The core technique stays the same — but how you apply it shifts depending on your role, your team, and your environment.
Book a full hour and treat Steps 1 and 2 as a visual exercise: draw a line down the middle of a whiteboard or flipchart, capture what was expected on the left and what happened on the right so the group can see the gap instead of just hearing about it.
For Step 4, hand out sticky notes and have each person write their own sustain and adjust items before the group discusses anything, one idea per note; this gets quieter voices on the table before the loudest opinion in the room sets the direction.
Group similar notes together, then have the team prioritize which adjust items to act on first, either by discussion or a quick vote, before assigning owners.
Put a follow-up AAR on the calendar now to check whether the corrective actions actually happened and whether what you sustained held up.
Skip the group facilitation and answer all four questions in writing; twenty minutes is enough.
Be as specific with numbers and dates as you'd ask a team to be, since vague self-assessment defeats the purpose.
There's no one else to assign the adjust items to, so put the owner and date directly on your calendar as if you were assigning them to someone else, and pick one specific trigger, like a weekly recurring review, to check whether the change actually stuck.
Watch your footing
The one-page After Action Review (AAR) PDF reference, plus weekly tools and techniques to help you lead through uncertainty — from Bill's Lead for Tomorrow newsletter.
"*" indicates required fields
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Your information is never sold or shared.
PowerPlays are the techniques Bill teaches in his keynotes, workshops, and executive coaching engagements with organizations across the country.
The Persimmon Group
888.392.7101
Copyright © 2026 Bill Fournet. All Rights Reserved.