The opening questions of the AAR should be framed around the expectations as articulated by the participants, of the event, intervention, or project. Within an acute hospital setting, this might be asked as “What would you normally expect to have happen when responding to a Cardiac Arrest in the front hall of the hospital?” In a business setting this might be “What normally happens to reduce risks of delays in your supply chain?”.
Or if looking at a whole country and the AAR held after a public health emergency, as The World Health Organisation does routinely, the first questions will be framed around what was in existence already, For example “What would you normally expect to have happen to co-ordinate international and national partners during a public health emergency.? And “What are the expected trigger mechanisms for a disease outbreak to be confirmed?”
This approach is derived from the military origins of AAR which reviews the expectations articulated in the operation/ mission/ battle plan as its first AAR question and then proceeds to review what happened in reality.
However, some versions of the first AAR question you will find being used and promoted by reputable organisations and published online, start instead with the question “What should have happened?”
Why is this this incorrect question such a problem?
It’s a problem because it invites people to share possible alternatives to the event that they have created in their minds, once the event has happened, that are contrary to what actually happened. In other words, the “what should have happened” question encourages counterfactual thinking which includes things that, in the present, could not have happened because they are dependent on events that did not occur in the past.
For example, if the facilitator asked “ What should have happened when responding to a cardiac arrest in the front hall of the hospital?” any number of after-the-event ideas could be articulated, such as “ the Arrest Trolley should have been there more quickly” or “The receptionists should have brought the screens over to provide privacy”. If the AAR Conductor had instead asked “What would you normally expect to have happen to respond to a Cardiac Arrest in a non-clinical location?”, the responses would be relevant to the roles’ of the respondents and their normal practice. Eg “I expect to be able to get the screens to put around the patient from the porter’s office.” “I would expect to be able to use my pass to fast track the lift from the 12th floor to the ground”.
The value of the expectations question
The purpose of an AAR is to create the opportunity for participants to learn about the full context of the event, and this requires getting clarity on the expectations held by those involved which have been developed through professional training and protocols, everyday practice, local norms and life experience. The “What should have happened?” question only gives us insight into an individual’s opinions formulated after the event, not the valuable understanding of the similarities and differences in expectations of participants held before the event. These provide insights into the assumptions operating prior to the event and give clarity on the behaviour and actions undertaken because of them. It might not be an easy questions to answer, as it is an unusual one, yet once the participants in the AAR have understanding of the expectations and the lived reality, then it is possible for them to do the “gap analysis” between expectations and what actually happened and explore that got in the way of expectations being met . This is where so much of the value of the AAR comes.
If you would like to find out more about our AAR Conductor professional development training options, and understand how to make every AAR a psychologically safe and highly effective experience, please get in touch here info@jw-associates.co.uk
