Why a Good Team Debrief Asks More Than "What Went Wrong?"

Imagine the final minutes of a team workshop. The activity is over, and the facilitator asks everyone to reflect. Someone brings up a decision that didn't work out. Another remembers a moment when the group got stuck. Before long, most of the conversation is about what went wrong.

Why didn't we see that coming? Why didn't anyone speak up? What should we do differently next time?

These are worth asking. But what about the moment someone asked a useful question, challenged an assumption, or helped the group move forward? If something worked, shouldn't we understand why?

The same training, two different reviews

In 2005, researchers Shmuel Ellis and Inbar Davidi studied 98 young soldiers taking a military navigation course in Israel. The soldiers memorized routes with several checkpoints, then tried to follow them individually, usually without consulting a map. Their performance was assessed using the checkpoints they reached, their pace, and how often they looked at the map. 1

After each exercise, soldiers met with their commanding officers for a review lasting about 15 minutes. These conversations were already part of the training. What differed was the focus.

In one company, commanders discussed mistakes: missed checkpoints, poor decisions, and what to improve next time.

In the other, commanders examined successes as well as mistakes. Which decisions had helped? Why had part of the route gone well? What should the soldier keep doing?

The reviews took roughly the same amount of time. The soldiers were simply being asked to look at different parts of their experience. 1

The success stories became more detailed

Both groups improved as they practiced. But during the study, the soldiers whose reviews covered both successes and failures improved faster. The performance comparison was based on 76 soldiers with the necessary measurements. 1

The researchers also asked a smaller group to explain why their navigation attempts had gone well or badly. The soldiers tended to give richer explanations of failure. When something went wrong, they could identify several contributing factors. Successful routes received less scrutiny.

After the reviews began including successes, the soldiers gave more detailed explanations of what had worked. They were better able to identify the decisions and actions that had contributed to a good result. 1

That matters because reaching a checkpoint on time could reflect good preparation, sound judgment, favorable conditions, or some combination of all three. Knowing that you succeeded is different from knowing what made you succeed. Without examining the process, it's hard to know what to repeat.

Even a good result can hide a mistake

Success isn't always evidence of good decisions, either.

In a follow-up laboratory study published in 2006, Ellis and colleagues found that after a successful experience, participants improved most when their review examined mistakes made along the way. An outcome could be good even when some of the choices behind it were not. 2

Imagine two teams facing a difficult choice. One follows the suggestion of its most confident member and happens to arrive at a good answer. The other questions assumptions, weighs alternatives, and reaches an answer that later turns out poorly.

It's easy to judge the teams by their outcomes. But the outcomes alone don't reveal whether people listened, whether useful objections were considered, or whether the group relied on luck.

A debrief gives the group a chance to look at those less visible parts of the decision.

Beyond the navigation course

There are limits to what the original experiment tells us. The soldiers navigated individually and reviewed their performance one-on-one with officers. Both groups received reviews, so the study didn't test whether having a debrief was better than having none. Navigation performance is also easier to measure than many decisions teams make at work. 1

The value of structured reviews has been studied in other settings, too. In 2021, researchers Nathanael Keiser and Winfred Arthur brought together findings from 61 studies of after-action reviews. Overall, the findings favored these reviews, although their effectiveness varied with the task and how the review was conducted. 3

That doesn't give facilitators one perfect debriefing script. It does give us reason to pay attention to the questions we ask, and to the parts of an experience we might otherwise overlook.

One question can change the conversation

Picture a group finishing a workshop activity. The discussion turns immediately to a decision that didn't work out as expected. Everyone has an explanation for what went wrong.

The facilitator asks something different:

"Did anyone change their mind during the discussion? What convinced them?"

Perhaps someone raised a concern the group had missed. Perhaps two participants discovered that they understood the task differently. Or perhaps no one changed their mind because the first suggestion was accepted without much discussion.

Each answer offers a different way to understand what happened, beyond whether the final decision was successful.

Three questions are a useful starting point:

• What influenced our decision? Look for a particular argument, question, or turning point.
• What helped us think more clearly? Find something the group did well and explore why it helped.
• What would we repeat or change next time? Choose one specific behavior the group can try again.

If someone says, "We communicated well," ask what they mean. "We stopped to make sure everyone understood the main tradeoff" tells the group much more. It's something people can recognize and repeat.

These questions are practical suggestions, not a method tested in the studies above. The important habit is to examine what people actually did, rather than stopping at a judgment about the result.

What the final answer can't show

In Protocol15, teams agree on a shared ranking and then compare it with a reference. That comparison reveals differences in their choices. It doesn't show why someone changed their mind, whether a concern was heard, or which question helped the team think differently.

The studies discussed here do not prove that Protocol15 improves teamwork. They do suggest why the conversation after an activity deserves as much care as the activity itself.

The final answer shows what the group decided. A thoughtful debrief can help people understand how they decided, what helped, and what they want to do differently next time.

Ask what went wrong. Just don't let that be the only question.