Debrief

Christina N. Lacerenza; Megan Gregory; Alyssa D. Marshall; Eduardo Salas

doi:10.1017/CBO9781107589735.026

26 - Debrief

The Learning Meeting

from Postevent Meetings

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2015

Christina N. Lacerenza ,

Megan Gregory ,

Alyssa D. Marshall and

Eduardo Salas

Edited by

Joseph A. Allen ,

Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock and

Steven G. Rogelberg

Show author details

Joseph A. Allen: Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Omaha
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock: Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Steven G. Rogelberg: Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Abstract

Debriefs are an effective tool for increasing learning and performance within organizations. They are regarded as “one of the most promising methods for accelerating learning from experience” (Eddy, Tannenbaum, & Mathieu, 2013, p. 976), and meta-analytic evidence supports their effectiveness (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013). Research also suggests that the success of a debrief is reliant on proper execution techniques. In this chapter, we identify and define debriefs and review scientifically supported strategies for achieving a well-executed debrief. Moreover, we present a table of recommendations based on this review of the debrief literature. Our intention is that these recommendations will serve as guidelines for the practical application of debriefs.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science , pp. 617 - 633

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107589735.026 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, J. A., Baran, B. E., & Scott, C. W. (2010). After-action reviews: A venue for the promotion of safety climate. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42, 750–757. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.11.004CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Arafeh, J. M., Hansen, S. S., & Nichols, A. (2010). Debriefing in simulated-based learning: Facilitating a reflective discussion. Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 24, 302–309. doi:10.1097/JPN.0b013e3181f6b5ecCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Baldwin, T. T. (1992). Effects of alternative modeling strategies on outcomes of interpersonal-skills training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 147–154.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195–202. doi:10.1002/job.82CrossRef Google Scholar

Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. J. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors: Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42, 151–173. doi:10.1518/001872000779656561CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Dismukes, R. K., Jobe, K. K., McDonnell, L. K. (2000). Facilitating LOFT debriefings: A critical analysis. In Dismukes, R. K. & Smith, G. M. (Eds.), Facilitation and debriefing in aviation training and operations (pp. 13–25). Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Dismukes, R. K., McDonnell, L. K., & Jobe, K. K. (2000). Facilitating LOFT debriefings: Instructor techniques and crew participation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 35–57. doi:10.1207/S15327108IJAP1001_3CrossRef Google Scholar

Dismukes, R. K., & Smith, G. M. (Eds.). (2000). Facilitation in aviation training and operations. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Dunn, A. M, Scott, C. W., Allen, J. A., & Bonilla, D. (2014). Quantity and quality: Increasing safety norms through after action reviews. Paper presented at the INGRoup Conference, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar

Eddy, E. R., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Mathieu, J. E. (2013). Helping teams to help themselves: Comparing two team-led debriefing methods. Personnel Psychology, 66, 975–1008. doi:10.1111/peps.12041CrossRef Google Scholar

Edelson, D. P., Litzinger, B., Arora, V., Walsh, D., Kim, S., Lauderdale, D. S.,…& Abella, B. S. (2008). Improving in-hospital cardiac arrest process and outcomes with performance debriefing. Archives of Internal Medicine, 168, 1063–1069. doi:10.1001/archinte.168.10.1063CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. doi:10.2307/2666999CrossRef Google Scholar

Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 857–871. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.842CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ellis, S., Ganzach, Y., Castle, E., & Sekely, G. (2010). The effect of filmed versus personal after-event reviews on task performance: The mediating and moderating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 122–131. doi:10.1037/a0017867CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fanning, R. M., & Gaba, D. M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 2, 115–125. doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180315539CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Flanagan, B. (2008). Debriefing: Theory and techniques. In Riley, R. H. (Ed.), Manual of simulation in healthcare (pp. 155–170). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gaba, D. M., Howard, S. K., Fish, K. J., Smith, B. E., & Sowb, Y. A. (2001). Simulation-based training in anesthesia crisis resource management (ACRM): A decade of experience. Simulation & Gaming,32, 175–193. doi:10.1177/104687810103200206CrossRef Google Scholar

Gómez, L. F., & Ballard, D. I. (2011). Communication for change: Transactive memory systems as dynamic capabilities. In Shani, A. B., Woodman, R. W., & Pasmore, W. A. (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 19, pp. 91–115). Binkley, UK: Emerald.CrossRef Google Scholar

Group for Organizational Effectiveness. (2011). DebriefNow. The Group for Organizational Effectiveness. Retrieved from https://www.groupoe.com/products/p-debriefnow.html Google Scholar

Halamek, L. P. (2008). The simulated delivery-room environment as the future modality for acquiring and maintaining skills in fetal and neonatal resuscitation. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine,13, 448–453. doi:10.1016/j.siny.2008.04.015CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kinni, T. (2003). Pride goeth before a profit. Retrieved December 30, 2008, from Harvard Business School Working Knowledge: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/3688.html Google Scholar

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785CrossRef Google Scholar

Mathieu, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Heffner, T. S., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283. doi:10.I037t/0021-9010.85.2.273CrossRef Google Scholar

Morrison, J. E., & Meliza, L. L. (1999). Foundations of the after action review process (Special Report 42). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar

Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 946–953. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.91.4.946CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate. In Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R., & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 565–594). New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRef Google Scholar

Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2004). Improving dynamic decision making through debriefing: An empirical study. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 256–260. Finland: ICALT.CrossRef Google Scholar

Roebuck, D. B., Brock, S. J., & Moodie, D. R. (2004). Using a simulation to explore the challenges of communicating in a virtual team. Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 359–367. doi:10.1177/1080569904268083CrossRef Google Scholar

Ron, N., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2002). How organizations learn: Post-flight reviews in an F 16 fighter squadron. Organization Studies, 27, 1069–1089. doi:10.1177/0170840606064567CrossRef Google Scholar

Rudolph, J. W., Simon, R., Rivard, P., Dufresne, R. L., & Raemer, D. B. (2007). Debriefing with good judgment: Combining rigorous feedback with genuine inquiry. Anesthesiology Clinics, 25, 361–376. doi:10.1016/j.anclin.2007.03.007CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Salas, E., Klein, C., King, H., Salisbury, M., Augenstein, J. S., Birnbach, D. J.,…& Upshaw, C. (2008). Debriefing medical teams: 12 evidence-based best practices and tips. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 34, 518–527.Google Scholar PubMed

Salas, E., Nichols, D. R., & Driskell, J. E. (2007). Testing three team training strategies in intact teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 38, 471–488. doi:10.1177/1046496407304332CrossRef Google Scholar

Salas, E. & Rosen, M. A. (2009). Performance assessment. In Schmorrow, D., Cohn, J., & Nicholson, D. (Eds.), The PSI handbook of virtual environments for training and education: Developments for the military and beyond (pp. 227–235). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar

Schneider, B. (2000). The psychological life of organizations. In Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Peterson, M. F. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. xvii–xxvi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Scott, C., Allen, J. A., Bonilla, D. L., Baran, B. E., & Murphy, D. (2013). Ambiguity and freedom of dissent in post-incident discussion. Journal of Business Communication, 50, 383–402. doi:10.1177/0021943613497054Google Scholar

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2008). Guided team self-correction: Impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39, 303–327. doi:10.1177/1046496408317794CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Johnston, J. H., & Payne, S. C. (1998). Measuring team-related expertise in complex environments. In Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 61–87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Zeisig, R. L., Acton, B., & McPherson, J. A. (1998). Team dimensional training: A strategy for guided team self-correction. In Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 271–297). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tannenbaum, S. I. (2013). Using debriefs – A simple, powerful experiential learning tool. Paper presented at the meeting of the Organization Development Network, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar

Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, L. R., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Conducting team debriefs that work: Lessons from research and practice. In Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Cohen, D., & Latham, G. (Eds.), Developing and enhancing teamwork in organizations (pp. 488–519). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55, 231–245. doi:10.1177/0018720812448394CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., Chan, , & D. W. L., (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 692–709. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.692CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge?. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 973–993. doi:10.1111/1467–6486.00268CrossRef Google Scholar

Villado, A. J., & Arthur, W. J. (2013). The comparative effect of subjective and objective after-action reviews on team performance on a complex task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 514–528. doi:10.1037/a0031510CrossRef Google Scholar

Wimbush, J. C., & Shepard, J. M. (1994). Toward understanding of ethical climate: Its relationship to ethical behavior and supervisory influence. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 637–647.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wong, Z. (2007). Human factors in project management: Concepts, tools, and techniques for inspiring teamwork and motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Book contents

26 - Debrief

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive