What are the most common mistakes to avoid when giving feedback after a critical incident?

When providing feedback after a critical incident, avoid blaming individuals, focus on actions, processes, and behaviors, be specific about observed issues, be firm but constructive in making suggestions, and prioritize a mission-based, solution-oriented approach. And be sure that everyone that needs to have a seat at the table is present.

Typically, we conduct an After Action Review (AAR) following a critical incident in Emergency Management. Failure to establish ground rules prior to a conducting an AAR or asking questions in the wrong way will foster negative results. For example, never ask “What did we do wrong?” That opens Pandora’s Box and invites complaints. Rather, establish upfront that we will discuss challenges faced and that for any challenge a person raises they need to be prepared to offer a realistic way to address such challenge. Also, make sure everyone understands that the goal is to develop improvements and not to hyper-focus on a perceived failure. Each challenge presented, along with the corresponding recommendation, is positively evaluated.

Having been involved in numerous critical incidents I found it very important to be open, self assess genuinely and listen to learn from your teammates. Debriefs are good tools to let everyone catch their breath and speak candidly. They must be safe places so don’t be judgemental or closed off. You have to remember you didn’t see what the rest saw. You only have one perspective.

Don’t just focus on the negative parts and areas of improvement. Highlight what went well to document best practices and what went well. Even though some of the good can still be improved, this allows the group to understand the need for constructive criticism and improvement.

Focus on the what, why, and how. Disregard the who. Identify process or technology failures, how to remediate or mitigate them, and then the plan to do so. Any people failures should be addressed behind closed doors.

In my experience we don’t always get to the root cause of why something did or did not occur. We are quick to identify what happened (or maybe who did it), but not the why or the how. This is especially critical in documentation for after action reports. We can’t learn from mistakes if we don’t know the full story.

Another common mistake when providing feedback after a critical incident is being vague or general, without offering specific examples or suggestions. This can lead to feedback that appears irrelevant, unclear, or unhelpful, leaving team members confused or frustrated. To avoid this, aim to be precise and concrete, basing your feedback on facts and observations rather than opinions or assumptions. Provide clear and actionable recommendations, and explain how they can improve their performance or well-being. Utilize the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) framework to set realistic and meaningful goals. This approach not only clarifies expectations but also helps team members understand the path to improvement.

There should be no reason in a critical incident de-briefing where matters, actions or circumstances are not clearly understood by the de-briefing team leaders. All data, information and intelligence needs to be collected, collated and analysed as soon as possible. This may result in a detailed dust-off being delayed while the incident analysis is underway, but a short debrief to inform the team of the delay in analysis is vital. Where possible, it is beneficial to have an outside review of the process undertaken to ensure the procedures remain valid, relevant and on point.

Being honest and open with observations is vey important. A fresh eyes review of a scenario can identify significant gaps in processes and procedures that are not seen by those who are imbedded in organisations. Sometimes a detached individual can offer great insight.

A common mistake is reporting an incident to Staff by too many people at the same time with different points of view or personal opinions. Good practice is to define and communicate to a single person on staff so that they receive all the information and report objectively.

A significant leadership challenge lies in balancing flexibility with maintaining control during critical situations or meetings. This is particularly relevant when conducting an after action review (AAR). Leading an AAR involves not only steering the discussion towards identified deficiencies but also embracing an unbiased and open approach to inputs and suggestions. Actively seeking input and fostering team collaboration is paramount for effectively identifying shortcomings and devising comprehensive solutions in the dynamic field of emergency management.

A third common mistake in giving feedback after a critical incident is to be unilateral or biased, disregarding the input or feedback of the recipient. This can make your comments seem imposed, unfair, or disrespectful, leading to resistance or resentment among team members. Instead of a one-sided approach, try to be collaborative and respectful, involving team members in the feedback process. Ask for their opinions about your comments and listen to their concerns, questions, or suggestions. Use the sandwich method (positive-negative-positive) to balance your feedback and demonstrate your appreciation.

Always discuss what was good and bad, Have a solution for the bad,,, And help the team understand, failure is not a bad thing , just a tool for learning,,, ds,,,,,

Avoid placing blame. Many critiques turn into a blame game and positive useful information is lost for the next incident because of the focus on what went wrong instead of what can be done to do it better the next time.

Make sure all levels of personnel are giving clear communication to better understand what worked and what didn't work from all perspectives. There should be NO retribution for anyone giving feedback, whether it be positive or negative.

Identifying the mistakes and reason is important than who created the mistake. Secondly also important is is the solution and strategy to ensure that such a mistake is not repeated .

In the aftermath of a critical incident, a common mistake in providing feedback is succumbing to inconsistency or contradiction. This occurs when feedback lacks coherence, presenting conflicting perspectives or advice. Such inconsistency can lead to confusion for those involved, hindering the learning process and impeding constructive outcomes. To enhance the effectiveness of feedback after critical events, maintaining clarity and coherence is crucial, ensuring a unified message that fosters understanding and facilitates meaningful improvement.

A fourth common error in giving feedback after a critical incident is inconsistency or contradiction, failing to follow through on your feedback. This can make your comments appear unreliable, untrustworthy, or insincere, thereby diminishing your credibility and authority as a leader. Instead of being inconsistent, strive to be coherent and accountable, aligning your feedback with your expectations and actions. Follow up on your comments, monitor and measure the progress and outcomes of your team members. Offer ongoing support and recognition, and celebrate their achievements. This consistent and supportive approach not only reinforces the value of your feedback but also motivates your team to continuously improve and succeed.

Concentrar-se apenas no problema sem oferecer solu??es ou caminhos para a melhoria pode ser desmotivador. é essencial equilibrar a crítica com sugest?es construtivas.

Its always important to do ones homework and not rely only on your team to prepare the feedback report. As a leader its important for him to ensure there are no stone unturned in finding the faults. These faults becomes crack & later bring down organizations. The only answer to get consistency in place is by doing your own home work while your team helps or supports you. I have personally seen, many organizations align them self towards personalities and traits of people which later suffer when they move on. This is similar to being inconsistent, always build your work around processes so that your reports and feedback are structured to identify fault lines, thereby removing inconsistency. Recent response from Harvard Dean was Inconsistent.

Empathy, sympathy and understanding go a long way. You might be on the outside of an event and looking in but you must have all these things mentioned for the individuals living through the event.

A Good Leader will always align his organization, around owning up to failures as a trait, down till the last man / lady standing in the organization. If he is able to instill this thought process 60% of the work is done for not being insensitive. Second as a leader its important to make decisions keeping two aspects in mind, one the people who pay for your services "Clients" and second who support the company "employees" are always never mixed. A leader will need to make his employees understand that clients are who pay for the salaries, and if its a boot strapped startup, the leader would know the cost of acquisition of one client. Therefore leaders should be able to draw a fine line in getting the truth pass the team.

Critical incidents likely involve a loss of revenue, property or even lives. The ability to deliver actionable feedback that does not alienate the change agents whose buy-in you need is invaluable to achieving lasting improvements and to cementing your reputation as someone who can help guide clear-headed and evidence-based improvements to mitigate or prevent recurrence.

(Our emotions that's define who we are, caring and compassion is the pillar of humanity ) train you entertain to : 1. **Empathetic Language:** - Use compassionate language to express understanding and support. 2. **Private Setting:** - Provide feedback privately to create a safe and secure environment. 3. **Behavior-Focused Approach:** - Address specific behaviors, emphasizing growth, not personal worth. 4. **Validate Emotions:** - Acknowledge and validate the individual's emotions with empathy. 5. **Supportive Solutions:** - Offer constructive feedback along with solutions and resources for improvement.

Being insensitive in feedback can harm team morale. Practice empathy and compassion, recognizing the emotional toll of incidents. Use RULER to guide emotional management, providing support and resources. Your genuine concern and care will not only heal but also strengthen the team’s resilience and unity.

The sooner the review the better; not only for reliable and honest feedback but also for credibility purposes. Delays for review allow memories to fade and bad habits to fester (and perhaps be repeated) at another critical incident.

Establish a regular debrief cadence during times of calm and leverage this familiarity following an incident response. It's important to give space for strong emotions to settle, but waiting more than 5 days can negatively impact the resilience and cohesiveness of the team.

Critical Incidents carry with them varying degrees of trauma to those involved. Trauma can “scramble” memories. Talking about what happened immediately after the incident occurred may not yield effective, accurate AAR findings. Studies have shown that giving individuals a few nights rest enable the effects from the experienced trauma to subside in varying degrees, hopefully “unscrambling” those memories. Immediately allowing those involved in the incident to voluntarily speak to an unbiased third party to ensure mental stability is also a given. When conducting the debriefing/AAR, throw egos out the door from the top to the bottom. Allow people to speak freely without fear of retribution. It allows the organization to get better.

Delaying feedback after a critical incident can impede the resolution process and hinder professional development. Timely feedback ensures that the incident is fresh in everyone's minds, making it easier to address specific behaviors and their impact if necessary. Procrastination may lead to misunderstandings, increased tension, and missed opportunities for learning.

A sixth common mistake in giving feedback after a critical incident is being delayed or procrastinating, failing to provide timely feedback. This delay can make your feedback seem outdated, irrelevant, or forgotten, reducing its effectiveness and value. Instead of delaying, aim to be prompt and timely, offering feedback as soon as possible after the critical incident. Employ the 3R model (Review, Reflect, Respond) to prepare and convey your feedback. Provide immediate and constructive feedback, and reinforce it with regular and consistent follow-up. This approach ensures that feedback is relevant and fresh in the minds of your team members, making it more likely to be effective and impactful in their professional development.

Anyone working in emergencies and disasters knows that the number one problem is Communication. The same holds true for planned events and exercises. Wrongly people assume that the issue is an interoperability equipment problem. However, more often than not, the main issue stems from what I refer to as “Information Hoarders.” This is how I describe those who hold onto information rather than making sure that all engaged are informed. For some it is a control mechanism; while others feel satisfaction from people having to ask them for the information. It is often driven by an over-inflated ego and exaggerated self-importance. Regardless of a persons’ reasoning; there is no place for information hoarders in the Emergency Management field.

In my experience you should avoid being afraid of saying our response could have been different/better etc. Depending on how long after the critical incident it is imperative that we assess our actions as a team (post action plan) this may result in some finger pointing even if it’s at ourselves. If done objectively you will more than likely discover that training/drills may need to be conducted more often,additional resources not originally considered as part of the response team were required or resources trained to assist with a particular need could have helped in another capacity if their training reflected such Remember when time is of essence and the plans are not going accordingly as it often doesn’t Your plan B is to pivot!

Having conducted a number of investigations post critical incidents my advice would be to avoid hindsight and this is not easy to do No matter how disciplined or professional the investigators may be the know the outcome of the incident and it is very difficult to separate this knowledge from the knowledge personnel possessed while making decisions during the incident This highlights the importance of note and record keeping during an incident which will reflect the information known at any particular time

Don't - "avoid" being honest. Platitudes, pleasantries, and validating feelings do not work when people's lives are at risk. For example, in a friendly fire incident, the immediate response is to find out what went wrong (person or team). If you don't know what went wrong you can't avoid it from happening again. That takes real honesty.

In my experience, a team needs good leadership. With good leadership, you will have a team that looks after each other. When it comes to emergency management, you must establish the foundation of the team with good and well practiced training of several different scenarios that involve several emergency services working together - and include others that can give their perspectives too, such as, ADF, medical services, services that provide aftercare, and other professional groups to suit the scenario.