An after-action review (AAR) is a short, structured discussion after an event that compares what was supposed to happen with what actually happened, why, and what to do next time. It was formalised by the US Army and is now used in healthcare, business and personal development. Brian Tracy taught a personal version built on two questions.
Last updated: 13 November 2026
Reading time: about 9 minutes
How we wrote this guide: this guide was written by Saj Ali. It draws on the US Army’s _TC 25-20: A Leader’s Guide to After-Action Reviews_ (1993), Brian Tracy’s _Change Your Thinking, Change Your Life_ (2003) and meta-analyses of debriefing research. Every research claim links to its source.
After-action review in brief
- What it is. A short, structured review after any event, to learn from it.
- The Army version. What was supposed to happen, what happened, why, and how to improve.
- Tracy’s version. “What did I do right?” and “What would I do differently?”
- What research shows. Debriefs improve performance by about 25 percent on average.
- Pairs well with. Mindstorming and goal setting.
Contents
- What Is an After-Action Review?
- The US Army Method
- Brian Tracy’s Two Magic Questions
- What the Research Says
- How to Run an After-Action Review: Step by Step
- A Worked Example
- Common Mistakes
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Key Takeaways
- Explore More on Self Help Supermarket
- Sources
What Is an After-Action Review?
The US Army defines an after-action review as “a professional discussion of an event, focused on performance standards, that enables soldiers to discover for themselves what happened, why it happened, and how to sustain strengths and improve on weaknesses” (US Army, 1993).
The Army’s 1993 guide stresses two features. First, an AAR “is not a critique”: it doesn’t grade success or failure, because “there are always weaknesses to improve and strengths to sustain” (US Army, 1993). Second, it compares intended results with actual results, which distinguishes it from a general debrief (Wikipedia). Assigning blame is “antithetical to the purpose of an AAR” (Wikipedia).
| Origin | US Army; formal guide TC 25-20 published 30 September 1993 |
|---|---|
| Core questions | What was supposed to happen? What happened? Why? How do we sustain and improve? |
| Personal version | Brian Tracy’s two magic questions |
| Time needed | 5 minutes for an informal review; longer for a project |
| Used in | Military, healthcare, aviation, business, sport, sales, personal life |
| Evidence | Two meta-analyses found average improvements of about d = 0.67 |
The US Army Method
The Army describes four steps in the AAR process: planning, preparing, conducting and following up (US Army, 1993). The review itself follows a sequence:
- Review objectives and intent: what was supposed to happen.
- Summary of events: what happened.
- Discussion of key issues: why it happened and how to improve.
- Closing comments: a summary of what to sustain and what to improve.
The guide recommends open-ended questions rather than yes-or-no ones, because they are “much less likely to put him on the defensive”. Its example: it is better to ask “what happened when your Bradley crested the hill?” than “why didn’t you engage the enemy tanks to your front?” (US Army, 1993).
It also distinguishes formal reviews, which use external observers, take more time and are scheduled in advance, from informal reviews, which are run by the team’s own leaders, take less time and are held when needed (US Army, 1993).
Brian Tracy’s Two Magic Questions
Brian Tracy taught a personal after-action review in Change Your Thinking, Change Your Life (2003). He called it the “two magic questions” and recommended asking them “after every experience” (Tracy, 2003).
Question 1: “What did I do right?”
“No matter what you do, or how it turns out, whether it is a success or a failure, you should do an instant mental replay of the event and assess everything that you did right in that situation.” Writing down the positive parts, he said, is “preprogramming your mind to repeat the things that you did right in the next similar situation” (Tracy, 2003).
Question 2: “What would I do differently?”
“Ask yourself, if you had to do it over again, how would you change or improve your performance or behavior in that situation? What would you do more of or less of? Be sure to write down your answers” (Tracy, 2003).
Tracy noted that both questions “are positive and they both require positive responses”, keeping you “focused on improvement rather than regret”. He contrasted this with underachievers, who “rehash the mistakes they have made”. For salespeople, he advised asking the questions “immediately after a sales call, successful or not”, and combining the method with mindstorming to generate 20 answers to each question (Tracy, 2003).
The approach matches research findings: reviewing successes as well as failures improves performance more than reviewing failures alone (Ellis & Davidi, 2005). See how it fits into his broader philosophy in our Brian Tracy article.
What the Research Says
Debriefs improve performance by about 25 percent
Scott Tannenbaum and Christopher Cerasoli analysed 46 samples with 2,136 participants. On average, debriefs improved effectiveness over a control group “by approximately 25%” (d = 0.67). The effects were similar for teams and individuals, for simulated and real settings, and for medical and non-medical groups (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013).
What makes an AAR work
A later meta-analysis by Nikki Keiser and Winfred Arthur also found an overall effect of d = 0.67. Two features consistently made AARs more effective: aligning the review to the individual or the team, and using objective performance review media, such as recordings or data, instead of memory alone. Highly structured AARs were more effective than loosely structured ones in the military, while both worked comparably in healthcare (Keiser & Arthur, 2021).
Review successes as well as failures
Shmuel Ellis and Inbar Davidi studied soldiers doing successive navigation exercises. Those debriefed on both their successes and their failures after each day improved significantly more than those who reviewed only their failures (Ellis & Davidi, 2005). This supports Tracy’s first question.
| Idea | What research found | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Debriefs improve performance | About 25 percent improvement on average across 46 samples (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013) | Strong support |
| Works for individuals and teams | Similar effects for both (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013) | Supported |
| Objective data helps | Objective review media consistently improved effectiveness (Keiser & Arthur, 2021) | Supported |
| Structure helps | More effective when highly structured in the military; similar in healthcare (Keiser & Arthur, 2021) | Supported in some settings |
| Review successes, not just failures | Reviewing both improved performance more than failures alone (Ellis & Davidi, 2005) | Supported |
How to Run an After-Action Review: Step by Step
For yourself (5 minutes)
- Right after the event, take a notebook or open a note on your phone.
- What did I want to happen? Write your goal in one line.
- What actually happened? Facts only, not judgements.
- What did I do right? List at least three things.
- What would I do differently? List at least three things.
- Choose one change to make next time, and put it in your calendar or checklist.
For a team (15 to 30 minutes)
- Set the rules: everyone speaks, no blame, focus on learning.
- Restate the objective: what was supposed to happen.
- Build the timeline of what actually happened, using data, recordings or documents where possible.
- Discuss why there was a difference between the plan and the result.
- Agree what to sustain and what to improve.
- Assign owners for each improvement, and check them at the next review.
Questions to ask
| Stage | Questions |
|---|---|
| Intent | What were we trying to achieve? What did success look like? |
| Result | What actually happened? What surprised us? |
| Causes | Why was there a difference? What helped, and what got in the way? |
| Sustain | What did we do right that we should keep doing? |
| Improve | What would we do differently next time? |
| Follow-up | Who will do what, and by when? |
A Worked Example
Priya gave a presentation to a potential client. It went reasonably well but didn’t close the deal.
| Question | Priya’s answers |
|---|---|
| What did I want? | Agreement to a pilot project |
| What happened? | Positive feedback, but they asked for time to think |
| What did I do right? | Researched their business; kept to 20 minutes; told a strong case study |
| What would I do differently? | Ask more questions at the start; deal with price before they raise it; propose a clear next step with a date |
| One change | End every pitch by proposing a specific next meeting |
She reviews this note before her next pitch. Over several months, her notes become a personal playbook. For more on selling, see our sales psychology guide.
Common Mistakes
- Turning it into a blame session. The Army guide is clear: an AAR is not a critique. People hide mistakes if they expect blame.
- Reviewing only failures. Research shows reviewing successes as well helps more.
- Relying on memory. Use data, recordings or notes where you can.
- No follow-up. Lessons that aren’t turned into actions are soon forgotten.
- Waiting too long. Review as soon as possible, while details are fresh.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an after-action review?
An after-action review is a structured discussion after an event that compares what was supposed to happen with what actually happened, why, and what to sustain or improve. It was formalised by the US Army.
What are the four questions of an after-action review?
Commonly: What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? Why was there a difference? What will we sustain or improve next time?
What are Brian Tracy’s two magic questions?
“What did I do right?” and “What would I do differently?” He recommended asking them, and writing down the answers, after every experience.
Do after-action reviews work?
A meta-analysis of 46 samples found that debriefs improved effectiveness by about 25 percent on average, with similar effects for individuals and teams.
How long should an AAR take?
A personal review can take five minutes. A team review of a project may take 30 minutes or more. Informal reviews are short and held when needed.
What is the difference between an AAR and a post-mortem?
An AAR focuses tightly on the participants’ own actions, and the learning is carried forward by those participants rather than handed to others as recommendations. It is also used after successes, not only after failures.
Key Takeaways
- An after-action review compares what was supposed to happen with what actually happened.
- It is a learning tool, not a critique or a blame session.
- Brian Tracy’s version: “What did I do right?” and “What would I do differently?”
- Debriefs improve performance by about 25 percent on average.
- Review successes as well as failures, use objective data and follow up on actions.
Explore More on Self Help Supermarket
Use these pages alongside this one:
- Mindstorming – generate 20 answers to each review question
- Goal Setting: The Complete Guide – set the intent you review against
- Sales Psychology – apply the review after every sales call
- Zero-Based Thinking – a bigger review of past decisions
- Productivity – more ways to work better
- Brian Tracy: His Life, Philosophy, Techniques and Legacy – the full system
- Brian Tracy: expert profile – his books, videos and key ideas
- Browse all self-help techniques – compare every method on Self Help Supermarket.
Sources
- Headquarters, Department of the Army. (1993). TC 25-20: A Leader’s Guide to After-Action Reviews. Washington, DC, 30 September 1993 (public copy). https://nick.groenen.me/attachments/public/gitignored/TC%2025-20%20A%20Leader%27s%20Guide%20to%20After-Action%20Reviews.pdf
- Wikipedia. “After-action review”, accessed 13 November 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-action_review
- Tracy, B. Change Your Thinking, Change Your Life: How to Unlock Your Full Potential for Success and Achievement. Wiley, 2003. Internet Archive record. https://archive.org/details/changeyourthinki0000trac
- Self Help Supermarket. “Brian Tracy (1944–2026): His Life, Philosophy, Techniques and Legacy”. https://www.selfhelpsupermarket.com/brian-tracy-tribute/
- Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812448394
- Keiser, N. L., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2021). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief) and factors that influence its effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(7), 1007–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000821
- Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 857–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.857
