VOLUME 5, NUMBER 2

Reflections
The SoL Journal

on Knowledge, Learning, and Change

FEATURE ARTICLE

Cultivating a Learning
EconomyMarilyn Darling, David Meador& Shawn Patterson

Commentary

Richard T. Pascale

Response to
Pascale Commentary
Shawn Patterson

Published by The Society for Organizational Learning

ISSN 1524-1734

4reflections.solonline.org

VOLUME 5, NUMBER 2

Reflections
The SoL Journal

on Knowledge, Learning, and Change

Published by The Society for Organizational Learning
4reflections.solonline.org

FEATURE

Cultivating a Learning Economy
After Action Reviews Generate Ongoing Value for DTE Energy
By Marilyn Darling, David Meador & Shawn Patterson

Crisis often tests the connection between what webusiness practice, and years of implementing a

say we believe and what we actually do. In August

bottom-up approach to change, paid off during

2003, a massive failure of the North Americanand after the blackout. The organization’s responseelectricity distribution system left 50 million resi-

to this emergency is a telling example of how DTE

dents of the United States and Canada without

employees at all levels are “walking the talk” –power for as many as two days. For DTE Energy, an

bringing collective intelligence to sometimes un-active, longtime member of the SoL community,

comfortable realities.

Marilyn Darling— Paul M. Cohen, Senior EditorW

ithin minutes after the lights went out on August 14 of this year, everyone at
DTE Energy, the parent company of Detroit Edison, knew that something big
was happening. As calls started coming in to the executive suite from around theregion, CEO Tony Earley recalls:
I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. There was no reason why all of
those areas would be out simultaneously on a perfectly clear day.... It was an eventthat you study in this industry, you have procedures for – but you never think
you’re going to use them.

David Meador

In those few moments, the power grid had failed for 50 million Americans and Canadians.
But for DTE, what was interesting about the blackout of 2003 was not its uniqueness – quite
the contrary. It’s hard to learn anything useful from an event that is seen as a complete
anomaly. However, managers up and down the line at DTE had developed a learning habitthat helped them view the blackout not as a freak occurrence, but rather as an extreme testof the company’s capacity to respond to emergencies. Earley describes walking around emergency headquarters later that night:
I must have seen at least five, maybe ten, people holding pads with the heading

Shawn Patterson“AAR Observations” on them. Right in the middle of the crisis, without any prompting. People just assumed there was going to be an AAR. It was great to see.

Earley is referring to the After Action Review, a tool, borrowed from the U.S. Army, thathas helped accelerate learning at DTE and several other large companies (see sidebar,“Learning from Experience”). The practice enabled people to ask themselves, even as theyreflections.solonline.org

Darling, Meador & Patterson

Cultivating a Learning Economy 1

Copyright © 2003, Society for Organizational Learning. All Rights Reserved.

efforts to embed “learning while doing” as a daily

worked to restore power as quickly as possible, how they could respond more effectively tosuch situations in the future.
Within 24 hours of the blackout, Ron May, senior vice president of distribution andoperations, called for a series of After Action Reviews to assess how well DTE had managed
excess capacity to restore service, deployed personnel, communicated with the public, andmet basic infrastructure needs. Such reviews have become standard practice during emergency responses at DTE, explains Jim Stephanoff, manager of emergency preparedness andresponse:
People write things down as they occur – the good and the bad – instead of waiting
until it’s all over. It gives us a running start on reviewing our performance. What
was different from past experiences was how cross-functional our response was tothe blackout. We had to bring in linemen from other states to get the power backup quickly. We must have had 120 people show up at our emergency headquarters,
and it wasn’t clear to people what they should do next. What we learned from theblackout was that we need a full, cross-functional training exercise to prepare forsuch large-scale emergencies in the future.

The story of how AARs spread throughout the company offers important lessons to thoseseeking to cultivate grassroots learning and change. It’s not a tale of calculated initiatives or
massive rollouts. Each of the authors was involved in different ways, along with many others,
in promoting AARs and other learning practices in DTE.1 Early on, our efforts were met withdoubt or indifference by many in the organization; four years later, AARs have taken root.
To describe how this transformation unfolded, we’ll outline our early attempts to institutionalize the practice, the unexpected ways that reality intruded on our plans, the role of senior
executives, and the results that emerged. We will conclude by identifying some organizational levers that we believe can accelerate learning and change.

Learning from Experience
Over 20 years ago, the U.S. Army created the After
Action Review as part of a redesign of its training strategy. AARs allow units, from combat platoons up, toadjust their actions on a daily basis, and determine• reviews what the unit intended to accomplish,

whether each adjustment is getting the intended results.

• considers what might have caused events to occur
as they did,“After Action Review” is something of a misnomer. Unlike
traditional reviews, which are typically done after an
event (usually a failed event and usually for the benefitof others), AARs occur throughout the life of a project,focus on ongoing actions, and produce an action planthat the participants themselves can use. Though led
by a trained facilitator or the commanding officer,
these sessions do not recognize rank. A cultural norm –established over the two decades of the practice andreinforced by a set of ground rules that are repeated at
the beginning of every AAR – fosters a safe environment
in which participants of any rank can offer candid observations. As practiced by the Army, an AAR typically

2 Cultivating a Learning Economy

Darling, Meador & Patterson• establishes the “ground truth” of what actually
happened,• allows the unit to articulate lessons to take away,and• establishes plans and expectations for the next
day's engagement.
AARs took hold as a frontline practice, rather thanjust a training exercise, during the 1991 Gulf War:Army units saw them as the best way to save lives
and accomplish their missions. Since then, AARs
have gained currency within a range of companies,
including Shell, Harley-Davidson, Disney, J.M. Huber,and Fidelity Investments.2

Reflections

Volume 5, Number 2

© EMILY SPER

Taking First Steps
DTE’s long-time involvement in the SoL community helped its executive team appreciate
the difference between deep understanding and quick fixes. In June 1999, after a visit to theCenter for Army Lessons Learned (the repository for best Army practices), we began introducing AARs as a vehicle for the kind of deep understanding the company was looking for.
We were careful about how we presented the practice, emphasizing its use as a safe way to
discuss difficult issues. We produced an AAR guidebook, conducted quarterly training, andtalked up the tool with managers. DTE’s process-improvement group – a small group ofinternal consultants and trained facilitators – conducted about 25 AARs in 2000.
The process was, and still is, low tech: typically 10 to 15 people, including a facilitator,
working together over a flip chart. They list points for team improvement and an action planfor tracking these improvements. Most DTE teams could complete an AAR in about 90 minutes, on average.3
However, as with many large-scale change efforts, our “push” was not turning into a“pull.” If we suggested it, frontline teams would half-heartedly agree to run an AAR. But
these were seen mostly as one-time events, usually held only after a problem – a stormrelated power outage or construction project delay – occurred, and usually done to placate aboss. Only a few natural champions across the company seemed to understand the potential
value of this tool. We saw little evidence of the changed behaviors and consistent practices
that would produce lasting performance improvement.

reflections.solonline.org

Darling, Meador & Patterson

Cultivating a Learning Economy 3

Reality Intrudes
In February 2001, the whole company shifted its
attention to completing a merger with Michigan
Consolidated Gas. The process-improvement
group put its AAR efforts on hold while piecing
together the organizations. In early 2002, withthe transition settling in, an expanded processimprovement team turned its energies to developing a coherent operating system – a set of principles and tools to be applied, business unit bybusiness unit, to create a “lean” culture in DTE.
AARs became part of the Operating System toolset, but were widely ignored.
While the merger diverted attention from thistool, ironically, it also contributed to its ultimate
success. This was DTE’s first major merger, andthe senior team was eager to learn from it. As theintegration of the two companies neared completion, DTE’s executives asked their subordinates
to draw lessons from the process. Some who werefamiliar with the AAR process chose it as an efficient and non-threatening way to respond, andcalled on the process-improvement group to help
them. People understood that they were being
asked to conduct AARs to learn, rather than to
be blamed. “Everyone wanted to improve,” says
Stephanoff of his managers’ and field crews’ responses to the sessions. “People were quite
professional about the process.”
As the merger took hold, requests for AARs started to come in from many areas of theorganization. The process-improvement group played the spotter role: facilitating the sessions, but also coaching work teams to transform one-time
AARs into true, locally owned learning practices – to lookto the next similar event and consciously complete thelearning cycle by applying lessons learned. The group’s
leadership took a hard line on one point – that teams
doing conventional post-mortems, which often became
finger-pointing sessions, not call them AARs. It was
important not to tarnish the intent of the practice.
Since early 2002, DTE work teams have conducted
hundreds of AARs. As we’ll show, AARs continue to influence work practices throughout the organization. But inhindsight, we see many things that we’d do differently
next time. When we first introduced AARs, for instance,
we made the mistake of wanting to do them “the right way.” That made our initial facilitation and communications about the process appear to be too procedural and demanding.
When we backed off, teams began to experiment and learn on their own – however imperfectly.

When we first introduced
AARs, we made the mistakeof wanting to do them“the right way.” When webacked off, teams began toexperiment and learn on
their own.

4 Cultivating a Learning Economy

Darling, Meador & Patterson

Reflections

Volume 5, Number 2

Lessons didn’t always take hold the way the team leader had hoped. Sessions sometimes
lacked structure. Teams didn’t always follow through on their insights. But such stumbles
gave us openings through which to coach teams on how to improve their practice.

Executives Join In
Shortly after frontline teams began trying out AARs, DTE executives began exploring thepractice on their own. In September 2002, Tony Earley called the Executive Committee’s(EC’s) first series of AARs (facilitated by Darling and her business partner, Charles Parry),
focusing on the merger. Says one EC member, “The session was a breakthrough because Tony
acknowledged something he’d been criticized for during the merger. A lot of us had thought,‘This will never be discussed in my life.’ His willingness to address it head-on legitimized
the tool.” Lessons taken from that first AAR helped the EC to improve the structure of its
deal team and its handling of investment bankers, do more effective due diligence, and better
negotiate subsequent transactions. Those sessions raised executives' awareness of the practiceat the same time that the grassroots effort was gaining traction. The two camps came together
in using AARs, though not by plan.
Another turning point came in November 2002, when Earley called and led his first AAR
without outside facilitation. It was prompted by a fire in a substation adjacent to DTE headquarters, which forced a chaotic evacuation of the complex. Earley’s informal AAR led to
new emergency procedures that later enabled a flawless evacuation during the August 2003
blackout. That AAR was important because it was Earley taking the lead, and because people
saw tangible results.

reflections.solonline.org

Darling, Meador & Patterson

Cultivating a Learning Economy 5

These practices never were mandated, nor built into our formal project management processes. Yet they have taken hold at DTE. How did success happen? Was it merely happenstance, or are there levers that can contribute to the right conditions? We believe that the
introduction of the new learning tools, coinciding with events that affected employees' dayto-day work, created what economists call “a double coincidence of wants.” Executives
wanted the organization to develop a deeper understanding of, and response to, the forces
shaping business change. They did not say how. Teams chose AARs as the best response. In
the process of responding to that demand, and with gentle nudging and patient facilitation,teams discovered that AARs served local goals as well.
This convergence helped create a “learning economy” around activities that matter,both globally and locally. The benefits of participation outweighed the costs; corporate interest and self-interest coincided. The process shifted AARs from something teams dowhen things go wrong to something that becomes part ofthe process of wanting to get better (see sidebar, “Sourcesof Pull in a Learning Economy”).

These practices neverwere mandated, nor built
into our formal project
management processes.
Yet they have taken
hold at DTE.

Putting Learning to Work

Today, AAR practices are ongoing across DTE – in major
construction projects, customer service activities, planned
and unplanned outages, technical training, benefits communications, public safety, and emergency response. In addition to conducting AARs in reviewing merger and acquisition activity (including a $600-million divestiture of the company’s
high-voltage transmission business), the senior executive team regularly uses the tool to prepare for quarterly earnings releases and for board meetings. In each case, the sessions tackle acompelling challenge, grounded in a specific work practice, that facilitates continued learningand performance improvement.
One area in which AARs have had clear impact is the company’s handling of planned outages. Like other energy companies, DTE must take plants off-line for a three-to-twelve-weekperiod every three to four years to do maintenance and upgrades. In a given year, DTE willconduct up to six of these shutdowns – ample opportunity to learn from one to the next. The
AAR focuses on the planning process, including engineering, outage planning, and plantmaintenance and operations.
Doug Dale, the Operating System project lead, explains how AARs are integrated into theplanning process, which involves 15 major milestones in the six months leading up to theoutage:After we hit milestones, we get together with process owners and have AARs. It
has helped us define what milestones mean and create tools to help meet them.
After the outage, we conduct a series of “capstone” AARs to make sure we have
fixed the problems that really mattered, as efficiently as possible. I try to encourage
outage teams to conduct these capstone AARs by functional discipline. If we use
AARs on large-scale operations, they tend to break down. I encourage sub-teams,
like supply chain, to bring data. How many parts did we order during the outage
versus beforehand? This gives the teams “ground truth” data to see where
we planned effectively and where we could improve.

6 Cultivating a Learning Economy

Darling, Meador & Patterson

Reflections

Volume 5, Number 2

Sources of Pull in a Learning Economy
3. Grassroots exposure to AARs
Introduce teams to the tool by demonstrating its
ability to provide a safe environment. Help them use
it in learning around their own priorities and challenges, but don’t mandate its use, and don’t insist on
perfection. Based on our experience, you can expectthat the tool will be misunderstood and misapplied
at first. Let teams experiment, and be there to coachthem to the next level of insight. For DTE, having theprocess-improvement group seek out receptive work
teams across the organization was a first critical step.
Being there to nudge them forward was the second.

We believe managers in many organizations can findlevers to build a “learning economy.” However, rather
than trying to script a top-down campaign, or wait forbottom-up efforts to pan out, managers, consultants,
and other change agents can take steps to cultivate
an environment for sustainable learning.

Figure 1 Five Forces for Change
Leadershipby request
and example
Events seen
as learning
opportunities

4. A cadre of trained facilitators
Develop a core group of process leaders who understand both how to facilitate AARs, and how to help
guide teams toward “high yield” applications (tangible return for the investment). For example, DTE’s
process-improvement group was able to coachoutage teams toward a coordinated effort to reduce
costly downtime substantially.

Local ownership forlearning that matters
Grassroots
exposure
to AARs
A cadreof trained
facilitators

1. Leadership by request and example
Help managers at all levels appreciate the importanceof deep learning and ongoing discipline versus one-time
events and quick fixes. Encourage them to ask for thatlevel of understanding from subordinates. Help themdevelop a learning practice that reflects their own priorities and challenges. From our experience, if managers,
and especially senior managers, don’t have the predilection to sustain the investment in this practice, it may
never take root in the organization. DTE’s executive committee started with a key event – the merger – and expanded its practice to include other priorities in its work
as a team. Notes Tony Earley, “When we actually adopted
AARs as a tool at the executive level, it sent a powerful
message to the organization.”
2. Events seen as learning opportunities
Develop the organization’s ability, at senior, middle, andgrassroots levels, to recognize day-to-day events, as wellas major crises, as opportunities to learn. Help teams
link past and current events, so that lessons from thepast can be applied to improving current results. Frombenefits communications to quarterly earnings reporting,to storms, fires, and blackouts, events at DTE havestarted to take on a second level of importance as aground for learning.

reflections.solonline.org

5. Local ownership for learning that matters
Most departments and teams know what practices
they need to improve. A question commonly posedby Signet: “If you could improve performance in one
area that would make a significant difference for theenterprise, what would that be?” The answer to thisquestion points teams toward their most natural
local learning practice. Thus, the work team becomesthe first, best customer for its own learning. This iscontrary to the “capture and disseminate” model atthe core of most knowledge-management practices.
When this practice becomes compelling enough todrive teams to embrace it – when the benefit outweighs the cost – there is little need for a pushfrom above.
As good applications get discovered, nurture them.
Track results and use these successes to educate
other teams about how and where to use AARs
effectively to improve their own performance. Focus
on local learning and tangible results – that iswhat builds excitement and commitment.

Darling, Meador & Patterson

Cultivating a Learning Economy 7

The result is that DTE continuously upgrades its outage procedures. In the case of one
recent outage, work teams were able to bring the unit back up a week ahead of time, at considerable savings. The company is on track to take four to six weeks out of the planned outage schedule, as part of a targeted $50 million in total operational improvements for 2003.
Each review focuses on specific questions, which might change over time. Storm-response
AARs currently focus on public safety: How can DTE best protect the public when wires go
down? How should crews be assigned? What is the best way to maintain a cadre of on-call
employees? With each instance, response teams have an
opportunity to refine their methods. Though the company
has not been tested by a major storm since beginning thesereviews, they have led to more than 80 changes in the way
public safety teams are managed and deployed.
As for the August blackout, DTE expects to harvest lessons in many areas: how best to use peaker units (power
plants that can be brought on line rapidly for extra capacity);
how it designs equipment to isolate parts of the system whenlocal failures occur; new methods to match capacity anddemand; how to allocate resources to coordinate emergency
responses; improved procedures to schedule equipment
start-ups; back-up communication plans; and even how tomake sure that field crews get fed when an entire service area is down. However, AARs are
not a cure-all: In some cases they have pointed teams to areas that require more extensive rootcause analysis for better understanding of failures.

AARs have contributed
not only to hundreds ofoperational improvements,
but also to one of thecompany’s core values:
engaging all employees
in organized reflection.

Leadership, Learning, and Accountability
AARs have contributed not only to hundreds of operational improvements, but also to one
of DTE’s core values: engaging all employees in organized reflection. As during the blackout,
we see people approaching events with the intention of learning from them and improving
their own performance. Employees take notes on significant events, and the number andquality of conversations about work practices has increased. Managers, including membersof the executive committee, report taking more time to discuss the sometimes-uncomfortablerealities of team performance.
AARs are also helping redefine what it means to be a leader at DTE. Earley describes it
this way:
People are encouraged to be accountable for their actions and take ownershipof them and not be defensive. That’s a big step forward because, traditionally,
accountability meant that somebody in a senior position is holding someone else’s
feet to the fire. But some of the most effective accountability comes when people
hold themselves accountable. The AAR lets people do that in an environment
where they don’t feel threatened.
To chief executives who want to instill this kind of learning culture, I’d say, first,
you’ve got to be willing to participate, and you’ve got to be willing to make yourself vulnerable by being open about where you could improve your own actions.
And that is what sends the message that this is really about learning. It’s notabout assigning blame.

8 Cultivating a Learning Economy

Darling, Meador & Patterson

Reflections

Volume 5, Number 2

Endnotes
1. We also introduced kaizen, the continuous-improvement process aimed primarily at technical andoperational processes, at about the same time as AARs. The dynamics of this introduction – in termsof our attempts to sell the technique and the organizational response to it – closely followed thoseof the AAR experience.
2. For more on the origin and practice of AARs, see “After Action Reviews: Linking Reflection and
Planning in a Learning Practice,” Reflections, Vol. 3, No. 2. See also G. Sullivan and M. Harper. Hopeis not a Method: What Business Leaders Can Learn from America’s Army (Broadway Books, 1997).
3. There is no standard duration for an AAR; times vary widely depending on the issues at hand, thereadiness of the team, and the support of the larger organization.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Marilyn Darling is president

David Meador is senior vice

Shawn Patterson is director,of Signet Consulting Group. She

president and chief financial

operating system strategy group,

has made numerous visits toofficer of DTE Energy. He has

at DTE Energy. Since 1998

U.S. Army training and knowl-

championed the use of AARs

he has led the companywide

edge management centers,

as a learning tool in the com-

process-improvement teams

and since 1999 has coachedpany, leading sessions with his

responsible for teaching, facili-

DTE Energy senior managers,

own team and teaching AAR

tating, and extending the prac-

staff, and work teams intechniques in company

tice of AARs and other learning

emergent learning practices,

workshops.

tools in the company.

including AARs.

meadord@dteenergy.com

pattersonsp@dteenergy.com

mdarling@signetconsulting.com

reflections.solonline.org

Darling, Meador & Patterson

Cultivating a Learning Economy 9

COMMENTARY

Commentary
By Richard T. Pascale
I read “Cultivating a Learning Economy” withduals will have spotted the early indicators ofgreat interest. Having worked both with thethings-gone-wrong, but (1) weren’t trained, (2)Army during its development of the After Action

didn’t tell, or (3) weren’t listened to. Faulty deci-

Review at the National Training Center, and,sion making can amplify – to numbing propor-

subsequently, with Army alumni who have intro-

tions – the impacts of the problems to which

duced the AAR practice to other organizations,these early warnings pointed.

I have seen the profound impact it can have.
Richard T. Pascale

The Army went to extraordinary lengths to systematize learning in a way that clearly reveals
the gaps between what is supposed to happen
and what actually occurs. Identifying and closing such gaps is key to learning. Furthermore,
as practiced by the Army, AARs effectively level
hierarchy and allow learning by all participants.
Of course, few organizations have thought asmuch about the cascading effects of error as
has the U.S. Army. Frontline troops are pivotal
in exploiting opportunities and heading offlarger disasters when things begin to go wrong.
In warfare, the price of these failures is measured not just in economic, but also in human

Unfortunately, the quests for “who’s at fault”
are often conducted under the shadow of impending lawsuits and irreversible damage to
reputations. They conclude predictably: heads
roll, organizations are humbled, and management inevitably imposes new “fail-safe” procedures. And that’s where they get it wrong. Whatis needed isn’t a “fail-safe” system, but a learning system that makes it “safe to fail.”
To assess DTE Energy’s success with AARs, it’snecessary to understand the keys to creating a“safe-to-fail” environment, as encapsulated in
an Army After Action Review. These concepts,
equally applicable to industry, are:currency. Finding those to blame for a particu-

First (reiterating a theme underscored in Totallar incident – even imposing a top-down pro-

Quality Management): Identify the tasks thatcedure to prevent it from recurring – has been

drive success, the conditions under which they

acknowledged by the Army as “too little, toomust be performed, and standards of excellencelate.” The Army’s goal is to head off catastro-(e.g.: hit an enemy tank within a range of 4,000

phes before they happen. For other organiza-

yards, moving at 20 mph over uneven terrain attions, as well, the prevention of calamities suchnight, with an 80-percent success rate). With-as the northeast U.S./eastern Canada blackoutout this clarity, the After Action Review hasor the loss of the Columbia or Challenger space

no foundation on which to build.

shuttles is tremendous incentive to adopt asimilar crusade.

Second: Immerse the team that must work
together (regardless of function or hierarchy)

The aftermath of such crises is too familiar:

in an action-learning experience that is both

media frenzy in pursuit of cause and blame,

prolonged and intense. Take on a very toughfollowed by methodical investigation that duti-

project or a very tough competitor. Under the

fully delivers a culprit. Invariably a few indivi-right conditions, stress and exhaustion have
Copyright © 2003, Society for Organizational Learning. All Rights Reserved.

10 WhatCan You �Learn
from a Blackout?
Commentary
PascaleDarling, Meador & Patterso

Reflections

Volume 5, Number 2the effect of unfreezing old patterns of behavior

ness practice. Second, its senior executives appear

and creating openings for new understandings andto be truly walking the talk – by taking personal

behavior to take root.

risks in using After Action Reviews in their own

Third: Collect hard data on what has transpiredin order to eliminate subjectivity and debate. Let
the data point the finger, not the trainers.

work. I know of no other company that has
taken the practice so far.
However, it is difficult to know whether the com-

Fourth: Utilize highly skilled facilitators (observercontrollers) who have in-depth knowledge of what
they are observing. Never criticize. Use Socratic
questioning to evoke self-discovery.

pany has fully assimilated the six practices essential to a successful AAR. Unless all of these arein place, the After Action Review can become anenhanced postmortem – helpful, but insufficient
to ensure deep learning and sustainable change.

Fifth: Do not evaluate performance. The experience

My first questions to any company seeking theis not about success or failure, but about whatfull benefits of an After Action Review are:each person can learn. Make it safe to learn.

• Have you codified the tasks, conditions, andSixth: Cultivate mindful disciplines over the

standards clearly enough to establish a baseline

course of the experience and bake them into theunderstanding of proficiency by the people

workplace back home. The Army’s success stems

doing the job?

from: (1) every soldier having a shared and intri-• Do you record “ground truth” in a given circum-

cate understanding of what drives “business” results,

stance with sufficient clarity and objectivity to(2) cultivating relentless discomfort with the status

document what actually has happened? (Well-quo through mechanisms such as the AAR, andtrained facilitators are essential to this, but(3) establishing a standard of uncompromising

their role at DTE is unclear.)straight talk that evokes cross-hierarchical
Only by documenting and comparing intentions

feedback and introspection.

and results can people identify gaps and begin a
DTE Energy provides an ideal setting for Aftergenuine learning process. Such an undertaking

Action Reviews. It is a large, dispersed organiza-

requires enormous discipline and commitment,tion undertaking critical activities that carry risk

but as DTE’s experience has at least begun toto both the individual employee and the larger

demonstrate, it is a commitment well worth

community. Its business operations are character-making.

ized by well-defined, repetitive procedures punctuated by natural disasters and unforeseen events.

Richard T. Pascale is an associate fellow,

In reading about DTE’s experience to date, I am

Templeton College, Oxford University, and was astruck by two remarkable achievements. First,

member of the faculty of Stanford Business Schoolfor 20 years. For more on After Action Reviews, see

unlike other corporations that have attempted
AARs only episodically, DTE has made a serious
effort to make them an ongoing part of its busi-

reflections.solonline.org

his most recent book, Surfing the Edge of Chaos.
rtpascale@aol.com

Darling, Meador & Patterson

Cultivating
Pascalea Learning
Commentary
Economy 11

RESPONSE

Response to Pascale Commentary
By Shawn Patterson

Shawn Patterson

As one of the authors of “Cultivating a Learning

We have been encouraged by the fact that

Economy,” I sincerely appreciate Richard Pascale’s

leaders who do step up and facilitate, despite

thorough review of the ideas that we expressed.

their lack of expertise in AARs or facilitation

He clearly lays out the next steps that we atskills, quickly improve their skills. After conduct-

DTE Energy need to take to continue to build

ing three or four events, we see them doing

toward our ideal state in our After Action Review

more of what Mr. Pascale describes as keys

practice. In particular, we must improve ourfor a successful AAR practice, including digging

ability to record “ground truth” systematicallydeeper each time to establish the ground truth.

and continue to create the kind of “safe-to-fail”

In a way, because we have placed more em-

environment that ultimately embraces current

phasis on identifying the natural learning prac-reality, both good and bad. Skillful, direct obser-

tices, we have set the stage to help them use

vation of the work to be reviewed, in order toiteration to learn the facilitation skills necessary

establish the ground truth, has been and con-to run successful AARs – which only serves totinues to be a challenging learning edge forstrengthen our culture’s relationship to learn-

our company.

ing and improvement.

Mr. Pascale also discusses the need to “utilize

In the end, perhaps the debate centers nothighly skilled facilitators (observer-controllers)around whether a highly skilled facilitator is

who have in-depth knowledge of what they are

essential, but rather, on the approach and timing

observing.” The DTE experience causes us toto get there. Our experience has been that it isquestion this notion somewhat. In some of ournot a necessary prerequisite as a starting point.

most successful AARs (success being defined

Our experience suggests that it is great to startas quality of solutions and commitment towith an ideal state in mind, but to be patient,action), the facilitator has been either the leader

understanding that we are on a journey toof the process, with little facilitation experience,achieve the ideal state, if there even is one.

or a facilitator from outside of the process,who was decidedly not a subject-matter expert.
We’ve attributed the success of these workshops to the fact that there is strong local ownership for learning and improvement. Conversely,
in workshops with a stronger-form facilitator,
teams have tended to cede control to the facilitator, creating a more passive team dynamic.

� Patterson
Response to
Pascale Commentary
12 Cultivatinga Learning
EconomyDarling,
Meador & Patterso

Reflections

Volume 5, Number 2

Reflections
The SoL Journal

on Knowledge, Learning, and Change
Volume 5, Number 2

Editorial Team
Editors-in-Chief
Karen Ayas and Peter M. Senge
Senior Editor
Paul M. Cohen
Publisher
C. Sherry Immediato
Individual Subscription Options
Receive Reflections as a SoL Connections member:• USD$125 U.S.
• USD$135 International
One year Reflections subscription:• USD$75 U.S.
• USD$85 International
To order online and for a full description of subscription options, see http://reflections.solonline.org
For institutional subscriptions, contact David
Mahaffey (see below).

Reflections: The SoL Journal is published 10 times
per year (July through June) in electronic format andonce per year as a hard copy compilation by theSociety for Organizational Learning, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02139, USA. Inquiries regarding subscriptions and address changes, back issues, reprints,
and permission requests should be directed to:
ISSN 1524-1734
EISSN 1536-0148© 2003 by the Society for Organizational Learning.
SoL is a registered trademark of the Society for Organizational Learning.
Design & Production: DG Communications (NonprofitDesign.com)
Design Concept: OHO (OHOCreative.com)

reflections.solonline.org

David Mahaffey,
Publications Management Intern
Reflections: The SoL Journal
955 Massachusetts Ave, Suite 201
Cambridge, MA 02139(1)617.300.9515 (phone)(1)617.354.2093 (fax)reflections@solonline.org
http://reflections.solonline.org

Darling, Meador & Patterson

Cultivating a Learning Economy 13