One of the most valuable leadership lessons I learned as an F-14 Tomcat pilot had nothing to do with flying the airplane. It was the debrief that followed every flight.

Regardless of whether it was a routine training mission or a complex combat exercise, the flight crews would meet and conduct a detailed debrief immediately after landing.

Depending on the flight, these debriefs could last anywhere from 45 minutes to several hours. The objective was simple: Did we execute the mission as briefed? What worked? What didn’t work? What can we do better next time?

The debrief was not about assigning blame. It was not about rank. It was not about egos.

It was about learning and improving our performance as aviators. Every mission, whether successful or unsuccessful, contained valuable lessons. The debrief provided an opportunity to capture those lessons while they were still fresh in everyone’s mind.

When I transitioned into business leadership roles, I quickly discovered that most operating reviews were conducted very differently.

These meetings typically began with a review of the financial and operational metrics:

• Sales were down.
• Cash flow was below target.
• Deliveries were late.
• Costs were too high.
• Scrap and rework were excessive.
• Overtime was out of control.

And the list went on.

Nothing was identified as going well, and if it was, it was rarely highlighted or discussed.

As soon as the first negative metric appeared on the screen, the interrogation would begin.

• Why are sales down?
• Why are deliveries late?
• Why is overtime so high?

Very quickly, the tone of the meeting became adversarial and defensive.

In most cases, the management team was seeing the information for the first time. They had little or no opportunity to review the data, much less understand the underlying causes.

Facts and analysis were replaced with assumptions, excuses, and vague explanations. Finger-pointing replaced problem-solving. Threats replaced leadership.

The operating review became a search for who was responsible rather than an effort to understand what happened, why it happened, and what actions were necessary to improve future performance.

Not surprisingly, many of these meetings ended with frustration, little accountability, and few meaningful solutions. In some cases, resumes were updated.

I always believed there was a better way. Over the years, I adopted many of the principles used in naval aviation debriefs and incorporated them into my business operating reviews, and the results were remarkable:

• The meetings became collaborative rather than confrontational.
• People became engaged rather than defensive.
• The focus shifted from assigning blame to identifying root causes and developing solutions.
• Most importantly, the operating review became a tool for continuous improvement rather than a monthly exercise in frustration.

What Worked?

While the naval aviation debrief provided the inspiration, the operating review process I eventually developed was designed specifically for business.

Rather than beginning with highlighting what was wrong, I learned to start somewhere entirely different.

The first question I ask is: “What worked?”

Many leaders find this approach surprising.

After all, if the purpose of the operating review is to solve problems, why not start with the problems?

The answer is simple. People respond differently when they feel their accomplishments and efforts are recognized and valued.

Starting with “What Worked?” immediately changes the tone of the meeting. It creates a positive, trusting environment, reduces anxiety, encourages participation, and provides an opportunity for team members to recognize others’ contributions.

It also creates momentum. People become focused on solutions and accomplishments rather than immediately preparing to defend themselves.

More importantly, it reminds everyone that even during difficult periods, there are examples of successful execution that can be repeated elsewhere in the organization.

Organizations need to acknowledge, celebrate, and replicate their wins.

I have found that teams become far more willing to discuss problems openly after first recognizing successes.

Only after discussing what worked do we move to the next question:

“What Didn’t Work?”

What Didn’t Work?

Once the team has discussed what worked, we move to the next question:

“What didn’t work?”

This is where many operating reviews go off the rails.

As soon as a problem is identified, the discussion often shifts from problem-solving to blame and overreaction. Heads go down. Excuses and vague explanations surface.

Information gets withheld, and the focus shifts from solving the problem to protecting careers.

This approach rarely produces meaningful improvement.

Before discussing any issue, I establish one simple ground rule:

The objective is not to identify who failed. The objective is to identify what didn’t work as planned, why it didn’t work, and what actions are necessary to prevent it from happening again. That’s all.

That statement changes the entire dynamics of the discussion.

Rather than focusing on personalities, the team begins focusing on facts, processes, systems, communications, assumptions, and decision-making.

The conversation becomes fact-based:

• What happened?
• Why did it happen?
• What evidence supports our conclusion?
• Do we fully understand the issue, or are we simply treating symptoms?

One of the biggest mistakes organizations make is jumping to conclusions before they fully understand the problem.

Too often, organizations stop at the symptom.

• Late deliveries become a supplier problem.
• Poor quality becomes an operator problem.
• Missed sales targets become a sales problem.
• High overtime becomes a staffing problem.

In reality, the issue is often much deeper.

• Poor planning.
• Undocumented or broken processes.
• Inadequate training.
• Unclear expectations.
• Weak communication.
• Lack of accountability.

The purpose of the discussion is to take a deep dive and uncover the real cause of the problem. Then, and only then, can meaningful action plans be developed.

I have found that when people understand the purpose of the discussion is improvement rather than punishment, they become significantly more willing to participate honestly and openly. And that is where real improvement begins.

Lessons Learned

Once the team has discussed what worked and what didn’t work, the next question is:

“Based on what’s working and what’s not working, what lessons have we learned?”

This is where the operating review begins to create real value:

• Every success contains lessons.
• Every challenge contains lessons.

The objective is to identify what should be repeated, what should be avoided, and what changes are needed to improve future performance.

Unfortunately, many organizations skip this step entirely. They discuss the problem, assign blame, demand improvements, and move on.

As a result, the same issues reappear month after month and year after year, driving underperformance and frustration.

Most lessons learned result from openly discussing and understanding what worked and what didn’t. As the team gains a better understanding of the issue, opportunities for improvement begin to emerge naturally.

An effective operating review captures those lessons while they are still fresh and transforms them into organizational knowledge.

A simple question I often ask is: “If we had to do it all over again, what would we do differently?” and that question frequently generates some of the most valuable discussion in the entire review.

The lessons learned discussion also serves as the bridge to action plans. As lessons are identified, opportunities for improvement emerge, action plans are developed, and accountability begins to take shape.

The goal is not perfection. The goal is to improve and move forward.

Every lesson learned should help the organization become more effective, more efficient, and better prepared for the future.

Action Plans

An operating review that ends without defined action plans is little more than an interesting discussion and has lost most of its value. It simply became a beat-down session with no meaningful results.

Discussion alone does not improve performance. Action do.

Once the team has identified what worked, what didn’t work, and the lessons learned, the next question becomes: “What are we going to do about it?”

Before developing action plans, the team must have a clear understanding of the real issue being addressed. Too often, organizations rush to implement solutions before they fully understand the problem.

A well-conducted operating review first defines the issue. Only then can the team discuss the actions necessary to improve future performance.

In many cases, a single issue may require multiple actions. In other situations, the issue may have several underlying causes, each requiring its own action plan.

The objective is not to create a long list of activities. The objective is to identify a sequence of critical actions that will address the issue, remedy the underlying causes, and have the greatest impact on future performance.

If the lessons learned identify what needs to improve, the action plans define how those improvements will occur.

The discussion should focus on practical actions that address the issue, improve performance, and help prevent the problem from recurring.

Without action plans, the same issues will continue to appear month after month.

With effective action plans, the organization begins moving from discussion to execution.

Ownership and Due Dates

Action plans alone do not improve performance. Ownership, execution, and accountability drive results.

One of the most common reasons organizations fail to make progress is that the action plans are vague and underdeveloped. And in many cases where there is granularity in the actions developed, nobody is assigned responsibility for completing them nor is there a defined completion date.

An action plan without an owner is merely a suggestion.

Likewise, an action plan without a completion date rarely receives the attention it deserves.

For every action plan identified during the operating review, three questions must be answered:

• What are we going to do?
• Who owns it?
• When will it be completed?

The objective is to establish what needs to be accomplished, who is responsible for it, and ensure that important improvement initiatives move forward and are accomplished.

When ownership is unclear, actions tend to fall through the cracks.

When completion dates are undefined, priorities shift and progress slows.

A well-conducted operating review concludes with a clear understanding of who is responsible for each action plan and when it will be completed

Accountability is not about punishment. It is about meeting commitments.

When individuals make commitments and follow through on those commitments, organizational performance improves.

The ultimate goal is not to complete action plans. The goal is to improve performance.

Ownership and accountability simply help ensure that happens.

Conclusion

An effective operating review should never be viewed as a painful monthly exercise in reporting numbers, assigning blame, or demanding improvement.

Its purpose is much greater.

A well-conducted operating review creates a trusting and structured environment where teams can openly discuss performance, identify opportunities for improvement, develop meaningful action plans, and establish accountability.

The process is straightforward:

• What worked?
• What didn’t work?
• Based on what’s working and what’s not working, what lessons have we learned?
• What are we going to do about it?
• Who owns it?
• When will it be completed?

Organizations that consistently follow this process create a culture of improvement.

• People become more engaged.
• Issues are identified earlier.
• Solutions are developed faster.
• Accountability improves.
• Performance improves.

Most importantly, the operating review becomes a valuable business tool rather than a monthly exercise in frustration.

Throughout my career, I have found that the most successful organizations are not those that avoid problems. They are the organizations that openly discuss problems, learn from them, develop action plans, and execute those plans with discipline.

The objective is not to identify who failed, but to identify what didn’t work as planned, why it didn’t work, and what actions are necessary to prevent it from happening again.

When conducted in this manner, operating reviews become one of the most powerful tools for improving organizational performance.

Need an Outside Perspective?

Many business owners are simply too close to the business to objectively evaluate their operating review process. An experienced outside advisor can often identify issues, opportunities, and blind spots that have become invisible to those managing the business every day.

If your operating reviews are not producing the results you expect, let’s have a conversation.

Chuck Gumbert
The Tomcat Group
Pushing the Envelope™ of Business Performance

About the Author

Chuck Gumbert is a business advisor, turnaround specialist, author, and former U.S. Navy F-14 Tomcat pilot. Through The Tomcat Group, he helps business owners Push the Envelope of operational performance, strengthen accountability, streamline operations, improve profitability, and achieve sustainable growth.