I watched the end of Wednesday night's Champions League game in the UK between Lyon and Liverpool.  Liverpool conceded a goal in the last few minutes which made their chances of progressing in their favoured competition most unlikely.  Within 10 minutes of the end of the game, their captain Jamie Carragher - a rare scouse in the Liverpool team - was asked a series of questions on what had happened in the game.

The question that threw him the most (he was admirably cool while looking devastated) was "was it a loss of concentration that led to the goal being conceded?".  The question would have assigned fault to two of Carragher's colleagues.  Carragher answered after a brief confused look with "it looked like the ball was just bouncing around and then it the next thing I knew it was in the net.  We'll have to look at it later to see what happened".

In the midst of a standard well-oiled interview by a great professional this answer demonstrated the folly of trying to work out what went wrong so soon after the event.  We are often encouraged as managers to ensure that performance appraisal occurs at the time of the event, while everything is fresh in their mind.  But here the "manager" (captain) was ill-equipped to give feedback.

You can take "in the moment" feedback too far.  I recommend a day or two after the event, when the emotion has subsided yet memories are fresh.  A short period of reflection allows for a considered performance appraisal rather than a reactive one.  If you were one of those central defenders devastated by defeat you would not have been receptive to your captain pointing out your fault 10 minutes after the game.  But after a day or so, that same performance feedback delivered well would allow you to develop and avoid the same mistake twice.

Performance appraisal and feedback can be difficult.  Timing of the feedback really matters.

Brendan