When discussing an incident during a postmortem, what is recommended instead of mentioning an individual's specific name?

During a postmortem discussion about an incident, it is recommended to describe the actions of individuals as those of an anonymous responder to maintain a focus on the incident itself rather than attributing responsibility to specific individuals. This approach helps to create an environment where team members feel safe sharing their insights and experiences without the fear of blame or criticism.

Fostering a blame-free environment encourages open discussion, allowing for a deeper understanding of what went wrong and how similar incidents can be prevented in the future. When individuals are anonymized, the team can concentrate on procedural improvements and systemic issues rather than personal shortcomings. This ultimately leads to a more productive postmortem that highlights learning opportunities and encourages collaborative problem-solving.

While using aliases, job titles, or referring to them as staff members could also serve to anonymize individuals, these alternatives can unintentionally shift attention or imply specific accountability, potentially hampering open communication. Describing actions without naming specific individuals is therefore a more effective approach in this context.