The Critical Incident Technique (CIT) is a structured set of procedures designed for collecting direct observations of human behavior that hold particular meaning within a defined context. It identifies specific actions that have a measurable effect, either positive or negative, on a stated activity’s general purpose. The technique focuses exclusively on specific, observable behaviors that meet pre-determined criteria for significance, moving beyond general opinions or traits. This focus on documented events allows researchers and practitioners to develop practical insights and solve organizational problems.
Defining the Critical Incident Technique
The origins of this systematic approach trace back to the work of Colonel John C. Flanagan during World War II, developed within the U.S. Army Air Forces Aviation Psychology Program. The military needed a reliable method for identifying the specific behaviors that separated effective aircrews from ineffective ones, leading to the formalization of the technique in the 1950s. Flanagan defined CIT as a way to collect observations of human behavior to solve practical problems and develop psychological principles.
The defining characteristic of CIT is the distinction between an important incident and a truly “critical” incident. A critical incident is a situation that makes a significant contribution, either positive or negative, to the general aim of the activity being studied. This means the incident must have a discernible consequence on the outcome, such as success or failure in a task, rather than simply being a notable event.
The technique focuses strictly on collecting narratives of observable behaviors, detailing what the person actually did in a specific situation, not their general attitudes or personality traits. By concentrating on documented actions, the technique produces data that can be analyzed and categorized objectively. The resulting collection of effective and ineffective behaviors provides a foundation for making inferences and predictions about future performance.
The Systematic Methodology: Five Key Steps
The implementation of the Critical Incident Technique follows a systematic five-step process designed to move from a broad objective to actionable findings. This methodology ensures that the collected data is relevant, specific, and directly tied to the purpose of the study. The rigor applied at each stage separates CIT from less structured forms of data collection.
Determining the General Aim
The first step requires clearly defining the overall purpose and scope of the activity being studied, which establishes the framework for all subsequent data collection. This aim must be specific enough to allow for the judgment of whether an incident ultimately contributed to success or failure. For example, the aim might be to enhance the effectiveness of a customer service team or to improve safety compliance. Defining the aim provides the necessary context for determining which behaviors are relevant. Without a well-established general aim, it is impossible to determine if a reported action has the necessary impact to be considered critical.
Setting Standards and Criteria
Before any data is collected, the researcher must clearly define the standards that determine whether an incident is effective or ineffective. This involves specifying the characteristics an observation must possess to be included in the study, such as the situation, the participants, and the level of impact. Defining the criteria for “criticality” ensures reporters understand the difference between a minor issue and one that fundamentally alters the outcome. These standards also detail who will report the incidents and under what conditions, such as requiring firsthand observation. Establishing objective standards minimizes subjectivity during collection and ensures all gathered incidents are comparable and relevant.
Collecting the Data (The Incidents)
Data collection involves gathering detailed narratives of specific, observed incidents through methods such as interviews, questionnaires, or direct observation. The reporter, typically an individual who performed or witnessed the action, is asked to describe the context, the specific behavior taken, and the resulting consequences or outcome. A complete critical incident requires all three components—situation, action, and outcome—to be recorded. Researchers must prompt the reporter to focus on observable actions rather than interpretations. The goal is to collect a large volume of these detailed narratives, including both positive and negative examples, until saturation is reached and no new categories of behavior are emerging.
Analyzing and Categorizing the Data
Once the narratives are collected, the analysis phase begins, classifying the raw incidents into meaningful, inductively derived categories. This process involves sorting the hundreds or thousands of individual incident descriptions based on the similarity of the underlying behavior or the type of problem addressed. Researchers typically use a panel of subject matter experts to independently group the incidents and agree on a final set of categories and subcategories. The categories that emerge should represent the distinct dimensions of effective and ineffective performance related to the general aim. The final categories are then validated to ensure they accurately represent the collected incidents and are mutually exclusive.
Interpreting and Reporting the Findings
The final step translates the categorized behavioral data into practical insights and recommendations for the organization. The frequency and nature of the behaviors within each category are analyzed to develop a comprehensive picture of performance requirements. The final report typically presents the list of categories, the specific behavioral examples within them, and conclusions about the requirements for success. These findings can be used to create tools such as competency models, performance standards, or training curricula. The interpretation connects the specific, observed behaviors back to the original aim, providing an evidence-based roadmap for organizational improvement.
Primary Applications of CIT
The Critical Incident Technique is a versatile tool used across organizational and psychological disciplines to create behavior-based systems and standards. Its ability to capture real-world, context-specific behavior makes it valuable for three human resources functions.
Job analysis is a frequent application, where CIT helps define the requirements of a role based on actual performance data rather than generalized task lists. By collecting incidents of successful and unsuccessful performance, the technique identifies the specific actions that differentiate a top performer from an average one. For example, incidents collected from a technical support role could establish that “actively listening to the full problem description before offering a solution” is a necessary behavior for effective performance.
The technique is used in performance management to develop Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS). CIT provides the specific behavioral anchors used on the scale, where each rating point is defined by a concrete, observed example of performance. Instead of rating an employee on a vague trait like “Communication,” a BARS scale developed via CIT might anchor a mid-level rating with the behavior: “Clearly summarizes key discussion points at the close of every meeting.”
CIT also forms the foundation for training needs assessment by accurately identifying skill gaps within a workforce. Analyzing the collected ineffective incidents points directly to areas where employees lack the necessary knowledge or skills. If numerous incidents show employees failing to correctly follow a new safety protocol, the findings provide the context and specific actions needed to design targeted training modules.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Using CIT
The Critical Incident Technique offers several advantages rooted in its focus on real-world, observable behavior. A benefit is the collection of rich, detailed, and contextualized qualitative data directly from the participants’ perspective. The narratives capture the complexity of the situation, the actions taken, and the consequences, providing a depth of understanding that broad surveys often miss. This behavioral specificity also lends the technique high face validity, meaning the results are easily understood and accepted by practitioners because the findings are based on actual workplace events.
Despite its strengths, CIT presents several challenges that must be managed during implementation. The main disadvantage is the potential for reporter bias, as the technique relies on the retrospective recall of events. Individuals may unconsciously filter or distort their memory, leading to self-serving descriptions that exaggerate positive contributions or minimize negative ones. This reliance on memory means the data is not a direct, objective observation of the behavior as it occurred.
The methodology requires a significant commitment of time and resources for both data collection and analysis. Conducting detailed interviews and classifying hundreds or thousands of narratives into meaningful categories is a labor-intensive process. Furthermore, the findings are highly specific to the context in which they were collected, making it difficult to generalize the results to a different organization or role. The results are tied to the specific objectives and criteria established at the outset, limiting their broader application.