After a setback choose one change for next time

What to take from Seelig’s record

The reading note on What I Wish I Knew When I Was 20 includes the “failure résumé” exercise. In Stanford’s account, Seelig asks students to record mistakes and describe what they learned from each. This article proposes a narrower application: choose one ordinary event, then check whether the lesson actually identifies a change.

“Be more professional” does not specify an action. “Before the next meeting, ask what information participants need in order to decide” does. Even that proposal is a hypothesis to examine, not proof that we have found the cause of the setback. There is no need to catalogue every past mistake. Start with a case you can revisit without exposing unnecessary personal information.

A fictional meeting that did not move forward

Noa coordinates a small team in a fictional example created for this article, not a case from Shachar’s work. She scheduled a meeting to choose which of two tasks should come first. She prepared a detailed explanation, but the meeting ended without a choice. Two participants said they needed an estimate of the work involved; another asked who was available to do it.

Her first note says, “I failed to persuade them.” That conclusion points towards making a more impressive presentation. Returning to what people said reveals another possibility: perhaps they understood the proposal but lacked the information needed to compare the options.

She still does not know whether this is the main explanation. Priorities may also have been unsettled. Rather than rebuilding the entire presentation, she first chooses to clarify the gap participants actually identified.

Record what happened before explaining why

The review could say, “I expected a choice between two tasks; no choice was made; questions came up about time and availability.” That account can be compared with notes or checked with someone who was there. “They were not committed” is an explanation about other people that the available information does not establish.

Beside the account, write an open question: “What information was missing for the decision?” If a follow-up conversation is appropriate, ask participants and listen for answers that challenge your explanation. Leave room for “still unknown.” A short review need not resolve every disagreement or assign blame.

If harm occurred or a commitment was broken, address that first. Recording lessons does not replace updating the people affected, correcting a mistake or seeking a decision from the person with authority.

Choose a change you can observe

In the example, Noa proposes a short comparison of the time and availability required for each task before the next meeting, with unchecked points clearly marked. She asks the relevant owners whether the information is suitable and may be shared. That is the change she wants to examine; she need not simultaneously change the meeting length, the participants and the whole presentation.

After the next meeting, she will ask whether participants could compare the tasks. If no task was chosen, what is still missing? Reaching a decision alone would not prove the change worked, and postponing a decision is not necessarily a failure. The information may have exposed a sound reason to wait.

The next record should therefore note other differences between the meetings too. A one-off improvement offers a direction for further investigation, not proof of a method that suits every team.

A short review of one event

Set aside about ten minutes for an ordinary recent work event. This is a practice window, not a standard time for solving problems. Write four lines:

1. What did I expect, and what actually happened?
2. What explanation am I proposing, and what needs checking before I adopt it?
3. What one change will I try, and which permissions or resources does it depend on?
4. When will I review it, and what will I look for or ask?

Read the proposed change. If it says only “try harder,” “invest more” or “be better,” replace it with a specific action. Choose a feasible review point, such as after the next instance of the task, without promising the result in advance.

Keep the review proportionate

This exercise is for learning from everyday work, not investigating a safety incident or making a legal or medical decision. Those situations call for the appropriate procedures and qualified people. Even in routine work, you need not circulate your personal record or include sensitive details about others.

The same questions can follow a success, so that a good outcome is not automatically credited to the first explanation that comes to mind. When a task next ends differently from what you expected, leave yourself one clear action to examine and a point at which to revisit it.