BOOK / SOURCE
סודותיהם של המצוינים
- Material reviewed for this piece
- An adaptation of an eight-page personal reading notebook, reviewed in full. This does not claim a fresh reading of the complete book or coverage of every chapter.
Reading and application draft · awaiting review
AI-assisted draft based on the saved reading notebook. Ideas about excellence, action and learning are credited to Alon Gal as represented in the notes. The example, review questions and limits on experimentation are new editorial adaptations, not Shachar’s personal experience or a client account. The draft awaits his approval.
Before improving: what should change, and what should stay?
The notebook opens with questions about direction, enjoyment and appreciation. Alongside the wish to improve, it suggests acknowledging what already works. That is a useful starting point: a sweeping complaint such as “nothing is moving forward” can conceal both specific problems and capabilities worth building on.
A practical adaptation is to write two sentences: what precisely needs to change, and what is already helping. For example: “Task handoffs are delayed, but the team documents decisions clearly.” The second sentence does not cancel the first. It identifies something to preserve during the repair.
Appreciation does not require overlooking difficulties or persuading someone that everything is fine. Here, it is a way to make the initial picture more accurate.
A sound decision can still have an unwelcome outcome
The notebook’s decision-making pages draw a central distinction: an action can be chosen, but its result cannot be guaranteed in advance. Demanding certainty can prevent decisions that could be made responsibly despite incomplete information.
That does not amount to “just do something.” Check what is known, what is missing, what can be learned before acting and which risks are acceptable. A decision can then be assessed against the preparation and information available at the time, while its outcome provides further evidence.
When an attempt disappoints, there are at least two separate questions: was the decision reasonable when it was made, and what does the new result teach us for next time? Keeping them separate leaves room for accountability without turning every disappointment into a verdict on the person.
SEE THE IDEA
Two questions worth keeping separate.
An illustration of the article’s distinction, not a score for a person: examine the decision using information available then, and the outcome as new evidence.
- PreparationWhat was known when we chose?
- OutcomeWhat does the result add?
Review the decision
What did we know, what was missing, what could have been checked and what were the risks? An unwelcome outcome does not by itself prove that the decision was unreasonable.
Learn from the outcome
What became clearer, and what will change next time? Even a useful outcome does not remove the need to examine the process; if harm occurred, learning does not replace accountability and repair.
A mistake becomes useful when something changes afterward
The notes return to fear of failure and the habit of treating an error as complete failure. They propose viewing mistakes as opportunities to learn. In an interview around the book’s publication, Gal describes excellence in terms of willingness to try, make mistakes and correct them.
The practical addition here is to make the lesson specific. “We will be better next time” is not an observable change. “Before handing over a task, we will confirm an owner, a due date and a completion condition” proposes a behavior that can actually be checked.
Saying “we learned from it” also does not erase harm. If an error affected someone, repair what can be repaired and take responsibility first. Learning should reduce the chance of recurrence, rather than serve as an explanation that ends the conversation.
SOURCES / FURTHER READING
Example: change one handoff, not the whole system
Imagine a small team handing over tasks without clarifying what “finished” means, so work repeatedly comes back for revision. This is a fictional example created for the exercise.
Start with a limited trial: for three internal tasks, add one sentence defining the intended result. Before starting, agree who will review the trial, when the review happens and what would justify stopping or changing it. Then check whether the definition was understood, which questions remained and whether it reduced or added work.
The trial does not prove the method suits every team. It provides local evidence for the next step. Choose work that can be changed safely and with appropriate authority; decisions affecting health, safety, rights or major financial commitments are not a setting for an uncontrolled experiment.
Five questions for the next action
The following exercise is a new application inspired by the notebook:
- What do I want to change, in a sentence describing a specific situation?
- What is already working and worth preserving?
- What is within my control, and what remains unknown?
- Which limited action could teach me something, and what boundary must not be crossed?
- When will I review what happened, and how will the findings affect my next action?
At the review, record one change to a decision or behavior. The wish to improve then has a practical destination, without waiting for complete certainty or pretending the result is guaranteed.
SOURCES / FURTHER READING
Turn this reading into a next step
A new worksheet inspired by the ideas—not a form reproduced from the book.
Your working notes
Write a few words. Nothing is sent, and this site does not save your notes to an account or file. This is a temporary worksheet — copy it somewhere of your own before leaving or reloading.