Apply the AAR to successes, not only setbacks

Reviewing what actually caused a win produces replicable insight; reviewing only failures produces only loss-avoidance.

Why it works

Humans are more motivated to analyse failures than successes because negative events are more salient. This systematic bias means the learning database is skewed toward what to avoid rather than what to replicate. An AAR on a successful event asks the same four questions: identifying the specific conditions and decisions that contributed to the outcome produces a template that can be deliberately recreated rather than hoped for.

How to do it

1. After any event that went unusually well, run the same four-question format.
2. In the gap analysis, the "cause" is what you did that produced more than expected — identify it specifically.
3. In the next-time action, specify how to recreate the favourable conditions intentionally.
4. Build a "what works" library alongside the "what went wrong" analysis.

Evidence

Positive event review and strength-identification research supports the benefit of systematic analysis of successes; positive psychology interventions that identify and replicate conditions for peak performance show well-being and performance gains. (observational)

Research on "what went well" exercises shows mood benefits; whether systematic success-AARs translate directly to performance replication is less studied than failure-review.

Common mistake

Attributing success to personal qualities ("I’m just good at this") rather than to specific decisions or conditions, which produces no replicable insight.