Spend more time on "what did not go well" than on what did

Failure analysis contains the most actionable information in any honest review.

Why it works

Successful outcomes are overdetermined — many things contributed, making attribution difficult. Failed outcomes often have more identifiable single causes or patterns that, if changed, would produce a different result. Human psychology defaults to dwelling on success and minimizing failure; a structure that inverts this default produces disproportionately higher learning per review hour.

How to do it

1. List everything that did not go well, failed, disappointed, or fell short — including things you initiated and those that happened to you.
2. For each item, write an honest one-sentence cause: not blame (others, circumstances), but the controllable input that was missing or wrong.
3. Identify any items that appeared on last year’s review as well — recurrence is the signal of unaddressed structural problems.
4. For the top three, write a specific behavioral commitment that would have prevented or changed the outcome.

Evidence

Post-event review of failures is associated with better learning in organizational and individual contexts; structured after-action reviews are more effective than unstructured reflection. (observational)

The inverted emphasis on failure is Ferriss’s practitioner advice; the general principle that failure analysis is high-value is better supported than the specific "more time on failure" weighting.

Sources

• Ellis & Davidi (2005), after-event reviews, Journal of Applied Psychology

Common mistake

Attributing failures to external causes or circumstances rather than controllable inputs, which feels better but produces no behavioral change for next year.