Apply the AAR to successes, not only setbacks
Reviewing what actually caused a win produces replicable insight; reviewing only failures produces only loss-avoidance.
Key takeaways
- What it is: 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.
- Evidence: Backed by observational / correlational evidence.
- Avoid: Attributing success to personal qualities ("I’m just good at this") rather than to specific decisions or conditions, which produces no replicable insight.
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
- 1After any event that went unusually well, run the same four-question format.
- 2In the gap analysis, the "cause" is what you did that produced more than expected — identify it specifically.
- 3In the next-time action, specify how to recreate the favourable conditions intentionally.
- 4Build a "what works" library alongside the "what went wrong" analysis.
What the evidence says
ObservationalPositive 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.
Honest caveat: 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.
IX Coach prompts success AARs as well as setback reviews, specifically asking what decisions or conditions contributed to the good outcome so they can be intentionally reproduced.
Practice this with IX Coach →