The chapter starts with ways of losing and sporting episodes involving interruptions, disputed rulings and anger. The examples provide material for examining the interaction between a setback and the response to it.
Review the second decision
An external event may be unfair or adverse. The response afterward is a separate decision. Our interpretation is to examine both without pretending every outcome was controllable, or using external blame to avoid reviewing what was.
Worked example
A hypothetical participant suffers an interruption, then abandons a previously defined process out of frustration. The interruption and the later decision should be logged as different events.
Case connection
A useful review follows the decision chain instead of stopping at a single person to blame. Separate evidence, communication and action.
Challenger: review the decision chain
Source-grounded facts
The Rogers Commission found serious flaws in the launch decision process, including communication failures around safety concerns.
Context
Before Challenger’s January 1986 launch, engineers raised concerns about the solid rocket booster joints and cold conditions. The Rogers Commission later reconstructed how those concerns moved through the organisation.
Outcome
The Commission found the launch decision flawed, citing communication failures and conflict between engineering evidence and management judgment. This was an organisational decision failure, not merely a bad final outcome.
- Thiokol engineers initially recommended against launch under the forecast cold conditions.
- After internal discussion, management changed the recommendation.
- Crucial information about previous O-ring damage and the disagreement did not reach key senior launch officials.
Case analysis
A review focused only on blame can miss where the decision process lost information. Separate the concern raised, the message transmitted and the decision ultimately made. Then ask which step could be changed in a future process. This does not remove accountability; it makes the review precise enough to address more than the final person in the chain.
Try it
Divide a setback into three columns: observed events, your actions and interpretations that remain uncertain.