Retell a Leadership Setback Without Casting a Villain

To retell a leadership setback without casting a villain, write three short versions of the same scene: observable events, your own experience, and an account that leaves other people’s motives open. Compare the versions before deciding what the setback means. The aim is a more honest account of your part, not a more flattering story about everyone involved.

Perhaps a proposal you cared about stalled in a meeting. By evening, your account has a familiar cast: you brought the vision; someone else blocked it; the team failed to act. That might capture part of your experience. It might also leave out a late document, an unanswered question, or a choice you made to press ahead. A private writing exercise gives you somewhere to examine the telling before repeating it as the settled history.

Choose one scene, not your whole career

Pick an ordinary work incident you can describe without exposing confidential details. A proposal discussion, a delayed handover, or a presentation that received little response is enough. Avoid starting with your most painful experience or an ongoing formal dispute. This is an original creative self-awareness exercise, not an assessment or a method for resolving serious allegations.

Give the scene a beginning and an end: from the moment you introduced the proposal to the moment the group agreed to revisit it. Keep all three versions inside those limits. Otherwise, a small event can turn into a case against someone’s character, supported by every disagreement you remember.

If you want a visual way to explore your working life on another occasion, try the workweek floor-plan reflection. Here, stay with words and one scene. You are examining how you tell the event, rather than mapping your week.

The three-pass setback page

Use these three headings on a private page. A few sentences under each are sufficient; writing more is optional. Keep the first version visible when you write the others so that an attractive interpretation cannot quietly replace an inconvenient detail.

1. The observable scene: Record actions, timing, and words you remember. Mark uncertain recollections. Replace “she undermined me” with what she actually said or did. Include your own actions at the same level of detail.
2. My stake in the scene: Write in the first person. What did you want to happen? What did you fear the outcome would say about you? Which part of your account makes you look especially reasonable, capable, or wronged? Describe your experience without turning it into someone else’s intention.
3. A version with room for the unknown: Retell the same event while allowing at least one explanation you have not confirmed. Use “I do not know whether…” or “One possibility is…” Keep the observable details and your responsibility intact. Finish with one question that could clarify something material.

Under the three accounts, complete two lines: “The fact I most wanted to leave out was…” and “The question I can now ask without claiming to know the answer is…” These lines make the page useful even when you cannot agree with another person’s view.

A director whose proposal did not move forward

Consider a hypothetical studio director, Maya. She proposes a new service in a Monday meeting. A colleague, Leon, asks who would deliver the first project. Maya says staffing can follow approval. The group postpones the proposal. Her first private telling is: “Leon always shuts down ideas, and I am the only person willing to move us forward.”

In the observable pass, she writes: “I sent the proposal ten minutes before the meeting. Leon asked who would deliver the first project. I said we could work that out later. We agreed to discuss it again next week.” She cannot remember whether anyone explicitly opposed the service, so she marks that as uncertain instead of filling the gap.

Her first-person pass reads: “I wanted the group to recognise the work I had put into the idea. I felt embarrassed when I could not answer the staffing question. Describing Leon as the blocker lets me skip the late document and my unanswered delivery question.” This is Maya’s reflection, not proof that his concern was well founded or that she caused the entire delay.

In the third pass, she writes: “The proposal stalled after a question I had not answered. I do not know whether Leon dislikes the service, doubts the timing, or needs a clearer delivery plan. I still want the idea considered. I can ask which information he needs to evaluate it, rather than asking why he opposes innovation.”

The exercise has not approved the proposal or reconciled the team. Maya has a narrower, answerable question and an omission she can acknowledge. Leon might still disagree after receiving a delivery plan. Leaving room for that outcome keeps the writing from becoming a disguised technique for securing agreement.

Change the casting without changing the facts

A generous retelling can become another way to avoid discomfort. Do not replace “he deliberately dismissed me” with “he only wanted to help” when you know neither. Both assign a motive. An open version might say, “He questioned the timescale; I do not yet know what prompted that concern.”

Nor do you have to make yourself the villain to stop casting someone else in that role. “I should never have proposed it” is a sweeping verdict. “I asked for approval before providing a delivery outline” names an action you can examine. Responsibility becomes more specific when you resist both self-exoneration and self-condemnation.

A useful check is whether your revised story can hold an inconvenient fact about each side. Your proposal may have deserved consideration, and your colleague may have raised a relevant objection. You may have prepared carefully, and the group may have needed more time. None of those possibilities establishes the whole account on its own.

Use the page differently in different situations

For a founder reflecting on a quiet launch presentation, the unknown might be whether colleagues understood what response was invited. The question could become, “What did you understand we were deciding?” For a team lead disappointed by a handover, the omitted detail might be that the deadline changed twice. The next question concerns which deadline people were actually working toward.

These examples are invitations to check an account, not instructions to excuse poor conduct. If there are documented harmful actions, preserve that record and use the appropriate organisational process. A private rewrite cannot establish facts, replace an investigation, or oblige you to reconcile with someone.

Keep a private draft private

Do not circulate the raw page as a verdict about colleagues. It contains guesses you are testing. If you later discuss the incident, separate the details you can support from your interpretation. Avoid copying private messages or identifiable client material into a journal or an online writing tool.

If you bring the page to coaching, agree what you want to explore and how confidentiality will be handled. The International Coaching Federation’s Code of Ethics addresses coaching agreements and confidentiality. It does not validate this writing exercise or establish that retelling a setback will improve performance. The exercise offers a way to examine your account, with no promised outcome.

Bring the unfinished story

Before repeating your account of the setback, reread the sentence you least wanted to include. For another private reflection, visit The Hidden Pattern Audit PDF and newsletter form. Keep your own page focused on what you observed, what mattered to you, and what you still need to ask.

If the same heroic or aggrieved role keeps appearing in your leadership stories and you want coaching support to explore it, Book a Discovery Session with Individuation Academy. Bring one scene and the three versions. You do not need a polished explanation of yourself before beginning a conversation about your choices.