Resolution Checklist

A director who names his two focus areas as 'expanding my team's responsibilities' and 'taking on more strategic work myself.' The commitments under each card, examined together, reveal that both require his time and attention in the same blocks. He hasn't noticed that the two areas compete directly for the same resource. The two-card structure will surface this if the debrief examines both cards in relation to each other.

Let him complete both cards before intervening. Then: 'Before we review the commitments, I want to look at both cards together. Read me the focus area for each and then the time or attention each one requires.' The resistance is optimism: he believes he can do both. Don't contest the belief yet. 'Let's see what the calendar actually allows before we conclude they're compatible.' That framing keeps the challenge in the data rather than in your skepticism.

Watch whether the commitment slots under each card require the same hours or the same type of attention. If Card 1 requires deep work blocks in the morning and Card 2 also requires morning deep work, the conflict is structural. Also watch how he describes the relationship between the two areas - if he frames them as synergistic without being able to explain how, he's hoping for integration rather than planning for it.

Start with the time requirement. 'Add up what Card 1 needs from you each week. Now add Card 2. What's the total?' Then: 'How many hours do you have available for these two focus areas combined?' If the total exceeds available time: 'Which card is primary? Not which is more interesting, but which one, if only one succeeds, is the more important outcome?' The question that creates movement: 'If you had to sequence these - one card fully in motion before the other starts - which comes first and what does that mean for the second?'

A manager who approaches the resolution checklist earnestly but populates the six commitment slots under each card with her current behaviors dressed up as commitments: 'Hold weekly one-on-ones' (already doing this), 'review project status weekly' (existing practice), 'check in with stakeholders regularly' (current behavior). The slots are full but nothing will change. The exercise has functioned as a self-inventory rather than a change map.

Name the standard before she completes the slots. 'Each commitment slot should describe something that doesn't currently happen - or something that currently happens inconsistently that you're committing to make consistent. If the commitment is something you already do reliably, it doesn't belong here.' That standard clarifies the purpose without implying her existing practices aren't valuable. 'We're looking for the delta - what's different from today.'

Watch whether the commitments she writes are new behaviors or current ones. A direct question can surface this: 'Is this something you started doing in the last three months, or have you been doing it for longer?' If most commitments describe established practices, she hasn't engaged with the change requirement. Also watch whether she resists the standard - if she argues that current behaviors 'need to be protected,' she may be uncomfortable with the vulnerability of committing to something she hasn't yet done.

Start with one commitment slot. 'Walk me through this one - when did you start doing this?' If it's a current behavior: 'What would you write here that you don't currently do?' Then: 'Of the six slots on this card, how many describe something new for you?' The question that creates movement: 'If we replaced every current-behavior commitment with a genuine change commitment, what would be hardest to name - and what does that tell you about where the real growth edge is?'

A founder who names his two focus areas as 'secure our Series A' (6-12 months out) and 'fix our onboarding flow' (this quarter). The two-card structure works best when both cards operate in the same time horizon - otherwise one card's commitments are immediate and one card's commitments are preparatory, and the accountability structures needed are completely different. He hasn't noticed the mismatch.

Surface the time horizon question before the commitment slots are filled. 'These two focus areas are operating at different distances. The Series A is a 6-12 month horizon; onboarding is this quarter. The checklist works best when both cards are in the same window. One option: redesign one card to identify the 90-day version of the Series A work - the commitments that move you toward Series A readiness by the end of the quarter.' That reframe makes both cards actionable in the same time frame.

Watch whether he can identify the near-term version of the longer-horizon focus area. Founders who are strategic often live in the 12-month frame and struggle to name the 90-day action set. If he can articulate Series A readiness milestones at 90 days, the two cards can be productive together. If the 90-day Series A commitments are vague ('work on pitch deck,' 'build relationships with investors'), they haven't been translated into specific near-term actions.

Start with the time horizon reframe. 'What does Series A readiness look like at 90 days - not the raise itself, but the state you need to be in?' Then translate: 'What are the six most important commitments that get you to that state by the end of the quarter?' That translation converts the 12-month goal into a quarterly checklist. The question that creates movement: 'If both cards are in play for the next 90 days, which card takes priority in week one, and what specifically happens in that week?'