SCRIPT CHECK · 60 SECONDS
Five quick questions show how often it appears, how believable it feels, and what it makes you avoid. You’ll get one private next step.
This is not a diagnosis and there is no pass or fail. It measures the current frequency, credibility, and behavioral cost of “My manager praises the team and all I hear is my old incident report”, including the private rule underneath it: If the team gets praised as a whole, the incident report proves I was quietly excluded from that whole, so any collective win has to be checked against my private record before I'm allowed to feel it applies to me.
QUIET
“My manager praises the team and all I hear is my old incident report” appears, but it rarely gets the final say. Keep this line available for higher-pressure moments: “The team win and my incident report are two different documents measuring two different weeks.”
PRESENT
“My manager praises the team and all I hear is my old incident report” wins some small decisions before you catch it. Your useful interruption is: “Praise for the group doesn't come with a footnote listing who's exempt; I invented that footnote, not my manager.”
ACTIVE
“My manager praises the team and all I hear is my old incident report” is shaping action often enough to deserve a deliberate counterexample. Start privately and concretely: Open the old incident report privately, reread only the contributing-factors list, and note in your own doc how many names are on it besides yours.
DOMINANT
Right now, “My manager praises the team and all I hear is my old incident report” is steering many of the moments you measured. That is a pattern reading, not a diagnosis or character verdict. Begin with one reversible receipt: Open the old incident report privately, reread only the contributing-factors list, and note in your own doc how many names are on it besides yours.