I wasn't necessarily using "good" and "bad" exclusively in the moral sense; I figured they were vague enough terms that they could include "right" and "wrong", "correct" and "incorrect", "consistent" and "hypocritical", and other dichotomies I deeply care about, underneath them.There is, after all, a connection between who we are inside and what we do. Bologna mentioned this on his blog, in reference to changing habits by becoming the kind of person who does the preferred action. I think it can go both ways: we can modify our internal actions until they bring about the internal change, essentially "faking it until we make it"; or we can, perhaps through introspection or meditation, effect an internal change of values or perspective that pervades our external actions.
At the risk of appearing morally lacking, I evaluate my actions less in terms of good vs. bad than effective vs. ineffective. What are your goals and values? If your actions further your values and bring you closer to your goals, you are being effective. No need for guilt, shame, or self-flagellation. If something wasn't effective, that's penalty enough. Just figure out what went wrong, and fix it next time.
Generally speaking, if I'm in the grip of 1/ESTJ insecurity from failure, it expands far beyond that particular failure, encompassing any other failures from any other point in my life that I consider relevant to the current failure. So, the "do it better next time" thought process won't work that well, because I'll think "Based on this (incredibly emotionally skewed) compilation of past failures, I doubt that I could do better next time, even if I tried. I can't define myself based on being successful at this anymore, because I'm obviously doomed to failure."
I may have actually posted something similar on bologna's blog, in response to his post about that -- but I didn't go into so much angsty detail.