This post is part of an ongoing series on the books that I have read as part of my continual professional development (CPD). All of my CPD posts ar available at the following link: Continual Professional Development
In the fast-paced and often high-stakes world of technology, the pressure to deliver perfection can be immense. However, a growing body of research suggests that a different approach—one that embraces failure as a learning opportunity—is not only beneficial but essential for long-term success.
This blog post explores the powerful lessons offered by Amy C. Edmondson’s “Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well,” and how these principles are particularly relevant to team leaders, decision-makers, and those who manage software engineering teams. Drawing on key insights from the book and my own experiences as a technology consultant, we’ll delve into creating psychologically safe environments where experimentation and learning from mistakes are not just tolerated, but actively encouraged.
It is important to note that, whilst the advice given in this book is about embracing failure, the principal of Extreme Ownership still applies. We explored Extreme Ownership in an previous blog post: Leading with Ownership: Lessons from Extreme Ownership for the Modern Workplace.
The Balanced Approach to Expecting Outcomes
Edmondson’s work fundamentally challenges the notion that striving for flawless execution is the path to victory. The relentless pursuit of perfection can lead to disappointment and a detrimental relationship with failure. Instead, a more balanced perspective—one that accepts the possibility of not achieving every desired outcome—fosters resilience and a healthier approach to challenges. This isn’t about lowering standards; it’s about reframing our expectations and cultivating a mindset where learning from imperfections is valued.
If you expect to do everything perfectly to win every contest, you will be disappointed or even distressed when it doesn’t happen. In contrast, if you expect to try your best, accepting that you might not achieve everything that you want, you’re likely to have a more balanced and healthy relationship with failure.
This quote highlights a crucial distinction. When we anticipate setbacks, we’re better prepared to navigate them constructively. It encourages a growth mindset, where failures are seen as data points rather than personal failings. This is particularly important in technology, where innovation often involves experimentation and a degree of uncertainty. By embracing the possibility of “not winning| every time, teams can avoid the demoralisation that perfectionism breeds and instead focus on iterative improvement.
The Fallibility of Humans and the Importance of Effective Failure
We are all human, and as such, we are all prone to errors. Expecting otherwise is unrealistic and setting ourselves up for unnecessary frustration. The key is not to avoid failure—which is impossible—but to learn how to fail effectively. This involves creating an environment where mistakes are openly discussed and analysed, rather than hidden or punished. This approach acknowledges the inherent fallibility of individuals and teams, and focuses on systemic improvements rather than individual blame.
Each of us is a fallible human being, living and working with other fallible human beings. Even if we work to overcome our emotional aversion to failure, failing effectively isn’t automatic.
This statement underscores the importance of psychological safety. When individuals feel afraid of making mistakes, they are less likely to speak up about potential problems, hindering early detection and preventing more significant issues. Effective failure requires a culture where vulnerability is welcomed and learning is prioritised. This is especially critical in tech, where complex systems and rapid changes can easily lead to unforeseen errors.
The Pitfalls of Punishing Errors and the Fundamental Attribution Error
A common, yet counterproductive, response to failure is to punish those who make mistakes. While the intention might be to prevent future errors, this strategy often backfires. It creates a culture of fear, discouraging open communication and ultimately increasing the likelihood of preventable failures. Instead of punishment, a focus on understanding the root causes of errors and implementing preventative measures is far more effective.
The important thing to remember about errors is that they are unintended—and punishing them as a strategy for preventing failure will backfire. It encourages people not to admit errors, which ironically increases the likelihood of preventable basic failure.
This quote points to a psychological phenomenon known as the fundamental attribution error. We tend to attribute failures of others to their character or ability, while attributing our own failures to external factors. This bias can lead to unfair judgements and a reluctance to take responsibility for mistakes. By understanding this bias, we can cultivate a more compassionate and constructive approach to failure, both for ourselves and for our colleagues.
💡 Remember
The fundamental attribution error is the opposite of Extreme Ownership, which is where we take complete responsibility for outcomes, foster humility and learn from mistakes, and build a collaborative team environment.
"Poka-yoke" and the Toyota Production System in Agile Development
The concept of “poka-yoke,” or error-proofing, originated within the Toyota Production System (TPS) and is a cornerstone of lean manufacturing. It involves designing systems and processes to prevent errors from occurring in the first place. This principle has been widely adopted in software development, particularly within Agile methodologies, which are themselves derived from the TPS. The goal is to build safeguards into the system to catch mistakes before they propagate and cause significant problems.
Poka-yoke, which means "error-proofing" in Japanese, a term that originated with the Toyota Production System (TPS), is a valued practice in modern manufacturing. That so many of the objects we use benefit from poka-yoke is evidence of basic failure’s ubiquity. We all experience instances of inattention. We can all hold faulty assumptions and be overconfident. The goal is to take measures to reduce the number of basic failures these tendencies cause.
In software, poka-yoke might take the form of automated testing, code reviews, or design patterns that prevent common errors. For example, unit tests act as a safety net, catching bugs early in the development process. Similarly, pair programming can help to prevent mistakes by having multiple developers review code in real-time. By proactively incorporating error-proofing measures, teams can significantly reduce the likelihood of costly failures.
Complex Failures and the Importance of Systemic Change
While basic failures are often the result of simple mistakes, complex failures arise from the interaction of multiple factors within a system. These failures are often preceded by subtle warning signs and can involve seemingly uncontrollable external influences. What distinguishes them from basic failures is their unpredictability and the difficulty in pinpointing a single cause.
Complex failures happen in familiar settings, which is what distinguishes them from intelligent failures. Despite being familiar, these settings present a degree of complexity where multiple factors can interact in unexpected ways. Usually, complex failures are preceded by subtle warning signs. Finally, they often include at least one external, seemingly uncontrollable, factor.
Addressing complex failures requires a systemic approach. Instead of focusing on blaming individuals, it’s crucial to examine the underlying systems and processes that contributed to the failure. This might involve redesigning workflows, improving communication channels, or implementing better risk management strategies. By focusing on the system, we can create a more resilient and adaptable organisation.
The Danger of Overconfidence and the Power of Responsibility
Overconfidence is a significant precursor to both basic and complex failures. When we believe we know everything and can do things “in our sleep,” we are less likely to anticipate potential problems and take necessary precautions. This can lead to complacency and a disregard for warning signs.
More generally, when you find yourself thinking, "I can do this in my sleep," watch out! Overconfidence is a precursor to complex failure, just as it is to basic failure.
Cultivating humility and a willingness to acknowledge our limitations is essential for avoiding overconfidence. This involves actively seeking feedback, challenging our assumptions, and being open to the possibility that we might be wrong. Furthermore, taking responsibility for our contributions to failures – without resorting to self-blame or shame – is a crucial step in learning and growth. This isn’t about dwelling on mistakes, but about extracting valuable lessons and improving future performance.
Learning from Failures: A Path to Wisdom
Ultimately, embracing failure is not about condoning mistakes; it’s about creating an environment where learning and growth can flourish. By understanding how systems produce failures—and focusing on systemic improvements rather than individual blame—we can build more resilient and effective teams. This requires a shift in mindset, from one of fear and punishment to one of curiosity and learning.
Understanding how systems produce failures—and especially which kinds of systems are especially failure prone—helps take blame out of the equation. It also helps us to focus on reducing failure by changing the system rather than by changing or replacing an individual who works in a faulty system.
Acknowledging our shortcomings is a fundamental part of personal and professional growth. It requires courage and vulnerability, but it ultimately leads to wisdom. By confronting our own failures and taking responsibility for our contributions, we can gain valuable insights and become more effective problem-solvers. This is a continuous process, but one that is essential for thriving as fallible human beings.
Ready to Apply These Principles?
As a technology consultant, I’ve witnessed firsthand the transformative power of embracing failure. I’ve worked with numerous teams who have successfully implemented strategies to create psychologically safe environments, leading to increased innovation, improved problem-solving, and ultimately, greater success. If you’re looking to cultivate a more resilient and high-performing team, I encourage you to explore these principles further.
Ready to unlock the potential of your team through a more effective approach to failure? Reach out to discuss how my strategic technology consultation services can help you build a culture of learning and innovation using the contact form below, and one of my team will get back to you as soon as possible.