We learn from our mistakes

What is an error and how to benefit from it in business

How to promote a corporate culture that values mistakes as opportunities for growth and improvement

4 July 2024

4' min read

I often work with companies that would like to create a 'error culture'. They use this term to refer to an organisational context in which mistakes are not hushed up, experienced negatively and punished, but rather represent a source of learning and continuous improvement.

This is of great importance for the functioning of companies. In the absence of a healthy error culture, the risk is that people do not take any initiative, are afraid to propose changes and improvements and, above all, do not report errors, deviations and criticalities in order to avoid a negative assessment or warning.

I have sometimes come across organisations that, in order to develop this kind of culture, have set up error celebration programmes. This gives rise to more or less formal moments in which people publicly declare the mistakes they have made and the lessons they have learned from them. These gatherings are meant to play down and make the possibility of making mistakes appear normal when working. Although their purpose is laudable and, especially in cases where mistakes tend to go unreported, they can be effective, I have some doubts about the real scope of this approach. The concept of 'celebrating a mistake' has never appealed to me. Of course it must be possible to make mistakes and learn from them, but that does not mean that I have to create meetings centred on the participants' recounting of their failures.

Creating a healthy error culture

Personally, I am of the opinion that the creation of a healthy and constructive error culture stems first and foremost from a shared vision of what is and should be considered an error within an organisation. I will try to use an example to better clarify this point.

Think of the difference between flying from Rome to New York in an airliner or a glider. In the former case, the pilot has to follow a predefined ideal route (North Atlantic Tracks) that allows safe and relatively efficient travel according to weather and air traffic conditions. The route must always be followed unless exceptional events occur. In this case, the pilot may decide to change course by defining the new route to be followed with the air traffic control authorities. Any deviation from the original route that is neither necessary nor agreed upon is certainly a mistake and can lead to dangerous consequences.

In the case of flying a glider, things are very different. Depending on the weather conditions, an outline route can be plotted before setting off, but once in the air, the pilot must be highly sensitive in recognising how best to exploit the currents. It is possible that in some situations, the pilot may be in the position of having to follow a route that he did not initially plan to use and to make corrections to it in real time with respect to the currents encountered en route. Deviations from the route are not agreed a priori with air traffic control and depend solely on the pilot's experience and his sensitivity in interpreting external conditions.

This example of the two types of flight is very useful for reasoning about the concept of error within an organisation. If there were a decoded procedure, a well-defined action protocol or a best practice to be implemented, we would be faced with a situation similar to that of scheduled flight. In such cases, any unjustified deviation from the procedure, rule or protocol is certainly an error. This can happen for essentially three different reasons. The first concerns ignorance, in the sense of 'lack of knowledge': if I do not know the action protocol well, I will not be able to follow it perfectly. The second reason has to do with competence: I know the protocol but I lack the necessary skills to execute it perfectly and thus incur mistakes. The third reason is superficiality: I know the protocol or best practices, I have the skills to stick to them, but I do my work carelessly and with little care.

This type of error is rarely a source of learning. These mistakes, therefore, far from being celebrated, should be kept to a minimum by preventing them in the case of lack of knowledge and competence or, in the most serious cases relating to superficial behaviour, by sanctioning them.

Everything changes when the errors committed are closer to the case of glider flying. In this case, the work to be done does not involve the adoption and implementation of a predefined procedure, action protocol or best practice. Whether or not a goal is achieved depends on the person's ability to interpret the situation, identify a possible action strategy and correct it over time based on the feedback received. Errors and deviations from the ideal time and way of achieving that goal should not be considered as such. These are not real errors or deviations. They are learnings. The underlying logic with which one must move in these situations is that of try&learn and the strategy to be adopted is in itinere.

In this case, developing a 'culture of error' means not considering these explorations and deviations as such. It is indeed very important that people maintain a high level of initiative and operational flexibility according to the contextual conditions. In this kind of situation, the only thing that can be considered an error is well described by the philosophy proposed by Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, former CEO of Lego: not to provide help to those who ask for it or to avoid asking for help when necessary.

*Partner of Newton Spa