“It’s fine to celebrate success, but it is more important to heed the lessons of failure.”
This quote, widely attributed to Bill Gates, a founder of Microsoft, echoes the truism that we can learn from our mistakes, and those of others. This is as true for failures in corporate governance, as it is for failures in other domains.
But what we can learn – and what lessons we should heed – depends very much on how we consider failure, and the context in which failure occurs. In this article, we briefly explore some of the different ways of thinking about failure. The lessons, which are of general application, are particularly relevant to those interested in building more resilient corporate governance systems.
The psychologist James Reason argued in his seminal paper “Human error: models and management” that we can think of failure (to the extent it is caused or contributed to by humans) in one of two ways. The first, the ‘person approach’, focuses on attributing the cause of some unwelcome event to the failings of individuals, for example, a failure to follow procedures, inattention, carelessness, greed and so on. We are all very familiar with this approach – where the cause of a plane crash is attributed to ‘pilot error’ or some scandal ‘to the actions of a small number of rogue individuals’.
Where the cause of failure is seen as primarily being the result of human beings doing things that they were not meant to, unsurprisingly, the focus of preventative measures will be on minimising these behavioural deviations: more prescriptive rules and procedures, more policing of these rules, and the imposition of punishments for infractions etc.
“You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems.”
Implicit in this statement from James Clear, the author of Atomic Habits, is another way of thinking about failure and how we might go about preventing it, or at least mitigating its most harmful consequences.
James Reason posited that as human beings are inherently fallible, errors/failings/deviations are to be expected as an inevitable consequence of our humanity. It is therefore the role of systems – with layers of defences – to protect us against our inherent weaknesses.
The significance of thinking about failure in this way is that when an adverse event occurs the focus of our attention should be primarily on how and why the defences failed, not on who was responsible.
The Harvard Business School academic Amy Edmondson suggests that in order to effectively learn from failure requires a nuanced understanding of both the causes of failure and the context in which it occurs. She argues that failures fall into three broad categories.
When failure occurs, it is the role of leaders in organisations (at all levels) to seek to try and understand its true causes. Human beings have a tendency to think linearly, a proclivity to look for cause and effect and it probably comes as no surprise that Amy Edmondson’s research indicates that, as a general rule, organisations struggle with going beyond a whodunit level of enquiry that satisfies itself with identifying first order (i.e., direct causal) reasons for failure. But linearity is rare in nature, where complex systems dominate with multiple feedback loops. Thus, when something goes wrong, we must be cautious in rushing to judgement and resist looking for simple explanations to what are likely to be more complex problems.
 Reason, J., ‘Human error: Models of Management’, BMJ. 2000; Mar 18; 320(7237); 768-770.
 Edmondson, A. C., ‘Strategies for Learning from Failure’, Harvard Business Review (April 2011).
Be the first to receive the latest articles, news and publications.
Johnson Winter Slattery has advised early childcare management software provider Kangarootime on the sale of its Australian business to fellow industry participants Juice Technologies and Kidsoft...
Leading independent law firm Johnson Winter Slattery is advising Brookfield on the sale of certain businesses within LINX Cargo Care Group. As a part of that transaction, JWS is advising on the...
Many growth-stage companies – particularly in the technology and resources sectors – have contemplated changing their jurisdiction of incorporation from Australia to elsewhere.