3 Proven Ways to Foster Safety in Mistake-Making

A key topic I frequently discuss with teams and organizations during sessions focused on overcoming challenges is the prevailing culture surrounding errors and missteps. In particular, I delve into how secure individuals feel when openly discussing and extracting lessons from their mistakes, and exp

A key topic I frequently discuss with teams and organizations during sessions focused on overcoming challenges is the prevailing culture surrounding errors and missteps.

In particular, I delve into how secure individuals feel when openly discussing and extracting lessons from their mistakes, and explore the elements that contribute to building such security.

Below, I outline three actionable strategies to cultivate this environment effectively.

#my-latest-mistake Channel

Within Think Productive, our team utilizes a dedicated Slack channel named #my-latest-mistake for internal communications. The channel's description reads as follows:

Encountered a mistake? No worries, we're all giving our utmost effort! Errors represent invaluable chances to acquire knowledge, develop skills, and refine our approaches. This space serves as a secure forum for sharing recent personal slip-ups, whether major or minor, while highlighting the insights gained.

Our managing director initiated this channel and took the lead by posting the inaugural message. It proves to be an excellent mechanism for normalizing the occurrence of mistakes, providing a protected area for candid conversations, and fostering mutual support in recovery and personal growth from these experiences. Recently, I learned of a similar initiative dubbed 'F*** up Fridays,' which operates on the same principle of encouraging open sharing.

Inquire About 'How' or 'What' Instead of 'Who'

It's remarkably common for people to internalize errors on a personal level, transforming thoughts like 'that was a foolish action' into self-deprecating beliefs such as 'I am foolish,' or shifting 'I erred in this instance' to 'I am inherently flawed.'

The underlying apprehension that prompts us to conceal mistakes stems from a deep-seated fear of rejection. Consequently, when a question like 'who caused this?' arises in the wake of an issue, our natural instinct is to seek immediate cover and avoid accountability.

Dr. Paul Furey, in a compelling presentation, advocates for shifting the inquiry from 'Who' to 'How.' For instance, posing 'How did this occur?' or my preferred alternative, 'What exactly happened?' instead of pinpointing blame with 'Who was responsible?'

This approach not only removes the personal sting from the error but also encourages a deeper examination of the surrounding conditions, workflows, and systemic factors that may have played a role. Such analysis typically uncovers the most valuable lessons for future improvement.

Consider scenarios where the root might be overload, such as 'I was juggling too many tasks,' or fatigue, like 'I was exhausted at the time'—precisely what led me to board the incorrect train not long ago.

Reframing 'Mistakes' with Alternative Terminology

One participant astutely observed that the term 'mistake' carries heavy connotations of judgment and failure.

What if we opted for different phrasing? Imagine referring to these events as surprises, detours, deviations, plot twists, unforeseen results, or even serendipitous accidents?

This isn't about mere rebranding, political correctness, or obfuscation—and certainly, when issuing an apology, directly acknowledging a mistake may still be appropriate. Rather, it's about presenting our minds with fresh perspectives that subtly shift us from a state of fear toward one of curiosity and exploration.

Does This Approach Risk Encouraging Reckless Errors?

This concern has surfaced in discussions: 'Naturally, we shouldn't incentivize or reward mistakes,' remarked an attendee during a recent workshop.

However, reflect on this: how frequently does anyone genuinely desire to replicate an error they've made? From where does the notion arise that punishment is necessary to prevent repetition?

In environments where team members are genuinely engaged, deeply invested in their responsibilities, and aligned on shared purpose, values, and objectives, most individuals are inherently motivated to perform accurately. They already feel sufficient remorse when things go awry. If this motivation is absent, the underlying problems likely involve issues of engagement, alignment, or trust—rather than a simple matter of mistakes themselves.

Moreover, a hostile or unsafe atmosphere doesn't reduce the incidence of errors; it merely discourages people from admitting them or engaging in meaningful reflection.