(Note: In a series of posts, now called readers choice, I’ll write about whatever people submit and vote for. If you dig this, let me know if the comments, and submit your ideas and votes).
The actual question submitted was:
How to create environments that encourage people to make mistakes and learn from them?
This is easy. It goes on every day in every decent classroom around the world.
What this question is really asking is how can the person in charge create an atmosphere where learning is rewarded. Nearly every manager or leader talks about this, but rarely is it true.
There are four things people get wrong that makes this seem harder than it is.
If nothing else, remember back to the best learning experiences you had, in school or in work. What were those environments like, and what did the teachers or bosses do that others didn’t? Leave it the comments – I’d like to learn about them :)
Also see:
A few things a manager could nurture in his/her team is the following:
1. Getting ahead of the problem. Problem solving should not be the goal. This ofcorse comes from refined learning and keeping track of all past issues and resolutions.
2. Reward mentors in the group appropriately. This will automatically promote learning culture.
3. Make sure “system issues” are not seen as “people issues”. As Peter Senge seems to mention in Fifth Discipline (read it long time back, so don’t clearly remember): Lots of times systemic issues are not seen clearly and consequently incorrect and useless (corrective) actions are taken to solve them.
A manager should also concentrate on removing impediments that prevent working and focusing on giving challenging tasks. Conveyor-belt work is a real motivation killer.
Obviously we don’t want to encourage people to make mistakes, but we do want them to learn from them when they do.
To your first point, the leader cannot punish failed experiments. It doesn’t mean that you get fired, you may just get a bad review or get sent to run the Siberian division. But if failed experiments lead to any punishment, the message is clear – don’t do it.
But I think HOW we fail makes a difference to. This is why I use the word experimentation. Experiments are structured with the idea in ADVANCE that we don’t really KNOW what’s going to happen. We just have a hypothesis, or an educated guess. We expect to get a positive result, but don’t know. Not only does the process help you learn, but it helps manage expectations that it is a learning process.
I also think that the “boss” needs to set the example. Most I see are willing to do experiments and have them fail. But they keep them private. It’s not always that they are afraid of failure; sometimes they think sharing = bragging. But if the boss doesn’t share what they are trying, and failing at, then it is all hypocrisy.
Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, said “Failures are not something to be avoided. You want to have them happen as quickly as you can so you can make progress quickly.”
Culture + process can make that environment work.
Scott, improviser have to explicitly know how to create a pro-social environment or else a scene doesn’t work: http://human-resources-management.suite101.com/article.cfm/3_improv_games_for_teambuilding
(Hard to find a non commercial link.)
Actually there are several improvisers that consult teaching teamwork among other things. I’ve found improv acting incredible insightful for my public speaking skills. Really improv fundamentally changed my views on communication and relationships.
In managing a scientific research laboratory, #2 is by far the most important. The vast majority of experiments fail to be informative, but that does not mean that they were mistakes.
A mistake is if you fail to actually perform the experiment you set out to do because–for example–you just carelessly left out a key ingredient. This is bad, and needs to be minimized.
However, if you perform the experiment you set out to, and it ends up being uninformative for substantive reasons that you were unknown before performing the experiment, and you learn those substantive reasons through the experiment, then it is not a mistake. These are the kinds of “failed” experiments that are the necessary prerequisite to eventually achieving the successful informative experiment.
[...] How to create great work environments (Scott Berkun) [...]
[...] How to create great work environments by Scott Berkun [...]
[...] How to create great work environments Great environments encourage people to make mistakes and learn from them. Here are the four arenas that matter: 1. The person in power defines the culture through their behavior 2. Everyone must understand the different kinds of mistakes 3. The person in power has to care about employees long term 4. Everyone has to properly set expectations [...]
I’m pleased to work for a darned good agency that supplies community support for people with disabilities.
The CEO has often said, “We are a problem solving agency.” This alone produces a non fearful creativity. Our staff turnover is low. To take a worst case: If someone innocently abuses a client then the worker is talked to and brought to an understanding. We are a for-profit and and so it is easy to fire yet people, yet they are not afraid.
I am still chuckling at saying “boss” to my supervisor. She wrinkled her face and said, “I’m not your boss!” I laughed to say, “Well of course we collaborate as professionals, but when I am asking for holiday time, when I have a vested interest, then I call you boss.”
If people understand then there is less need to control them with paperwork. We have little red tape compared to other agencies, and my CEO “pulls a Robert Townsend” (author of Up the Organization) by having every proposed new form sent to her to fill out for herself before it is adopted by the agency.
When the government bureaucrats in the capital proposed that at various levels in our agency we fill out a “no abuse this month” form, every single month, then my CEO, in problem-solving-talking mode, got the government scrap the idea, to agree that it would make sense to fill out a form only if there was abuse.
My work requires a lot of concepts, which is reinforced by talking and problem solving. At my workplace, then, we don’t have Darth Vader’s tired minions going through the motions but rather people who, as the feminists would say, “get it.” Not self-righteous, but professional between the ears and, yes, righteous.