From "The Progress Principle": "You can't create a problem-free bubble" - Manage your team through inevitable setbacks

From "The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement, and Creativity at Work," by Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer.

A manager creates a climate of psychological safety by focusing on the work and what can be learned from it, rather than berating subordinates for errors. More generally... a manager can sustain virtuous cycles of progress and positive inner work life in the face of inevitable setbacks that occur in any complex project. Contrast this to the blame and fear that prevailed throughout Karpenter Corporation. As a member of Karpenter's Domain team said, "Around here, not finding a solution is perceived as not being competent!"

This highlights an important fact. By its very nature, meaningful work is hard; people often get the greatest satisfaction from overcoming the most difficult challenges. Failure is inevitable along the path to innovation. Though you should try to minimize obstacles and setbacks under your control, you can never create a problem-free bubble for your people. You can't nourish inner work life if you drive yourself and your team crazy trying to avoid all problems. Rather, focus on providing people with the catalysts and nourishers they need to overcome the obstacles they will inevitably face. [p. 177]

[Excerpted from "The Progress Principle," by Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer, Harvard Business Press, (c) 2011. Reprinted by permission.]

Novartis' Joseph Jimenez: forecasting errors caused by culture, not process

This story, from Novartis CEO Joseph Jimenez via Adam Bryant's Corner Office series in the NY Times, has echoes of Amy Edmondson's research into high-performing hospital teams. Read the story, and I'll tell you what I think the connection is:

Q. What are the most important leadership lessons you’ve learned?

A. One occurred when I was a division president of another company. I was sent in to turn the division around after four years of underperformance. It was a declining business. And when I got there, I completely misdiagnosed the problem. I said: “Look. We’re missing our forecast every month. What’s wrong?” I brought in a consulting firm, and we looked at what was wrong. And the answer was that we had a bad sales and operations planning process, where salespeople, marketing people and operations people were supposed to come together and plan out the next 18 months and then forecast off of that. So I said: “O.K. We’re going to fix this. We’re going to have the consulting team come in and help us make that a better, more robust process, with more analytics.”

And it turned out it wasn’t at all about analytics. Because once we did that, and we put that new process in place, we still continued to miss forecasts. So I thought, “Something’s really wrong here.” I brought in a behavioral psychologist, and I said: “Look, either I’m misdiagnosing the problem or something’s fundamentally wrong in this organization. Come and help me figure it out.” She came in with her team and about four weeks later came back and said: “This isn’t about skills or about process. You have a fundamental behavioral issue in the organization. People aren’t telling the truth. So at all levels of the organization, they’ll come together, and they’ll say, ‘Here’s our forecast for the month.’ And they won’t believe it. They know they’re not going to hit it when they’re saying it.” The thing she taught me — and this sounds obvious — is that behavior is a function of consequence. We had to change the behavior in the organization so that people felt safe to bring bad news. And I looked in the mirror, and I realized I was part of the problem. I didn’t want to hear the bad news, either. So I had to change how I behaved, and start to thank people for bringing me bad news.

Edmondson found that hospital teams with the highest outcomes also had the highest reported incidence of mistakes. When she dug into this paradox, she found that the high-performing teams had the psychological safety to share mistakes so they could be fixed and avoided in the future. The poorer-performing teams tended to cover up their mistakes.

Great innovation requires great teams, candor, and acceptance of mistakes

Some research by Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson on team learning is important to our discussions of sharing and learning from mistakes. The research centered on explaining a paradox--why in her studies did excellent teams make more errors than poor teams?

The answer, as you might expect, was greater candor and its corollary, greater confidence and openness to learning. Good teams simply communicated better, and, in a learning environment, that meant surfacing and talking about mistakes.

In a discussion about the topic with HBS Working Knowledge, professor Edmondson summarized her findings thusly:

In well-led teams, a climate of openness could make it easier to report and discuss errors—compared to teams with poor relationships or with punitive leaders. The good teams, according to this interpretation, don't make more mistakes, they report more. When I suggested this to physicians involved in the study, they were skeptical. Their response was understandable: With a research grant for the purpose of identifying the error rate, this idea was decidedly unwelcome. My interpretation of the data suggested that we might not be finding the definitive error rate—and further errors might be systematically underreported in certain units but not others. Their skepticism forced me to work hard to develop ways to support my proposition, which ultimately they came to see as reasonable, if not obvious in retrospect.

Once again, we see that learning in adults means supressing instincts for self-protection, defying organizational incentives to conform and be "team players," and ignoring ingrained concepts like division of labor and roles/responsibilities.

This is from a 2006 working paper on the subject, "When Learning and Performance Are At Odds" from Professor Edmondson and her collaborator, Sara Singer:

...Effectively conducting an analysis of a failure requires a spirit of inquiry and openness, patience, and a tolerance for ambiguity. Such an inquiry orientation is characterized by the perception among group members that multiple alternatives exist, frequent dissent, deepening understanding of issues and development of new possibilities, filling gaps in knowledge through combining information sources, and awareness of each others’ reasoning and its implications(Argyris et al., 1978). Such an orientation can counteract common group process failures. Learning about the perspectives, ideas, experiences, and concerns of others when facing uncertainty and high stakes decisions, is critical to making appropriate choices.

Looking at this through the prism of innovation, you can see how using the whole disorderly team, how arguing and soliciting dissenting views is essential. Innovation means confronting the unknown, the complex, the ill-defined. Mistakes are to be expected, not avoided. Confronting, embracing failure, then gathering the entire teams's viewpoints on what didn't work and how to fix it, then stepping back and trying a different tack, is essential. Locating dead ends and understanding failure quickly and changing course leads to faster innovation development, lower cost and higher probability of eventual success.