Posts Tagged ‘mistakes’

Scott Berkun reminds us of the value of learning from mistakes

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

You may remember my project The Mistake Bank. It’s on hiatus now (isn’t that what broken-up bands say?), and someday soon I’ll be putting up a post on what I learned from that project. (Thanking Cynthia Kurtz for that idea.)

In the meantime, people are still screwing up and, thankfully, learning from those experiences. Most recently there was this post from Scott Berkun: “My Biggest Mistakes.”

Scott, in addition to being a great speaker and blogger, is a first-class mistake learner. His post “How to Learn From Your Mistakes” was an early entry in the Mistake Bank. It’s gratifying to see that he still appreciates the value of reflecting on his past actions, and retains the sense of humor that allows him to do so.

Related post:
Scott Berkun on learning from mistakes

From the Mistake Bank: the players dissect the AOL-Time Warner failed merger, 10 years later

Monday, January 11th, 2010

Mistake bank logoI’ve learned, after working on the Mistake Bank for the past several years, that the most powerful lessons can be learned years after a mistake is made. This is especially true with a colossal failure. Only after much time has passed can the people involved shed their self-protective impulses and see clearly what happened.

There has been much written (for example here and here) about the 10th anniversary of the failed AOL-Time Warner merger (AOL again became an independent company in mid-December 2009). But nothing has been as compelling and rewarding to read as this New York Times article recounting the history of the merger from the viewpoints of the principal actors involved. Did you know that Gerald Levin and Steve Case first met at the 50th anniversary celebration of the People’s Republic of China? I didn’t either.

Once back in the States, Case began his pursuit:


MR. LEVIN We’re now back in the United States and I think Steve Case called me on the phone and in that conversation more than alluded to putting the companies together. I had my traditional script and quasi-legal background that when someone calls you on the phone, make sure they understand you’re not for sale, which we certainly weren’t, and decline any overture, which I did over the phone.

And the story goes on from there. It’s riveting, candid, and revealing, and a must read for anyone who is eager to do a big merger. It might make them stop and think a bit.

More evidence of the power of learning from mistakes

Thursday, December 24th, 2009

As we head toward year-end, it’s good to be reminded of important things that may have been forgotten amid the turmoil of 2009. In my case, it’s the value of learning from mistakes. In this Newsweek NurtureShock post, Po Bronson references an experiment by Stanford researcher Carol Dweck – in my view the preeminent researcher looking at students’ views of achievement vs. learning.

Bronson effortlessly summarizes a complex set of experiments by Dweck and co-researcher Jennifer Mangels, and you should read the entire post, but the major point was this: “knowledge-hungry” (in Bronson’s terminology) students learned better from their mistakes than “grade-hungry” students. Knowledge-hungry students were interested in where they had made mistakes so they could learn the correct answer. Grade-hungry students were more concerned simply that they had made a mistake – the error itself obsessed them, not what they didn’t know. As a result, knowledge-hungry students did better on a retest: they learned better.

Even when we leave school and enter the work world, we often remain “grade-hungry.” Companies, frankly, enable and reward this focus with their HR management tools: promotions, numerical performance reviews, “merit” raises. Workers tend to be more concerned about the effect a mistake will have on these measures than on learning from what they did. This is bad for the company, of course. And bad for the worker.

Thanks for reading all year and best wishes for a healthy, less stressful, learning-filled 2010.

(Hat tip Roger Dooley, Neuromarketing)

Related posts:
Don’t try to fail, but try (work of Carol Dweck)

Learning from failures (and successes) requires different IT systems

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009

I’ve been working recently with a colleague tasked with improving his company’s project management outcomes (I was going to say processes, but on thinking about it they’re asking him to improve the performance and results).

He’s focusing on lessons learned, as you might expect. The company has done lots of projects; surely there are many lessons within those projects that could help improve things going forward? And there are. But my colleague has found that the inability to effectively capture and share these lessons prevents the organization as a whole from getting much if any value out of their past experiences.

[This Harvard Business Review article emphasizes why project management, in particular, is prone to repeating the same mistakes over and over again.]

I was thinking about my colleague as I was reading this recent article in “Strategy + Business” entitled, “Are You Killing Enough Ideas?” by Zia Khan and Jon Katzenbach. The article discusses innovation, not project management, but this section in particular resonated with me and spurred my connection with project management lessons:

…When there is an ineffective balance between formal and informal structures, it often shows up as an inability to manage bad ideas effectively. After a formal decision has been made to advance some ideas but not to pursue others, the company expends considerable effort to plan the next steps for the winners. But no one thinks actively of planning next steps for the losing ideas, to put them to rest, free up their supporting resources, and (ideally) identify and share any lessons or insights gleaned from the experience.

One quibble with this otherwise excellent paper: why is identifying and sharing lessons and insights from experience an “ideal” situation?

Significant corporate initiatives, whether they are innovation ideas or IT projects, are expensive in capital, resources and opportunity cost. The experience, whether the project is ultimately a success or not, is hard won and valuable. It should be mandatory to capture and share these lessons and insights.

There are several barriers my colleague faces in trying to institutionalize the creation and use of lessons learned. “Let’s move on” is one of the most pernicious ones. After a difficult project, people are inclined to look ahead rather than backward, to forget difficult or painful experiences rather than mine them for lessons. (In many cases, as I’ve learned in nearly two years of working with The Mistake Bank, lessons sometimes emerge years after an experience.) Organizations, of course, in their eagerness to place blame, facilitate people’s instincts to hide or blur what happened in the case of a failed project.

My colleague’s company has a very open and positive culture; they are more equipped than most companies at overcoming the reluctance to share. Yet they still face a significant obstacle: their information systems are not up to the task of gathering, sharing, sorting and consuming lessons-learned material.

They capture lessons in Word forms and documents, and store them in file folders on a shared drive. And they are not surprised when no one can find anything. Dumping valuable lessons on a shared drive may have a slightly positive use for whoever writes the lessons down; at least that person learns a bit more from the retelling. But certainly it’s of no use to anyone else.

Lessons-learned need enterprise 2.0-type tools that capture narrative data, signifiers and tags; allow users to “like,” pass along, add to, and otherwise annotate original stories; and browse through, search and connect related stories. That’s what my colleague needs, and that’s what every organization that wants to “ideally” learn from both good and bad experiences needs as well.

Customers are talking: Doc Searls runs up against “Simply Everything”’s limits

Monday, July 27th, 2009

I posted earlier today on Sprint’s progress in customer satisfaction. It’s not all good news, though. Internet sage Doc Searls often posts on his experiences with suppliers (perhaps part of his work on Vendor Relationship Management), such as Apple and Cox Cable. Today, he wrote about Sprint and a $500 bill he got from them when he unwittingly exceeded his usage limit on his EVDO wireless card. (You didn’t think there were usage limits on “unlimited” plans? Think again.)

The problem was “resolved,” kind of:

The Sprint person on the “courtesy call” knocked $350 off the bill. That was because she was ready to “work” with me on the matter. I asked her how she arrived at that number. She said she couldn’t say.

Searls is a great observer of the absurdity of large company bureaucracies and the battle between consumer and supplier. He’s also an artful complainer. I’ll be staying tuned to see if there’s any further fallout from his latest experience.

From the Mistake Bank: NYT on “A Creature of Bad Habit: Why (Athletic) Mistakes Are Repeated”

Monday, July 20th, 2009

From The Mistake Bank:

This article in the Sunday Times takes up one of my favorite topics–repeating mistakes.

The situation described is not one of failing to learn (which we often talk about), but instead that narrow class of athletic mistakes seemingly caused by hyper-awareness, fear of failure, and its resulting tension, cov

ering well-known cases like Chuck Knoblauch’s inability to throw the ball accurately from second base to first (something my 8-yr-old son does easily). This season, Mets pitcher Mike Pelfrey committed a rare balk three times in one inning, and is the only major leaguer to commit six balks in a season since 2001.

The Times story was particularly timely given the unexpected appearance of 59-year-old Tom Watson on the British Open leaderboard over the weekend. Watson’s youthful brilliance (eight major championships) had given way to a middle-aged inconsistency, fueled by that demon of older golfers everywhere, the yips. Sadly, while Watson played like a 40-year-old and had magically avoided situations where the yips come on (notably, short putts), he couldn’t avoid an eight-foot putt on the 18th hole to win. As you might expect, he left the putt short–he yipped it.

It’s a bizarre and fascinating story to read about world-class athletes struggling with some of the easier parts of the game. However, there are situations where “getting in your own way” can have an effect on normal people like us. I’ll confess one. I have a very strong memory, but I am terrible at remembering people’s names when I first meet them.

Years ago during my single days I met a girl at a party. We talked and talked. She told me her name. I promptly forgot it. I said, “I’m so sorry, but I forgot your name, can you tell me it again?” And she did, and I forgot it again. Needless to say, I didn’t see her again after that party.

I’ve struggled with this over the years, puzzled on it, tried to fix it, to no avail. There’s no logical reason why, once I finally remember someone’s name, I can recall it 20 years later, but can’t remember the name of someone who has just introduced himself. Now it’s a gigantic mental block, in which I view meeting someone new a bit like Watson viewed that 8-foot putt.

Thank God for business cards!

[If anyone else would like to share their personal yips, please respond in the comments.]

To learn better, keep & review a mistake log

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

Working for the last two years on The Mistake Bank, I’ve become a bit of a connoisseur of mistake stories and literature on learning from mistakes. This has meant scrutinizing my own mistakes and trying to learn better from them.

I’ve made one significant realization: Sometimes errors are one-off oversights, other times they reflect weaknesses we need to work on (at still other times they are serendipitous events, but that’s another story). How does one tell the difference?

Here’s an example. Last year, I noticed that I lost track of several conference calls over a period of months. This was unthinkable to me, since I’d always prided myself on discipline and organization :). But the pattern was worrisome. In my business, if you miss a client conference call, or worse, two or three, you may have an ex-client on your hands. What I realized was, I was getting busier, and therefore my mind was not able to manage all the data I was asking it to. This realization drew me to David Allen’s book “Getting Things Done” and adopting many of its suggestions.

To learn most from your mistakes, I’d suggest this approach. When an “unplanned event” happens, jot yourself a note. What happened? What did you expect, and how did the outcome differ from your expectations? Put it in a file.

At the end of the year, or at another time when you have space and a clear mind to reflect, pull out the file. Review the notes. See if patterns emerge. Are there variations of errors happening over and over? Why? Can you make any changes to try to reduce their occurrence in the future? With hard-to-correct mistakes, the changes will be difficult. You may need tools or external help to improve–but ignore those patterns at your peril.

Another story: When I was a salesperson and sales leader, I continually undershot my forecasts. Of course, I had reasons why–the product had problems, the customers weren’t ready, the macro environment had changed for the worse.

Some years after the fact, I finally realized that I was a lousy forecaster. I was too optimistic–I saw huge potential where it was limited, predicted easy wins where there was competition, trusted in the rationality of buyers. This is a hard-to-correct mistake. After a lot of thought, I came to the decision not to do sales forecasts–and if I had to do one, rely on the thinking of others to help me.

I only wish I had been tracking my forecasting mistakes and reflecting on them at that time. I would have saved myself and my companies a lot of problems.

(Photo by koalazymoney via Flickr Creative Commons)

Innovation “Catalysts” view making mistakes as an essential part of the process

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

From The Mistake Bank:


I’ve recently finished a new book, “The Catalyst,” which describes the mindsets of people who’ve successfully built new businesses inside established companies. Renewing organic growth is a difficult task, and “The Catalyst” is a very useful book for anyone working in new business development.

One point that comes out quickly in the book is the necessity to experiment, “fail fast,” learn and iterate. These points were also brought out in another excellent new book, “Discovery-Driven Growth.” I see these two books as companion volumes. Both address growing new businesses within companies. “The Catalyst” focuses on mindset, “Discovery-Driven Growth” describes the methodology.

Here is one of the “Catalysts” profiled in the book discussing mistakes. John Haugh was hired by Mars Inc. and put in charge of growing its specialty chocolate line, Ethel M.

Haugh decided to focus on creating retail “lounges” where customers could buy and enjoy the chocolates, rather than relying on the fiercely-competitive grocery channel. Haugh also carefully listened to lots of voices–customers, suppliers and partners–to learn as much as he could, fast.

—————————

[Haugh] elected to launch with four different kinds of lounges: “We’re not going to go out and have one perfected prototype,” he explained, “because we don’t even know what that would look like.” The team checked in with consumers throughout the design process to determine the best color palettes, types of furniture, and overall ambience for the stores. They also asked suppliers, partners, and the vendors of their chocolate-making equipment for input. Their intent was to refine the new business as they went along:

We’d know within three days if a store was working. Are people coming in, are they sitting where you think they will, are they ordering what you think they will? You know very soon. And we’d test a slightly different design and layout for the next one to open. We did make errors–we knew we would. But we were prepared to react quickly and to fix them.

Indeed, Haugh viewed making mistakes as part of the process:

You know what? You’re going to make a bunch of mistakes. What you want to do is to try and correct them. When you’re younger, you don’t like to make mistakes. You think that’s the thing that is going to knock you off the track. You get a little bit older and get some gray in your hair, and then you realize it’s OK to make mistakes. It’s how you learn the most.

——————————

From The Catalyst: How YOU Can Become an Extraordinary Growth Leader, by Jeanne Liedtka, Robert Rosen, and Robert Wiltbank, published by Crown Business. Reprinted by permission. (c) 2009. All Rights Reserved

Facebook, smacked down again, invites customer input

Friday, February 27th, 2009

Facebook always does the right thing by their customers… once their customers have beaten them up for a wrong first step. A year and a half ago they stirred up the wrath of their community by proposing an ad-targeting system leveraging its users’ profile data, then backed down.

Now they’ve done it again. Facebook changed their terms of service, igniting another storm of outrage on blogs, Twitter and, yes, Facebook. They relented, returning to their prior terms of service, and yesterday announced that they will be seeking user input on community questions such as terms of service, and be more transparent, including this statement:

Transparent Process: “Facebook should publicly make available information about its purpose, plans, policies, and operations. Facebook should have a town hall process of notice and comment and a system of voting to encourage input and discourse on amendments to these Principles or to the Rights and Responsibilities.”

It’s easy to make fun of Facebook for their public embarrassments, but they do get the message their users are sending. Furthermore, they are pioneers in engaging with their users. There is no template they can follow. Facebook’s users, because they give personal and sensitive information to the service, is very sensitive to its use, and the web2.0 nature of Facebook means that its users are comfortable using web2.0 means to communicate. Quiet they are not.

It will be fascinating to see how more traditional companies deal with assertive user bases. As consumers find their voices on line (and efforts like VRM give users powerful tools to manage and communicate with their vendors), we’ll be reading more stories like this one. Will other companies learn from Facebook’s painful lessons?

Related post:
Zuckerberg learns

From “Think Again,” a book about decisionmaking gone wrong – Marc’s mistake story

Monday, February 16th, 2009


Think Again” is a great new business book in which authors Sydney Finkelstein of Dartmouth University and Jo Whitehead and Andrew Campbell of Ashbridge Business School describe research in cognitive science and behavioral economics to explain how the decisionmaking process goes awry and, even more importantly, how our minds obscure the mistakes we make and keep us from understanding the weaknesses in our decision processes. [The authors also have a website for the book, including pointers to some of the underlying research and other goodies.]

The book is full of great storytelling, and this one in particular, about an executive named Marc, seemed very appropriate for the Mistake Bank:

Marc was the managing director of the French subsidiary of an international manufacturer of packaging machinery. He was considering whether or not to acquire a company that had a near-monopoly on manufacturing a specialized type of food packaging machine. While the company had a strong position in the market, there were several warning signs that it was a risky investment. The business was highly dependent on sales to one large meat processing company. Because the machinery was a form of capital investment, sales tended to be highly cyclical. The management team had recently lost some of its more talented designers and marketers, and performance was flagging. The current owners of the business were keen to sell.

These risks were particularly an issue because Marc had committed to his head office that he would deliver relatively stable performance. The previous year, Marc had personally persuaded the head office to provide additional investment to his subsidiary for low-risk acquisitions, and so his reputation was at stake.

As the transaction progressed, some members of Marc’s supervisory board voiced their concerns about the proposed acquisition. Despte this, Marc went ahead. A few months later, following the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease, in French cattle, the meat-processing customer announced that it was putting discretionary capital expenditure, including the packaging machines manufactured by Marc’s company, on hold. The management team was unable to deal with the dramatic drop-off in demand. Profits plunged into the red. Marc’s superiors were shocked, and Marc’s career received a large black mark.

Marc described why he thought he had made a flawed decision. “I was under pressure to do this deal for my own interest. If I went ahead, then the costs incurred in auditing and due diligence of the company would be capitalized and added to the cost of the investment. If I backed out, then they would all be charged to my office as an expense. Because we had been pursuing this company for a while, those costs were quite significant–and I guess I was influenced by that. I had an annual target to hit–and the charge-off would occur at the end of the financial year, leaving me no time to find a way to avoid a big loss. Of course, in the end, doing a bad deal was much worse for my position. I guess self-interest clouded my judgment.”

Reprinted with permission from Harvard Business Press. Copyright 2008 Sydney Finkelstein, Jo Whitehead, and Andrew Campbell. All Rights Reserved.