I’ve been following two high-profile cases of late: Donald Trump’s Hush Money trial, and the investigation into the UK Post Office Scandal. Observing the defendants’ approach and response to questions and probes in each case is fascinating.

Consider that word: ‘defendant’. By definition, these people are there to defend their actions. They dig in their heels and don’t give an inch. It appears that they can’t afford to be wrong.

This dynamic of attack/defense runs through many aspects of society. Our parliament’s Westminster system is set up to pit one side against the other. The debating chamber is where one side sets out to show that they’re right, and show that the other is wrong. If you lose the debate, you lose face. You can’t afford to be wrong, so you put everything into being right.

It’s worth looking at the origins of the word ‘debate’. In Old French, ‘debatre’ means “to fight, contend” and literally “to beat down”. The original roots are from Latin dis- (“apart, in different directions”) + battuere (“to beat, to fence”). When we’re debating, we’re not focused on learning or improving. We’re focused on beating.

Our organisational cultures can also be places where it’s dangerous to be wrong. In much of my work with public sector agencies, I often see risk aversion on steroids. Decisions are commonly pushed up the chain of command, or take forever to be made. And in my professional life as a sole practitioner, my reputation is based on delivering outstanding experiences. The pressure to ‘get it right’ can sometimes be overwhelming.

There’s a big cost to this. When we’re in defense mode, our brains are less open to learning and seeing the wider picture. As Harvard professor Francesca Gino has found, we make worse decisions and innovate less. In a world that demands adaptivity, we stall. As I wrote a few weeks back, one of three core leadership practices is to see what is. How can we ‘see what is’ when we shut down the possibility that we may not have the full picture?

What’s needed is to design systems and cultures that put learning and curiosity on an equal footing with truth and honesty. Systems that enable, acknowledge, and reward our openness to learning and accountability for our actions. We say we want people to learn from their mistakes. Yet are we creating the conditions for them to do so?

Most people are innately curious and keen to learn. How can we bring this out more? Here are three practical ideas:

1. Share what you’re learning‍

Set the tone. Share stories of stuff you’ve tried that didn’t work, or where you got it wrong, or didn’t go how you expected it to go). Share what you learned by giving it a go nonetheless.

‍2. Regularly ask people to share what they’ve learned 

Set up regular times for people to share what they’ve been experimenting with and what they’re learning. The more often you have these conversations, the more the culture will become about taking action and learning from it.

‍3. Ask “What’s the risk of inaction?” and “What might we learn if we gave it a go?”

I’ve borrowed these questions from Tim Ferriss’ Fear Setting TED talk. Whenever you’re planning a new initiative that has some risk attached to it, these questions can shift the dial towards giving things a go with a learning (rather than ‘success’) mindset.

When we can afford to be wrong, life becomes easier. We spend less time and energy defending our arguments, and we can spend more time learning. To paraphrase psychologist Adam Grant, we can put more of our energy into improving, rather than proving, our point of view. 

‍

For more like this, check out:

Be An Experimentalist

The Five B’s for Thriving at Work

This is Hard

‍