Mistakes Are Proof You’re Trying: When Is That True?
Friends sometimes send me a photo of a sign that says, “Mistakes are proof you're trying,” or tag me in a post about it. Since I wrote a book about learning from mistakes, they assume I'll like the message. My reaction depends on where the sign is posted.
The phrase can reassure someone who is learning something new. But a mistake does not, by itself, show that someone is learning or that the work is improving. We need to understand what happened, what was known beforehand, and what we can change.
When “mistakes are proof you're trying” is helpful
In a classroom, I think the sign can help students who are afraid to answer a question or try a new skill. Getting something wrong need not mean they are incapable of learning. A teacher can help them understand the mistake and practice a different approach.
The conditions for practice matter. Pilots use simulators to develop skills without putting passengers at risk. Healthcare teams also use simulation, and many of us have practiced CPR on a manikin. Those settings give people room to make mistakes, receive feedback, and try again.
I do my best to learn from my mistakes so I do not repeat them. I sometimes fall short, as I discussed in my post about mistakes that experienced people make. Encouragement helps, but it does not replace figuring out what to do differently.
Hear Mark read this post — subscribe to Lean Blog Audio
Why I would question that sign in a nursing unit
The photo above came from a hospital nursing unit. I do not think the sign is appropriate in that setting. I would have the same concern about posting it in an operating room, an airplane cockpit, or a Boeing factory.
People doing that work are already trying. A medication error does not tell us how much effort a nurse put in. It tells us that something went wrong and that we need to understand the circumstances. Reassuring people that mistakes are normal is not enough when the consequences can be serious.
That does not mean demanding superhuman perfection. Leaders need to examine how the work is designed, what makes an error easier to make, and what could prevent it or catch it before harm occurs. Asking people to be more careful leaves those questions unanswered.
Nor does it mean punishing people for reporting an unintended mistake. Someone involved in a harmful error may already be distressed and need support. We can respond with empathy while taking prevention seriously. A cheerful sign may be a poor substitute for either.
Process mistakes and innovation mistakes
For everyday leadership conversations, I find it useful to distinguish process mistakes from mistakes made while trying something new. This is a starting point for investigation, not a way to classify an event without understanding it.
In an established process, we generally know the intended result: pay the correct amount, send the right item, or complete an agreed step. When that does not happen, we should examine the conditions that allowed the mistake and look for ways to prevent a recurrence. Mistake-proofing can help by changing the work so an error is prevented or detected.
In experimentation, we do not know the result in advance. We might test a product feature or a marketing message and discover that people respond differently than we expected. That can be useful information, provided we designed the test thoughtfully and use what we learned.
These are different kinds of work, but they both require honest reporting and careful learning. A process error deserves more than blame. An unsuccessful experiment deserves more than an automatic celebration.
Amy Edmondson makes a more detailed distinction among basic, complex, and intelligent failures in Right Kind of Wrong. Her explanation of intelligent failure puts limits on the idea: explore something genuinely uncertain, have a reason for the experiment, use what is already known to form a hypothesis, and keep the test small enough to limit the downside. Calling something an experiment afterward does not establish that those conditions were met.
I used the basic, complex, and intelligent categories in my book, applying them to mistakes. In hindsight, I think the process-versus-innovation distinction can be easier to use in some conversations. A failure is an outcome; an unintended mistake in an action or judgment may contribute to it. A well-run experiment can also produce a disappointing result without anyone making a mistake.
Different work within the same company
A software company such as KaiNexus does both kinds of work. A team might test whether a new feature is useful to customers. If customers do not find it useful, the team can examine the feedback and decide what to change. That is different from a defect that loses customer data. The fact that a feature is new does not excuse every problem with it.
The same company also runs payroll. Paying employees incorrectly is not a useful experiment in whether people like getting paid. We should work to prevent that mistake and correct it when it occurs.
Marketing has limits, too. A campaign intended to be edgy might offend people. “At least we tried” would be an inadequate response if the team ignored concerns or skipped a reasonable review. Before a test, discuss who could be affected and how to reduce the risk.
What leaders can do after something goes wrong
First, address any immediate consequences. Then ask what the team expected to happen and why. Was this familiar work with an agreed method, or a test of an uncertain idea? What information was available? Were concerns raised, and what happened after that?
Decide on a change or a next test with the people who do the work, and follow up. A reported mistake gives us an opportunity to learn; it does not mean learning has happened yet.
Psychological safety helps people discuss errors and uncertainty without expecting humiliation. It does not remove standards or responsibility. For more on the language we use, see mistake vs. error.
Read a free preview of The Mistakes That Make Us
My book explores how people and organizations respond to mistakes, including the work of learning and preventing recurrence. Read a preview to see how it approaches learning, accountability, and improvement before deciding whether it is right for you.
Hey Mark,
I just read your blog article “Mistakes are Proof that You’re Trying? A Situational Analysis” and I thought it was an interesting and informative post on how to perceive and handle mistakes. I like how you stated that the sign had its merit’s but only in the right setting. I agree that the sign could be placed in a classroom setting to promote a growth mindset but should be kept out of places like a hospital nursing unit. I also liked the concept of “Mistake Proofing.” I am a student at URI and we have spoken about the concept of “Poke Yoke,” which, as you know, is the exact same thing. I also found it informative how you kept going with that concept by stating the importance of trying to learn from mistakes to prevent them in the future. This is extremely important because if we don’t look deeply into what caused a mistake, the same situation is likely to reoccur. I also liked the comment “Not all mistakes are created equal. Our attitude about mistakes can’t be exactly the same for all.” I fully agree with that statement because there is no “one solution fixes all,” we need to look at the causes and react accordingly to best move forward. I also liked your statement “focus on learning, improvement, and prevention instead of punishment!” I found this interesting because sometimes people just make mistakes, instead of just punishing them we must try to find ways for them to understand where it went wrong so they can move forward better in the future.
Hi David – thanks for reading the post and for sharing your reflections.