Leaders with “failure aversion” cannot “be innovative”

“ A most leaders are afraid to fail, and this happens often because they do not understand that there are three types of failure,” says the leader, psychological security and organizational culture expert, one of the speakers of the QSP Summit, which takes place in Porto and Matosinhos between June 30 and July 2, one of the main European events of management, leadership and innovation.

Two of these types “are those that we should not fear, but do what we can to avoid,” which Amy Edmondson calls basic failures and complex failures.

“ These are the types of failures that happen when we are not paying attention, we do not think about the future, we are not vigilant and conscious, we do not guarantee the necessary training for employees and so on ", lists.

Therefore, “there are certain types of failures that are really a waste and that we should not celebrate, but with which we should learn” and then “there is a third type of failure that leaders genuinely need to embrace because they are really valuable.”.

Because “it is from them that innovation arises” and “the creation of new value”, “they are failures that occur in an unknown territory, in pursuit of a goal with a hypothesis, and are the smallest possible ones”, he argues.

These are the essential failures for innovation, invention and to learn anything new, he says.

“ So if people have a lot of aversion to failure, a lot of fear of failure, they can't be innovative. Consequently, their organizations cannot innovate either, which leads to long-term failures as their products and services become more obsolete and outdated,” he warns, referring to intelligent failure and progress in new territories.

These concepts apply to both companies and governments.

Regarding artificial intelligence (AI) and psychological security, the academic highlights two important points.

“ Psychological safety is not about comfort or even job security. You mean permission for frankness. And one of the ways AI inhibits honesty, that is, honesty and openness, is that people often use AI individually, but do not want to admit it,” he explains, saying that they can see it “as a sign that they are not doing their own work or taking an easy shortcut.”.

When this happens, “honestness decreases, which, by definition, is a reduction in psychological safety,” he points out.

Another thing “that we are seeing very directly and that affects psychological safety in relation to AI is that as people, especially engineers, use AI more often, speak less among themselves,” he says.

Now, psychological security, or this sense of permission for openness and frankness, “is built through repeated interactions with others.”.

If the interaction is smaller, “we are likely to observe less psychological safety and people will eventually isolate themselves in their areas of activity, becoming more independent in their work and, consequently, less interdependent, less engaged in conversations and problem solving with others, which, in turn, ends up corroding teamwork,” points out Amy Edmondson, who will speak at QSP Summit on July 1.

In its 19th edition, the event brings together more than 3,500 participants, about 100 speakers and seven thematic stages dedicated to economy, artificial intelligence, strategy, human behavior and creativity.