11 minutes
Learning from a mistake without looking for someone to blame A review that ends at a name makes the next problem arrive later and cost more. A review that ends at a condition changes something.
What you’ll be able to do Produce a short account of one thing that went wrong that explains the conditions that made the mistake reasonable at the time, and that names a change, an owner and a check rather than a culprit. Compare the responses to this question and explain your choice: What do you bring back to the director? Document a next step for Learning from a mistake without looking for someone to blame: Take one thing that went wrong in the last month, including something that was caught in time, and write four lines: what happened, what made it reasonable at the time, what will change, and who will check it and when. Two accounts of the same event The first account says: an experienced staff member used an out-of-date template and an incorrect amendment reached fourteen grantees. It is accurate. It is also useless, because everything in it is finished. The person has been identified, the lesson is that people should be careful, and the only available follow-up is a reminder.
The second account says: the current template is one of three nearly identical files in a shared folder, none marked current; the change was announced in the eleventh paragraph of a long email sent during a busy week; the unit was four days from a deadline; and nothing in the sending process looks at the effective date. In those conditions, starting from a saved copy is not carelessness. It is the sensible shortcut almost anyone would take, and the error was waiting for whoever happened to be in a hurry that week.
The second account is harder to write because it declines the invitation to end at a name. It is the only one that produces work. Three similarly named files can be fixed in twenty minutes. A change announcement can be sent as its own short notice. A check of the effective date can be added to the send step. None of that requires anyone to be more careful, which is fortunate, because nobody can be reliably more careful for very long.
None of this removes accountability, and it is not a way of excusing people. Accountability moves from “who did it” to “what will be different, who owns that, and when will somebody ask.” A person's name still appears in the account. It appears as the owner of a fix, not as the cause of the problem.
Condition, decision, or judgment about a person? Three versions of the amendment template sit in the shared folder with nearly identical names, and none is marked current.
Choose a category A condition the division owns A decision someone made A judgment about a person The template change was announced in the eleventh paragraph of a long all-staff email.
Choose a category A condition the division owns A decision someone made A judgment about a person Nothing in the sending process checks an effective date before an amendment leaves the division.
Choose a category A condition the division owns A decision someone made A judgment about a person She started from a saved copy on her own drive rather than opening the shared folder.
Choose a category A condition the division owns A decision someone made A judgment about a person He sent the amendment without asking anyone for a second read.
Choose a category A condition the division owns A decision someone made A judgment about a person She is careless with detail.
Choose a category A condition the division owns A decision someone made A judgment about a person He does not take deadlines seriously.
Choose a category A condition the division owns A decision someone made A judgment about a person Check matches Reset Four questions that keep a review honest What made this reasonable at the time? Ask it plainly and mean it. If the answer is “nothing, it was just sloppy,” you have almost certainly not found the condition yet. Look at what was nearest to hand, what the deadline was, what the last reminder competed with, and what the process made easy.
What did the person know, and when did they know it? Hindsight makes every warning obvious. Reconstruct the information as it actually arrived: a long email, a hallway comment, a folder with three files. Judge the decision against what was visible then, not against what you know now.
Who else could have caught this, and what stopped them? Most errors pass several people. If the second reader was optional, if the checker was the same person as the sender, or if raising a doubt would have delayed a deadline, those are conditions too, and they are usually easier to change than anything about an individual.
What will be different, who owns it, and when will somebody ask? An account without these three is a story. With them it is work. Put the check on a real date, in a meeting that already exists, and let the team see it come back.
Bring conditions upward, not a name What you can change You control what goes into the account that leaves your unit. When a director asks who, you can answer with what made it likely, and who owns the fix.
What to watch for Do not deliver a name and a reminder. It closes the matter, it teaches the team to route the next problem around you, and it leaves the condition in place for the next person in a hurry.
Your next step The next time something goes wrong, write the four lines before you write the email, and let the person closest to the work read them first.
A private reflection, kept by you and collected nowhere: think of the last mistake someone on your team told you about. Did you hear it from the person, from a colleague, or from outside the division? What does that answer tell you about what it currently costs to tell you early?
Carry this forward People usually make sensible decisions inside the conditions they are given. The useful question is not why someone did it, but what made it the reasonable thing to do with the tools, information and time in front of them.
Blame and accountability work against each other. Blame ends the inquiry at a name and leaves the condition in place. Accountability names the change, who owns it, and when someone will ask.
A learning account has to survive being read by the person it is about. If it would not, you will not hear about the next problem early enough for it to be cheap.
Near misses are the cheapest lessons available, and they only reach you if the last one did not cost somebody their standing.
Speed is part of the condition. A unit that is always one deadline behind will reuse whatever is nearest, and no reminder changes that.
A scenario about an amendment that went out with the wrong effective date, sorting practice that separates a condition from a decision from a judgment about a person, and a knowledge check on what belongs in a learning account.
Take one thing that went wrong in the last month, including something that was caught in time, and write four lines: what happened, what made it reasonable at the time, what will change, and who will check it and when.
Browse and download only. Course notes are not typed or saved on this page.
Reset this lesson
Previous lesson Next lesson Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.
