" To err is human ", or so goes a popular saying that attributes to man precisely one of the characteristics that identifies him and differentiates him from some deities of apparent perfection.
Errors have always been seen as signs of incapacity, lack of attention, ignorance and inexperience, among other things of a similar nature, to the point of generating terminal decisions that serve as an example to the common to avoid at all risk the possibility of making a mistake.
There are professions where it is impossible to think of an error: surgeons, construction engineers, doctors, anesthesiologists, physicists, mechanical engineers… and many others whose slightest mistake could cause such dire effects that they could even take lives.
But still "to err is human." It is impossible to claim the broadest and most legitimate perfection in the execution of a professional exercise or any other labor manifestation.
So how is the error to be viewed? Does it have any benefit to err? Should it be highlighted above past success? Is it really synonymous with disability? Can the error be managed?
One of the most accentuated social characteristics in the villages is to stigmatize the error to the point of using it as a referential element.
A mistake immediately becomes a label that identifies the unfortunate person who committed it, who will have to carry it as if it were a cross imposed by those who point to it, the same ones who, in the face of a notorious failure, seem to present themselves as incapable of committing it.
This social scheme is translated in a linear and reliable way to the work environment where it is usually the lowest-ranking employee who ends up paying for "the broken dishes" of the mistake that has been made, especially in organizations where there must always be a culprit.
In some companies, the employee who has made the mistake is given greater preponderance than the error itself, as if by doing so it was showing that it was exclusively a human fault, due to the disability, which cannot be a consequence or attributable to others factors present in communication processes and systems.
It also seems that by pointing out the individual the error loses its gravity since it is recharged on the person responsible.
It is simplistic and even laughable that in circumstances where a failure is detected, the culprit is pointed out in a public and notorious way, without the presence of the mistake serving as a call to review the process and even the input and output elements.
In addition, when reprimanding, questioning, suspending or even firing the accused employee, the only thing that is really achieved is to generate a climate of guilt, fear, resentment or anguish among the other members of the team, since such a situation will not effectively prevent them from being incur the deed again.
It should be noted, as a curious fact, that companies that have a culture of maximizing errors present a notable inability to recognize the success of others or their own collaborators, since, apparently, ignoring success and highlighting the error facilitates the implementation of policies aimed at offering the minimum benefits to its employees.
While it is true that the individual is responsible for what he does, since it is based on his experience and knowledge, it is no less true that the conditions in which he operates are dynamic and changing and therefore no one, absolutely no one, is except from make a mistake.
Who does not remember the reckless exposition of Jesus Christ: "He who is free from sin, cast the first stone."
Indeed, as far as the administrative field is concerned, such words seem to be out of context, and this is due to the dominant thought that affirms that people are not hired to make mistakes, so it can be understood that such thinking obviates nature human and his involuntary disposition to err.
However, can it be said that he who points out the fault has never been wrong? Obviously the thought runs through the mind, the glances intersect like a silent communication from the past, where at some point whoever points out today was pointed out.
This offers a particular view of errors and they will be greater or lesser, malicious or benevolent according to the "lens with which it is viewed" (or the hierarchical level that one has).
Ideally, an error should be seen as a failure in the process, not as an inability. Most errors occur because of the urgency with which the steps of an operation are carried out, because of the little information that is handled when making a decision or because of the way in which a particular scenario is observed.
Overconfidence also leads to mistakes (remember Napoleon and the Battle of Waterloo), but this does not mean, in the administrative field, that the person has to be crucified for it, if so, almost no one would occupy positions of importance in companies.
It is funny and at the same time discouraging: If the boss is wrong there are multiple reasons that justify the absence (meetings, boards, projects…) but if he is the subordinate there seems to be no reason for it, what else other than his job should he have increased attention? And this thought is repeated in the same way from the highest level of command to the simplest.
But one thing is certain, as the individual grows and begins to occupy important positions, his retrospective memory seems to erase past errors and the intolerance of present errors of his subordinates increases with the same rapidity with which he has forgotten their own, and it is precisely there where the presence of the Coach Manager seems to be more a theory than a concrete fact, because instead of using the error as an input to transfer knowledge and improve performance, highlighting the process and not who it is. executed, some managers are dedicated to exaggerating it to the point of morally mistreating their employee.
Using the error to turn it into learning is an effective way to manage the failure, an error observed and detected in time can serve as the basis for the success of an entire operation, but this requires vision and management capacity.
Another distorting element of society brought into the workplace can be observed in the managerial practice of questioning the performance of an individual who has made a mistake without evaluating his past effort and the successes obtained.
Is it that a mistake can ruin everything that has been harvested and achieved in the past? Although it seems illogical, the general answer is yes. It is enough for a faultless employee to make a mistake to start doubting his ability and performance. If you have erred once, you can do it again.
It is a logical and linear thought based on a subjective fact and without context, one might wonder what led him to make a mistake? And even more so, will we be willing to be judged in the same way when it touches us?
Obviously there are errors of errors, situations in which the damage caused is unprecedented and almost irreparable. It's true, there are. But the question is, doesn't she deserve a second chance? Or must he carry his whole life with the weight of being wrong?
When the error occurs due to negligence, is caused with premeditation or results from an intentional act, it seems that everything indicated above makes sense, a company cannot afford to have on its staff people who attempt against it without the slightest sign of sense This is where some corrective actions might be warranted, as long as none of them are aimed at intimidating remaining staff or unhealthily maximizing damage.
There is an unalterable maxim: "you must learn from mistakes", experiences or failed attempts at the same time generate knowledge that would not have been achieved if you had not made a mistake on the first attempt.
It is said that Thomas Alba Edison was wrong many times before inventing the light bulb, that the famous physicist Albert Einstein spent long hours of trial and error before concluding that in the famous formula: e = m.c2.
How many rockets did not explode before man stepped on the moon? It would be ideal to say that none of this happened and that the exact point of each example was immediately reached, but the truth is different. And there are plenty of examples.
It is not a matter of justifying mistakes, they must be constantly avoided and this requires time, attention and dedication.
But if it is about reflecting on the way in which some companies or their management personnel observe the failures and expose them to the common.
It is about reflecting on man's propensity to make mistakes and how that mistake can be turned into learning if one knows how to manage.
Those who manage companies must be able to understand human limitations, the same ones that they possess.
To designate an employee as incapable because he is accused of an error is to declare the company equally incapable of making a good selection or a good hiring.
Furthermore, it is to suppose that infallible machines are being hired and not human beings or that an error puts in question the value that the talent captured has for the process; It is as if it was pointing out itself as lacking in judgment or objectivity, since that person who made the mistake was endorsed by a process before entering.
That leads again to point out: you do not have to see the error, you have to review the process.
It is not about pointing out the culprit, but about preventing the failure from happening again. It is a matter of learning.
It is said that once, faced with an inclement fire that caused the total loss of his house, due to an involuntary mistake, Thomas Alba Edison expressed: «There is something valuable in the disaster, all our mistakes were burned, thank God we can start again".
