I recently wrote a post on the problem of defending a mistake. Instead of attempting to put a good face on the error, or denying it ever happened in the first place, the best policy is to rectify it.
Then learn from what happened.
The idea of learning begs the question of learning what and who is doing that learning?
That is indeed an important question to consider.
Once the error is accepted, and acknowledged, the busines owner or decision maker can then put in place a new system, alternative policies, different employees, or fresh equipment.
Once the mistake has been corrected, however, there is often a tendency to deny the original error once again. The position is taken that the new decision was undertaken for any number of reasons other than the fact that a bad choice was made in the beginning.
Denial once again steps in, and it's disguised as either a staff problem, a market problem, or even some vague government red tape issue. In the end, an avoidance of looking squarely at the reflection in the mirror is the result.
The mistake continues in denial.
What a business should do in the wake of a business threatening disaster is examine ways to avoid a repeat performance. If the original decision maker is still making ad hoc, and often illogical choices, the clock is ticking on the next near catastrophe.
it's only a matter of time.
Every company, internal department, and small business needs some sort of internal checks and balances systems. The decision makers must consider alternative ideas from within the organization, even while maintaining final decision making power.
The recognition of other possibilities, even if not consiously acknowledged by some business owners and managers, can often alter some potentially disastrous and poorly thought out plans.
For example, checking with the company's financial experts can avert a spending error.
The legal department's input can prevent costly and often ruinous lawsuits by avoiding potential nightmares before they take shape.
Talking with the sales, marketing, public relations, and customer service people can prevent launching an expensive non-seller onto an uninterested market. This input is especially important if the owner or decision maker has a pet product that will be produced regardless of the market conditions.
The production staff should be consulted for opinions on the possibility of adding new produuct lines or expanding output of currently marketed items. Sometimes, the production system is already operating at or near capacity. Any additional committments simply can't be achieved.
A business involves more than one person. Even the most autocratic and dictatorial of business owners must face the fact that they are not infallible. They must accept that they are not experts in everything related to the company.
The urge to micro-manage small details is a huge mistake that many business owners often make in the course of business operations. Failure to listen to staff and to delegate responsibility is an example of bad management practice.
Letting go of the details, and asking assistance from others is not weakness, but a sign of self assurance and strong management. That is an important lesson for most business owners and managers to learn.
Grow beyond the original job, and let go.
The small business owner may have handled all of the business details in the past, but as a company grows, the decision making must become more widespread within the organization.
By decentralizing decision making, and seeking input from many reliable sources both inside and outside the company, catastrophic mistakes can be avoided.
A brainstorming session can be put into place to examine ways to tackle the problem, and to implement the chosen solution as successfully as possible. The final choice might look far different from the business owner's original, and potentially disastrous, "management by whim".
The full involvement of the staff who will be carring out the decision is much more likely if they are part of the decision making process.
When people feel their voices are being heard, they are much more likely to take ownership of the final policy decision and to make it work. A decree from the top is much less likely to be treated so charitably, often leading to problems of implementation and low morale.
Letting the staff do their job, and looking at several aternatives to the original choice, will reduce the need to defend a mistake in the future.
Learn from the mistake.
Don't pretend it never happened.
