49ers’ Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Acknowledges Mistake in Trey Lance Trade Decision: An Analysis

Leave Comment

2 comments

  1. This post got me thinking about two of Tim Clark’s most important points from his book, (1) that psychological safety is rewarded vulnerability and that (2) to foster a culture of psychological safety, leaders need to publicly model admitting mistakes. There is a missing piece of this second point, I believe.

    In learning theory, the most important thing is what happens after the behavior. Is it rewarded, punished or ignored? He got it right in the first point that the vulnerable act of admitting a mistake should be rewarded, which will increase the frequency of the behavior.

    That brings us to #2, the leader modeling vulnerability by admitting to a mistake. Who, if anyone, rewards or punishes such admissions? If it’s a CEO, presumably he or she is vulnerable to getting fired by the Board. It is unlikely that the Board will reward him or her for doing so. So how is this modeling “rewarded vulnerability”?

    Yes, it is unusual for leaders to publicly admit to mistakes, but does the admission alone without them being rewarded encourage their subordinates to similarly take such a chance?

    I don’t have a good answer to that other than that the leader’s vulnerability is rewarded to the extent that they don’t get criticized or fired by the Board.

    I would be interested in any thoughts that you have on this.

    1. Thanks for your comment and questions, Alan.

      “This post got me thinking about two of Tim Clark’s most important points from his book, (1) that psychological safety is rewarded vulnerability and that (2) to foster a culture of psychological safety, leaders need to publicly model admitting mistakes. There is a missing piece of this second point, I believe.”

      Yes, the countermeasures that Clark recommends are to 1) model and 2) reward “vulnerable acts,” which include admitting mistakes.

      “In learning theory, the most important thing is what happens after the behavior. Is it rewarded, punished or ignored? He got it right in the first point that the vulnerable act of admitting a mistake should be rewarded, which will increase the frequency of the behavior.”

      When leaders model those behaviors (leading by example), I’d agree that it’s *more likely* that employees follow the lead. But employees have to believe they are more likely to be rewarded than be punished. It being relatively safe for the leader to admit a mistake doesn’t automatically mean it will feel safe to the employees.

      That brings us to #2, the leader modeling vulnerability by admitting to a mistake. Who, if anyone, rewards or punishes such admissions? If it’s a CEO, presumably he or she is vulnerable to getting fired by the Board. It is unlikely that the Board will reward him or her for doing so. So how is this modeling “rewarded vulnerability”?

      This is a great point. Even the CEO can be punished or face the risk of professional loss by admitting a mistake. They could be punished by the Board. The CEO’s reputation could suffer. Admitting a mistake is still a “vulnerable act” even for a CEO. The amount of risk they face depends on a number of factors.

      Yes, it is unusual for leaders to publicly admit to mistakes, but does the admission alone without them being rewarded encourage their subordinates to similarly take such a chance?

      I don’t think that “admission alone” (modeling the vulnerable act) is as impactful as doing BOTH things — modeling AND rewarding. Clark’s research has shown that to be true and it makes sense to me from my experience.

0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop