Creating a Culture of Experimentation in Tech

Most companies claim they embrace failure. But walk into their Monday meetings, and watch people scramble to hide their missteps. I've seen it countless times. The same leaders who preach 'fail fast' are the first to demand explanations for every setback. Here's the uncomfortable truth:  Innovation dies in environments where people feel safer playing it safe. But there's a difference between reckless failure and strategic experimentation. Let me show you exactly how to build a culture that genuinely embraces productive failure: 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 Stop asking "Who's fault was this?" and start asking: "𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨?" "𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘶𝘴?" "𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯?" 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞 '𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬' Monthly meetings where teams present their failed experiments and the insights gained. The key? Leaders must go first. Share your own failures openly, specifically, and without sugar-coating. 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 "24-𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞" After any setback, give teams 24 hours to vent/process. Then require them to present three specific learnings and two potential next steps. This transforms failure from a dead end into a data point. Most "innovative" teams are just risk-averse businesses in disguise. They've mastered innovation theater, not actual innovation. Don't let your people think they need permission to innovate. Instead, start building systems and a culture that make innovation inevitable.

Set aside 20% of your experimentation budget (slash time) and let your team run wild. Forget about the prioritized roadmap for a bit. Make research-backed hypotheses totally optional. Just purely self-directed exploration. One engineer tinkering with an idea that nobody else thought was worthwhile (lengthening ad headlines) led to the "best revenue-generating idea in Bing's history" - worth well over nine figures. (per the Kohavi et al book) But beyond the reality of how often we are surprised by our experiment outcomes, this is a powerful way to get teams more interested in running experiments. Autonomy is a powerful driver of motivation. And intrinsic motivation like a feeling of autonomy can be far more powerful than offering some "carrots" of promised career growth or "sticks" via making experimentation mandatory. The Post-It Note was invented because 3M gave engineers 15% of their time to work on whatever side projects they'd like. Google's version was "20 Percent Time", which led to AdSense, Google News, search autocompletes, and (according to some) Gmail. The reality of these often-cited programs is a little hazier than the simple headlines suggest... (I feel like I can sense some ex-Googler ready to comment and say "nobody actually did this" 😂) But the principles are sound: 1) Use autonomy as fuel to get people experimenting 2) Make progress by tinkering Nassim Taleb in "Skin in the Game": "The knowledge we get by tinkering, via trial and error... is vastly superior to that obtained through reasoning" How much space have you made for your teams to freely explore and experiment?

HOW TO CREATE SAFE SPACES FOR UNSAFE IDEAS You hire brilliant people and tell them to innovate. Then you make it impossible for them to do so. Most companies develop an immune system that rejects new ideas like they're some kind of virus. Here are the five innovation killers you need to spot and eliminate: KILLER #1: DEMANDING CRYSTAL BALL ACCURACY You want detailed business cases for projects that are inherently uncertain. The fix: Create different approval processes for exploration vs. execution. Exploration projects get smaller budgets and you measure success by what you learn, not what you earn. KILLER #2: BEING SCARED OF EVERYTHING Your processes are designed to avoid any downside risk, which also kills any upside potential. The fix: Separate "experiments you can't afford to mess up" from "experiments you can't afford not to try." Different projects, different comfort levels with risk. KILLER #3: MAKING INNOVATION FIGHT FOR SCRAPS Innovation projects have to compete with your proven money-makers for resources. The fix: Set aside dedicated innovation resources. 10% of engineering time, 5% of budget, just for projects where you don't know what'll happen. KILLER #4: JUDGING EVERYTHING ON QUARTERLY RESULTS You evaluate innovation projects on the same timelines as your day-to-day operations. The fix: Innovation gets measured by learning cycles, not calendar quarters. Success is about insights you gain, not deadlines you hit. KILLER #5: THINKING FAILURE MEANS SOMEONE SCREWED UP You define success as "execute the original plan perfectly." The fix: Success becomes "figure out what works as fast as possible." Changing direction gets celebrated, not punished. The framework that can transform your innovation culture: EXPLORE → EXPERIMENT → EXECUTE EXPLORE PHASE: Small budget, big questions. Win = quality insights. EXPERIMENT PHASE: Medium budget, specific hunches. Win = fast validation (or fast failure). EXECUTE PHASE: Full budget, proven concept. Win = flawless delivery. Different phases, different rules, different ways to win. Companies don't lack innovative ideas. They lack innovative environments. QUESTIONS TO DIAGNOSE YOUR INNOVATION IMMUNE SYSTEM: ❓How many good ideas die in approval meetings instead of real-world tests? ❓What percentage of your "failed" projects actually teach you something valuable? ❓How long does it take to get approval for a $10K experiment vs. a $10K efficiency upgrade? ❓Do your best people feel comfortable pitching risky ideas? If your best employee came to you tomorrow with a risky but potentially game-changing idea, would they feel safe pitching it? *** I’m Jennifer Kamara, founder of Kamara Life Design. Enjoy this? Repost to share with your network, and follow me for actionable strategies to design businesses and lives with meaning. Want to go from good to world-class? Join our community of subscribers today: https://lnkd.in/d6TT6fX5 

Execs: "Our teams are experimenting, why aren't we finding new growth?" Me: "Well, you started out strong by organizing teams around ideas, giving them access to customers, providing them with tools and had them start running experiments. The teams are only relying on interviews and surveys and don't know how to find stronger evidence on their own." Execs: "So let's teach them more experiments." Me: "That will certainly help and the teams could use a customized playbook based on your industry. This isn't only a skill issue though, it is a system issue. Even your best trained teams will fail if they don't have the time and support to apply what they've learned. They need coaching help for their experimentation if you are to find new growth. Instead of squeezing this into a few hours a week, they more dedicated time. Think of this like a portfolio, not a series of one off teams or projects experimenting with a few customers." Execs: "OK, we'll make sure all of these systems are in place." Me: "That's a good step, and we'll need to go beyond giving this lip service, because you aren't simply setting up a process, you are building a culture of experimentation. This requires communicating the vision of why you are undertaking this challenge. You'll need sponsors who can make decisions on these ideas based on evidence and alignment to your narrative. You'll need metered funding to invest in the ideas that show promise and retire the ones that don't. You'll need to scout for opportunities to drive new growth. And with all of that, this initiative will stall without an incentive system that rewards teams for working this way." Execs: "This sounds like an overwhelming amount of work." Me: "This is a shift. We don't need to build all of this at once. We just have to start, based on where you are today, and build the support system that will allow innovation to stick."