Weighing the Pros and Cons of the Failure Report

Do you fail gloriously? In full-color? On double-page spreads? We ask, because recently we came upon the Failure Reports of two prominent organizations and found these to be a bit of a head-scratcher.

A failure report is just what it sounds like. It's the annual report of what wasn't achieved. It screams loudly: We messed up here, here, and here.

Engineers Without Borders put one out on its website under the accountability heading. It talks about communication problems with partners and about mismatched expectations. 

HUB Ottawa released a failure report twinned with its Impact Report. It talks about how people failed to follow up on projects, because of a flaw in how the systems were operating inside this incubator for socially innovative businesses.

Inevitably, both reports turn these stories around and the report basically shows how epic fails can lead to epic discoveries. After all, if you're going to put out a failure report, you have to be careful to own the narrative and turn the trajectory upward about lessons learned.

These reports are released in the name of transparency and good branding, but don't expect any organization who releases a failure report to document massive cock-ups, unchecked spending or projects gone massively off track. There is a narrow window of tolerance for failure. Any failure reporting has to fall into the ethos of "fail in order to achieve" as espoused by such bestsellers as Celebrate Failure: The Power of Taking Risks, Making Mistakes and Thinking Big. 

What might be better is a section in your annual report called, What We're Going to Do Better, because it's not so much about failing as about knowing when to change the course.