A Science of Failure — Turning Emotional Events into Data for Learning

Failure happens twice. The first time, in the real world. The second time, in our head, again and again. From the first failure one can learn, but from the second failure (rumination and self-blame) one can learn almost nothing. What this volume treats is the technique of turning failure from an emotional event into data for learning. Dweck's growth mindset, Edmondson's three types of failure, Reason's Swiss-cheese model, Just Culture, Hatamura Yotarō's failure studies, Popper's falsifiability, and Wang Yangming's "extending good knowing" — six traditions on the practice of making failure into a science.

01The Trap of Treating Failure as an Emotional Event

When we fail, the heart moves instantly. "I've done it"; "this is the worst"; "what will that person think of me"; "I am incompetent" — these are not facts but one's reactions to the fact called failure. The same structure as the "second arrow" of Buddhism introduced in the previous volume, but here we go one step further. As long as failure is being processed as an emotional event, no data can be drawn from it.

In the pharmaceutical field, past review mistakes, delays in response, breakdowns of communication — to keep treating these emotionally as "evidence of my ability" buries precious data within rumination. Conversely, treating them as a set of data — "what, how, why did this happen" — turns the same failure into wisdom that prevents the next. Emotion and data are different faces of the same failure. Which side carries the weight decides the quality of learning.

02What Is It to "Turn into Data"?

To say "turn failure into data" may sound cold. The reverse is true. Once one can treat failure as data, the time crushed by emotion shortens, and one can deal with oneself more kindly.

Data processing is the work of taking distance from self-evaluation. Read failure not as an indicator of one's character but as an event of structure and condition. From there, what is improvable and what was merely chance becomes visible. This is also the core technique of what Dweck calls the "growth mindset."

03Dweck's Fixed Mindset vs Growth Mindset

The American psychologist Carol S. Dweck (1946–), through half a century of research, has shown that how a human being believes in ability decisively influences learning from failure. Her findings are concentrated in Mindset (2006).

"The person of fixed mindset reads failure as proof of 'I have no ability.' The person of growth mindset reads failure as data of 'I have not yet learned.' From the same failure, utterly different things are drawn." — paraphrase of Carol S. Dweck, Mindset (2006)

Important in Dweck's research is that fixed and growth mindsets are not innately fixed but can be changed as habits. The habit of reading "I have no ability" can be rewritten. Bringing into awareness the automatic evaluation rendered unconsciously at the moment of failure is the first step of rewriting.

In the pharmaceutical field, instead of concluding fixedly "I am bad at review," ask again, "this time the failure arose under these conditions; next time let me try changing this one point." Read the same failure within the same language under a different grammar — this is the implementation of the growth mindset.

04Edmondson's Three Types of Failure — Not All Failures Are the Same

The Harvard Business School organisational behaviour scholar Amy C. Edmondson (1959–), through years of organisational research, has pointed out the danger of treating failure uniformly. Her organisation, concentrated in Right Kind of Wrong (2023), distinguishes failure into three.

What Edmondson's organisation shows is that not all failures should be treated with the same attitude. Type 1 is the object of prevention; Type 2 is material for organisational learning; Type 3 is rather an investment to be celebrated. To mix the three and treat them all as "all-around reflection" makes even Type 3, which should be celebrated, shrink. In the pharmaceutical field, merely first diagnosing which type one's failure is changes the quality of response.

05Reason's Swiss-Cheese Model — Failure Is Organisational and Multi-Layered

The British psychologist James Reason (1938–), from research on industrial and medical accidents, put forward the Swiss-cheese model (Human Error, 1990; Managing the Risks of Organisational Accidents, 1997). The metaphor: accidents occur when holes (defects) open simultaneously in several defensive layers of the organisation (slices of cheese), and these line up by chance.

"It is wrong to attribute the responsibility of an accident only to the final operational error. An accident is the result of holes that were open across multiple layers of the organisation's defences lining up by chance." — paraphrase of James Reason, Managing the Risks of Organisational Accidents (1997)

What Reason's model shows is that concentrating the responsibility of failure too much on the individual overlooks the holes of the organisation. At the same time, attributing all responsibility to the organisation alone does not improve the individual's judgement. The Swiss-cheese model is the tool for seeing both layers at once.

The same applies in pharmaceutical material review. One judgement mistake frequently arises from individual cognitive bias + departmental gaps in review process + executive priority confusion + ambiguity of regulatory interpretation — several cheese holes lined up. To process emotionally as "my mistake" is admirable as the posture of taking responsibility, but it alone does not close the holes in the organisation. See failure not by emotion but by layered structure — this is the practical tool Reason left.

06Just Culture — The Design of a Culture That Learns from Failure

In the extension of Reason, Just Culture developed as an organisational-culture design in the fields of medical safety and aviation safety. Sidney Dekker (1969–) and others systematised it. The core proposition:

"Without a culture in which failure can be reported, no organisation can learn from failure. What makes reporting possible is not 'no blame' but 'a fair line between what deserves blame and what deserves learning.'" — paraphrase of Sidney Dekker, Just Culture (2007)

What Just Culture shows is that the science of failure must advance not only within the individual heart but also within the culture and structure of the organisation. This series treats the individual's self-transformation, so it does not directly treat organisational culture. But the work of one person turning failure into science cannot be sustained without the organisation's Just Culture. Is there around oneself a mechanism in which failure can be reported? Is there a context in which reported failures are converted into learning rather than pursuit of blame? The individual's science of failure, only when it resonates with the organisation's Just Culture, is sustained — this is the destination contemporary safety science has reached.

07Hatamura Yotarō's "Encouragement of Failure Studies" — Japan's Singular Failure Studies

The Japanese engineer Hatamura Yotarō (1941–), in Shippaigaku no Susume (Encouragement of Failure Studies) (2000), proposed failure studies as an independent academic field. He also served as chair of the Investigation Committee on the Fukushima nuclear accident. The core proposition Hatamura's failure studies shows:

"Failure: do not hide, do not blame, dissect the cause, leave it as knowledge. Information of failure, only by being shared, prevents the next failure. Hidden failure repeats itself, without fail, in the same form." — paraphrase of Hatamura Yotarō, Shippaigaku no Susume (2000)

Hatamura's failure studies are especially important in the Japanese context because they respond to the deeply rooted culture of hiding failure in Japanese society. Hidden failure does not become data. Failure that does not become data leaves neither organisation nor individual any wisdom for the next judgement. To make failure into science is, first, to make within oneself a culture that can treat failure as "a fact that exists." Before hiding, see. Before blaming, dissect. Before remembering, write down.

In the pharmaceutical field, past disasters have severely backed this proposition. Hidden defects, unshared near-misses, unrecorded judgements — these have produced large consequences after the fact in history. Hatamura's failure studies are the tool that translates the historical lessons of the industry as a whole into the practice of the individual.

08Popper's Falsifiability — The Epistemology of Hypothesis and Failure

In the philosophical lineage, the philosopher of science Karl R. Popper (1902–1994), in The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), placed at the core of the logic that advances knowledge falsifiability. A good theory is not "a theory whose correctness can be proven" but "a theory that has a structure in which error can be discovered".

"Every empirical scientific statement must be falsifiable. A proposition that cannot be falsified does not belong to the domain of science." — Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934)

How does this relate to failure? Transferring Popper's epistemology to individual learning: hold one's own judgement and one's way of working as a "structure in which error can be discovered". As long as one thinks "this is perfect," one's judgement is not an object of science. When one hypothesises "if this is wrong, I will correct it this way," for the first time failure becomes material for testing the hypothesis. Failure is not something to be denied but something to be welcomed as feedback to the hypothesis — this is the Popperian view of failure.

09Wang Yangming's "Zhi Liangzhi" — Recovering the "Original Knowing" Within Failure

In the Eastern lineage too, a thinker organised the relation of failure and learning in his own way. The Ming Confucian Wang Yangming (1472–1529) and his thought of zhi liangzhi (extending good knowing, 致良知). It lies in the extension of the unity of knowledge and action treated in Vol. 1.

The unity of knowledge and action; extending good knowing.
— Unite knowing and acting; arrive at the originally endowed good knowing (the heart that discerns right). (gist from Chuanxi Lu)

Wang's zhi liangzhi is often read as abstract moral theory. But read as a theory of failure, another implication surfaces. Failure is the point at which action has departed from the "original knowing" within oneself, and by looking at that point, the original knowing again becomes clear. Failure is the scale that measures the distance away from one's original self. If the distance is visible, the direction of return is also visible.

In the pharmaceutical field, after a failure, quietly asking "at that moment, what should I really have protected?" — the heart that thinks of the patient, the longing for sincere work, the ethical norms of the organisation — the "good knowing" that was already within oneself regains its outline. Read failure as a coordinate for re-confirming the outline of one's original self — this is another science of failure that Eastern philosophy left.

10Four Questions for Turning Failure into Data

To bring the same place to which the six traditions pointed down into daily practice, four questions are set here. Just after a failure, once the wave of emotion has receded, try writing them out — in the corner of a notebook, on a paper napkin.

As long as failure is processed as an emotional event, it only wears one down. The moment it is turned into data, the same failure changes into wisdom that supports the next judgement. Dweck's growth mindset, Edmondson's three types, Reason's Swiss cheese, Just Culture, Hatamura's failure studies, Popper's falsifiability, Wang Yangming's zhi liangzhi — six traditions pointed, in different words, to the same place.

Just after a failure, in the moment when the wave of emotion is high, one need not write anything. Once the wave has receded, quietly write out the four questions. By the number of failures, one's own map grows more precise. Make failure your ally.