Despite endless discussions at conferences and internal strategy sessions about the need for innovation, the public service remains characterized by a culture of risk aversion. Conversations with senior public servants reveal frustration with systems oriented towards the status quo. At an organizational level, the story is much the same. For example, the 2017 Ontario Public Service employee survey found that only 52% of employees felt encouraged to take reasonable risks and 55% believed that innovation was valued in the workplace.

Sunil Johal, Policy Director at the Mowat Centre, proposes that every level of government in Canada establish a Ministry of Failure.

Thankfully, the potential exists for an institutional response to this culture of risk aversion. Drawing on the strategies of successful private firms, Canadian governments should create Ministries of Failure– central teams of policy innovators that operate independently to help other ministries design and execute strategic risks in programming and service delivery.

Encouraging failure in policy-making does not mean neglecting program commitments or abdicating organizational responsibilities. Allowing policymakers to fail without the immediate fear of political or professional scrutiny grants them the opportunity to experiment with new ideas which may have otherwise been rejected.

Not only can this space breed creativity, but it also can allow public servants to “fail forward” and have the willingness and confidence to iterate better and bolder policy ideas. Indeed, this is precisely what is necessary as we face more and more wicked problems. While solutions may be difficult to formulate in a linear, risk-averse policy environment, a Ministry mandated to experiment – and to learn from earlier failures – is perfectly positioned to promote a culture of strategic and intelligent risk-taking that can spur innovation.

Failure-tolerance, however, is not absolute. A Ministry of Failure would abide by the same standards that guide any other government bureaucracy, but would treat failed ideas with an even-handed, genuine curiosity about the lessons learned and how to move forward. Critically, lessons from failures would be fed into government-wide channels to inform policy and program delivery. If you’re expected to fail, you’re happy to share with others what you’ve learned. When you’re expected to be error-free, your mistakes are hidden away and the value of those lessons is lost forever.

For some private firms, failure is already treated as a rite of passage – a gateway to innovation and growth. Tata, India’s largest conglomerate, holds an annual competition for the Best Failed Idea to communicate to its employees the importance of trying, potentially failing, but subsequently learning from their mistakes. Roche, the third largest pharmaceutical company in the world, has a CEO who holds celebration lunches for failed experiments to further encourage risk-taking in an inherently risky business.

Giving public servants and politicians the authority to fail is a necessary step in achieving the innovation we all hope the public sector can deliver. Expecting perfectly formed, error-free approaches to suddenly emerge and solve thorny public policy problems is unrealistic. Let’s move forward with the ambition to fail, fail some more and ultimately begin to tackle Canada’s biggest challenges.

---