This is sharp and mostly right, but it stops at the surface.
Reward, promote, fire are indeed signals that matter. But that's still a management framework dressed up as a culture framework.
Culture lives beyond decisions.
Psychological safety is a prerequisite to experimentation, not a byproduct. It must exist before the first experiment. And it never comes from policy. It comes from a leader who has done enough inner work to not be secretly terrified of failure themselves, even to their own perceived disadvantage.
People, whether they realize it or not, are exquisitely sensitive to the gap between what a leader says and what they carry inside. They feel it before they can name it. And the moment others sense the misalignment, experimentation stops.
What's missing from this piece is those who I call the "keeper of the containers." These people write and hold the integrity of the unspoken culture rules. And they are rare because they know both the written rules and the unwritten ones. They sense the temp of the room before anyone speaks. They make it safe to fail by modeling what it looks like to be authentically unafraid.
You can't install that into someone. But you can hire for it.
Most organizations don't. Because they don't even know it's a role.
Wow this is phenomenal insight. I completely agree with the inner work a founder has to do to become acceptive and excited by failure. Do you have any advice on how to pick up on this ability during the hiring process?
Ask them about a failure they're still inside. Then push back on something real.
Then ask what scares them right now. You're not scoring the answers. You're watching whether the person and the words are saying the same thing. Are they in alignment?
I have a lot more I'd be happy to share if this is genuinly helpful to you.
This is the bit that most leaders never get: you can't say you want new ideas while making sure everything is certain. No matter what the presentation deck says, experimentation dies as soon as the incentive structure rewards safety. Real innovation is about how to use resources, not how to get people to work harder. If you don't base pay, deadlines, and decision-making on the fact that most tests fail, the company will default to defending existing metrics instead of opening up new options. Culture isn't just a saying; it's the way you always reward people.
Very very good read never looked at it that way but I’ve never been afraid of failure. Because in my life I’ve only learn more and gotten better ideas so failure may hurt at times but it’s the life circle we must accept and learn from .
Even companies where failure is an expected part of their business cannot process failure. Like food brands launching new products, where data tells us that most innovation fails. A failed launch feels like a disaster even though, all along, it was the most likely outcome. Working with brands I have found that most want to be "creative" but are constitutionally incapable of handling the mercurial nature of creativity.
Absolutely agree. So much of what we see right now feels like innovation theater. Companies are racing to announce AI initiatives and launch pilots, but the underlying infrastructure, governance, workflows, and incentives aren’t mature enough to actually support the change long term.
Super interesting Marc. This is obviously on a MUCH smaller scale, but I make an effort to run one experiment per month on my Substack related to growth, paid subs, etc. I attribute a lot of my success on the platform to this.
This resonates so deeply. I’ve learned that founders have to lead by example, they can’t speak their way into culture. Culture flows from actions.
The first barrier for me was unlearning perfectionism. Coming from academia, where every word has to be perfect, it was a huge culture shock.
I then learned the value of failed experiments and started to thrive in it. Next step was to encourage my team to do the same.
The most effective thing I’ve done to build this truly as part of our culture is radical transparency about previous failures. I treat failure with the same energy as a win. More even, with a god-like reverence for saving us from doom 😂
Fantastic piece, and so good to hear it from a leader in innovation/disruption success. 👏🏽
That line about the model being used, simply because it was the last one standing 🔥
Just putting it out there for the smaller businesses: there’s a way to start thinking/acting like a true baller (Netflix) with a the mantra of ENVE’s former CEO, Sarah Lehman — ‘Fail fast, fail cheap’.
ENVE makes ultra high end carbon bicycle racing wheels. Sarah allowed any employee to try/test any wheel innovation idea as long as it didn’t have a ridiculous and endless budget. This got employees always looking at performance gains/innovation through the lens of ‘Is this the least expensive way I can test/prove this idea works or doesn’t work?
Sarah didn’t punish the ideas that didn’t work, so long as it didn’t cost much to learn and keep moving the performance needle and kept pushing innovation.
As organizations grow, experimentation becomes harder because the personal downside becomes disconnected from the upside. The risk of a failed experiment is often concentrated on the individual, while the reward is distributed across the organization. When that happens, people stop optimizing for learning and start optimizing for reputation. The safest career move becomes avoiding visible failure / protecting your reputation rather than testing new ideas. Leaving the safety/security of those environments has been terrifying at times, but the reward has been the ability to follow my curiosity and experiment to my heart's content.
This resonates. Having the capacity to hold the whole process of trying, failing, learning - having a real tolerance for it - is way more demanding than people think. In teams, I see it‘s often simply not safe enough to do that.
I couldn’t agree more. I was talking to a charity CEO a couple of weeks back who was adamant that the way forward was setting up an innovation team. I was at pains go explain that an organisation that prioritises process over substance and is incapable of saying no (thereby never killing failed initiatives) cannot produce innovation. It can create a team, produce decks and burn money … but without the ethos of experimentation you can’t expect innovation
This is sharp and mostly right, but it stops at the surface.
Reward, promote, fire are indeed signals that matter. But that's still a management framework dressed up as a culture framework.
Culture lives beyond decisions.
Psychological safety is a prerequisite to experimentation, not a byproduct. It must exist before the first experiment. And it never comes from policy. It comes from a leader who has done enough inner work to not be secretly terrified of failure themselves, even to their own perceived disadvantage.
People, whether they realize it or not, are exquisitely sensitive to the gap between what a leader says and what they carry inside. They feel it before they can name it. And the moment others sense the misalignment, experimentation stops.
What's missing from this piece is those who I call the "keeper of the containers." These people write and hold the integrity of the unspoken culture rules. And they are rare because they know both the written rules and the unwritten ones. They sense the temp of the room before anyone speaks. They make it safe to fail by modeling what it looks like to be authentically unafraid.
You can't install that into someone. But you can hire for it.
Most organizations don't. Because they don't even know it's a role.
Wow this is phenomenal insight. I completely agree with the inner work a founder has to do to become acceptive and excited by failure. Do you have any advice on how to pick up on this ability during the hiring process?
Thank you Eleanor for the question.
Ask them about a failure they're still inside. Then push back on something real.
Then ask what scares them right now. You're not scoring the answers. You're watching whether the person and the words are saying the same thing. Are they in alignment?
I have a lot more I'd be happy to share if this is genuinly helpful to you.
Send me a DM.
Some of the most successful businesses I know had this in their DNA and reward and recognition programmes
you had me until reward and recognition.
This is the bit that most leaders never get: you can't say you want new ideas while making sure everything is certain. No matter what the presentation deck says, experimentation dies as soon as the incentive structure rewards safety. Real innovation is about how to use resources, not how to get people to work harder. If you don't base pay, deadlines, and decision-making on the fact that most tests fail, the company will default to defending existing metrics instead of opening up new options. Culture isn't just a saying; it's the way you always reward people.
This is sharp！
Most companies do not lack experimentation language.
They lack a structure that can absorb failed tests without turning them into political or economic penalties.
That is why the culture sounds right, but the behavior never follows.
failure is really just an opportunity to learn and grow
Very very good read never looked at it that way but I’ve never been afraid of failure. Because in my life I’ve only learn more and gotten better ideas so failure may hurt at times but it’s the life circle we must accept and learn from .
Even companies where failure is an expected part of their business cannot process failure. Like food brands launching new products, where data tells us that most innovation fails. A failed launch feels like a disaster even though, all along, it was the most likely outcome. Working with brands I have found that most want to be "creative" but are constitutionally incapable of handling the mercurial nature of creativity.
Absolutely agree. So much of what we see right now feels like innovation theater. Companies are racing to announce AI initiatives and launch pilots, but the underlying infrastructure, governance, workflows, and incentives aren’t mature enough to actually support the change long term.
If the innovation dies at big companies - I really hope brilliant people will keep forming startups
Super interesting Marc. This is obviously on a MUCH smaller scale, but I make an effort to run one experiment per month on my Substack related to growth, paid subs, etc. I attribute a lot of my success on the platform to this.
This resonates so deeply. I’ve learned that founders have to lead by example, they can’t speak their way into culture. Culture flows from actions.
The first barrier for me was unlearning perfectionism. Coming from academia, where every word has to be perfect, it was a huge culture shock.
I then learned the value of failed experiments and started to thrive in it. Next step was to encourage my team to do the same.
The most effective thing I’ve done to build this truly as part of our culture is radical transparency about previous failures. I treat failure with the same energy as a win. More even, with a god-like reverence for saving us from doom 😂
Fantastic piece, and so good to hear it from a leader in innovation/disruption success. 👏🏽
That line about the model being used, simply because it was the last one standing 🔥
Just putting it out there for the smaller businesses: there’s a way to start thinking/acting like a true baller (Netflix) with a the mantra of ENVE’s former CEO, Sarah Lehman — ‘Fail fast, fail cheap’.
ENVE makes ultra high end carbon bicycle racing wheels. Sarah allowed any employee to try/test any wheel innovation idea as long as it didn’t have a ridiculous and endless budget. This got employees always looking at performance gains/innovation through the lens of ‘Is this the least expensive way I can test/prove this idea works or doesn’t work?
Sarah didn’t punish the ideas that didn’t work, so long as it didn’t cost much to learn and keep moving the performance needle and kept pushing innovation.
As organizations grow, experimentation becomes harder because the personal downside becomes disconnected from the upside. The risk of a failed experiment is often concentrated on the individual, while the reward is distributed across the organization. When that happens, people stop optimizing for learning and start optimizing for reputation. The safest career move becomes avoiding visible failure / protecting your reputation rather than testing new ideas. Leaving the safety/security of those environments has been terrifying at times, but the reward has been the ability to follow my curiosity and experiment to my heart's content.
Absolutely true. The real culture is always revealed through behaviour.
This resonates. Having the capacity to hold the whole process of trying, failing, learning - having a real tolerance for it - is way more demanding than people think. In teams, I see it‘s often simply not safe enough to do that.
I couldn’t agree more. I was talking to a charity CEO a couple of weeks back who was adamant that the way forward was setting up an innovation team. I was at pains go explain that an organisation that prioritises process over substance and is incapable of saying no (thereby never killing failed initiatives) cannot produce innovation. It can create a team, produce decks and burn money … but without the ethos of experimentation you can’t expect innovation