Righting the wrong

The book The Right Kind of Failing Well by HBS Professor Amy C. Edmondson provides a comprehensive framework for understanding different types of failure and offers practical strategies for leveraging them to foster learning and innovation. History and research alike underscore that errors, when approached constructively, cultivate resilience, innovation, and wisdom. My lament is that, as a society, we seem not to have learned from our mistakes in how we decide collectively.

Edmondson categorizes failures into three distinct types. Basic failures occur due to simple mistakes in routine tasks, often resulting from inattention or lack of skills. Complex failures arise in complicated systems where multiple factors interact unpredictably, leading to unforeseen outcomes. Intelligent failures happen when deliberate risks are taken in pursuit of innovation.

The kind of failures this column highlights—our people's choice of leadership—falls under Edmondson’s two regular failure types: basic and complex. Mistakes arise from various factors, including lack of experience, poor judgment, overconfidence, and insufficient information. Sometimes, emotional impulses cloud decision-making, leading to hasty actions. External pressures, such as societal expectations, can also contribute to error.

Mon Abrea, widely recognized as the “Philippine Tax Whiz,” recently posted: “The Philippines scored 33 in Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perception Index, reflecting persistent corruption that undermines governance, economic growth, and public trust. This ranking is a call to action—we must demand transparency, strengthen enforcement, and hold the corrupt accountable. As I emphasized in Reimagining the World Without Corruption, fighting corruption is not just an option; it is a necessity for progress. We must act now—unite, reform, and build a nation where integrity prevails.”

If corruption is indeed a failure of governance, then our biggest mistake as a society can be traced to our choice of leaders, whether in the executive or legislative branch. The judiciary may not be within the purview of the people’s direct choice, but the executive and legislative branches also have indirect effects, under the complex failure typology.

Edmondson advocates a structural approach to learning from failures. First, acknowledge and analyze: Recognize the failure and conduct a thorough analysis to understand its root causes. Second, extract lessons: Identify insights gained from the failure that can inform future actions. And finally, apply and share knowledge: Implement the lessons learned and share them within the organization. We can transform failures into valuable learning experiences.

Ignoring or denying a mistake only makes matters worse. Acknowledging the error is the first step toward improvement. We need to understand past mistakes to avoid repetition. Root cause analysis and reflective thinking must be part of our arsenal.

The problem is that we keep repeating a pattern of electing politicians with questionable records, members of the same family or political dynasty, and celebrities with little to no governance experience. What are the systemic factors that make it difficult to break the cycle?

Many Filipino voters feel indebted to politicians who provide short-term assistance, such as financial aid, scholarships, or infrastructure projects. This sense of utang na loob (debt of gratitude) often overrides considerations of competence, integrity, and long-term impact. Political figures engage in vote-buying and distribute benefits just before elections.

A significant portion of the electorate lacks access to quality education and political literacy, making them vulnerable to misinformation, propaganda, and personality-based politics. Critical thinking about policy platforms is often overshadowed by emotional appeals, slogans, and personal charisma.

Celebrities and political dynasties thrive because of strong name recall. Many voters equate fame with competence, assuming that a well-known name translates to leadership ability. This is why actors, athletes, and TV personalities can easily transition into politics with little or no experience.

The Philippines lacks strong, ideology-based political parties. Instead, parties are personality-driven, often shifting alliances based on convenience. Without clear party platforms, elections become popularity contests rather than debates over policies and governance strategies.

Despite laws against graft and corruption, many politicians with questionable backgrounds continue to run and win because they manipulate the legal system. Cases drag on for years, allowing them to maintain political influence. Meanwhile, voters often dismiss corruption allegations as political mudslinging, further enabling these figures.

Those in lower-income communities vote based on immediate needs rather than long-term governance. When survival is a daily struggle, the choice often boils down to who can provide immediate relief rather than who has a strong, long-term vision. In the absence of truly inspiring candidates, voters often settle for the lesser evil.

Social media has allowed misinformation and fake news to flourish. Many voters are influenced by manipulated narratives, revisionist history, and online propaganda that distort the truth about candidates’ backgrounds and qualifications.

We must acknowledge these shortcomings if we are to move forward as a nation. The challenge is immense, but with continued awareness and civic engagement, it is possible to shift toward the correct path. We need to extract the lessons and right the wrong before it is too late.

(Benel Dela Paz Lagua was previously EVP and Chief Development Officer at the Development Bank of the Philippines. He is an active FINEX member and an advocate of risk-based lending for SMEs. Today, he is an independent director in progressive banks and some NGOs. The views expressed herein are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of his office or FINEX.)