In 2009, Mark Zuckerberg highlighted the phrase 'move fast and break things' as integral to Facebook's way of working. And in the fast flowing, innovation hungry atmosphere of startups, technology and beyond, the notion of 'failing fast' quickly became a mindset and a mantra.
Failing fast is a seductive idea: experiment quickly, learn from mistakes, iterate and improve as quickly as possible. This approach has been credited with driving positive disruption, from agile software development to lean startup methodologies. But like many widely adopted ideas, there are outstanding questions about what it really means, what the risks might be, and what a great version of this style of leadership looks like. If we look beyond the surface, should we really be glorifying 'fail fast' leadership?
At its core, the 'fail fast' philosophy is about recognising failure as a positive part of development, breaking new ground, and achieving results. It encourages leaders and teams to try new ideas without fear of making mistakes, with the working assumption that early and frequent failure will accelerate learning and lead to success. The concept is rooted in agile principles, where iterative development and rapid prototyping are at the heart of refining ideas.
'Fail fast' can be powerful where uncertainty is high, distinctive new ideas are essential, and making some progress is better than waiting for a perfect set of conditions.
In this setting, great leadership is intentional, disciplined, and respects diverse contributions. Leaders don't celebrate failure per se, but they do create and hold an environment where people and ideas can thrive through calculated risk-taking and constant feedback loops. In our view, successful 'fail fast' leaders are:
- Precise and clear about objectives and boundaries, defining what success looks like and what constitutes acceptable failure, aligned with strategic goals.
- Looking for small-scale testing, instead of placing huge bets that could break teams or organisations. Effective fail-fast leaders go for low-cost, rapid prototyping that limits exposure while maximising insight.
- Treating failure as data and viewing error not as an end but as essential information - making a habit of reviews, time for reflection, extracting and applying insight across the organisation to inform future decisions.
- Valuing inclusivity and equity, with individuals welcome to speak up, challenge assumptions, and share failures without fear of blame. Successful leaders in this context make sure that all voices are heard regardless of role, seniority, or background.
The upsides of this leadership style include efficiency: reducing the time and resources wasted on ideas that ultimately won't work and avoiding sinking costs into flawed strategies. Plus, 'fail fast' leadership can foster psychological safety when implemented thoughtfully. People who know there won't be a penalty for challenging the status quo and pushing boundaries do speak up. This can lead to higher engagement, greater creativity, and more resilient organisations.
Despite its appeal, glorifying 'fail fast' leadership uncritically can be problematic. The danger lies in a lack of counterbalance: mistaking speed for strategy, without time to observe, reflect or learn, or allowing the energy of immediate action to detract from focus on longer-term direction, outcomes, and purpose. Without effective and emotionally intelligent leadership, it can erode trust, waste resources, and demoralise teams.
Fail fast leadership overplayed or misapplied can result in far less attractive outcomes:
- Leaders might rush decisions or launch half-baked ideas without adequate research or planning, using 'failing fast' as a cover for poor execution.
- Teams are put under constant pressure to experiment, pivot, and deliver results without time to recover or reflect. This exhausts fresh thinking and morale. Repeated failure without real progress can be deflating.
- There may be underlying inequality in who can fail without consequence. Not all employees have the same margin for error, especially those from underrepresented groups who may already face greater scrutiny. In such environments, the risks of failure are not equally distributed, and the fallout can disproportionately affect those with less power or visibility.
- Public failures, especially those that impact customers, can damage brand credibility and consumer trust. "We're just testing" won't wash in certain sectors like health, finance, or infrastructure.
Rather than glorifying 'fail fast' leadership, perhaps we should strive for a more nuanced approach, one that values time to think as well as to act, smart risk-taking, intentional learning, and ethical leadership. This means leaders shaping atmospheres where failure is tolerated but not romanticised, and where the emphasis is on reflection, improvement, and shared accountability.
We would advocate for contemporary leaders to focus on creating a culture that champions bold ideas without sacrificing discipline or care. Organisations that get this balance right are often those that:
- Use measured experimentation, with clear hypotheses and success criteria.
- Build in structured feedback and data-based reflection.
- Strive for resilience, not recklessness, celebrating learning but also recognising emotional fatigue and the need for recovery.
- Ensure everyone has permission to fail, not just those at the top.
In 2014, Facebook adapted their 'move fast and break things' mantra to 'move fast with stable infrastructure'. Mark Zuckerberg subsequently acknowledged that the new approach didn't have the same glamour and might not catch fire in the same way, but that it allowed the company to keep moving forward, even if a little more slowly.
