By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
The key distinction is between the response to the error and the standard itself. An error-positive culture does not lower performance standards — it changes the contingencies attached to error disclosure and analysis. Standards remain explicit and high; what changes is that errors against those standards are treated as information that improves the system rather than failures that require punishment. The communication to staff is: we have high standards, we expect accurate implementation, and when mistakes happen — as they will in any complex clinical environment — we want to know about them immediately so we can correct them. The organization's response to disclosed errors should consistently demonstrate this: correction, analysis, system improvement, and acknowledgment of the disclosure itself.
The first is rapid error analysis and correction at the individual session level: when an implementation error is identified, the correction happens immediately, the client's program is reviewed for any impact, and the specific procedural error is addressed in the next supervision contact. This minimizes client-level impact and creates a tight feedback loop between error and correction. The second is aggregate error pattern analysis at the organizational level: reviewing error data across time, staff, programs, and settings to identify systemic patterns — which procedures show the highest error rates, which staff transitions correlate with increased errors, which program types are most error-prone. These patterns point to organizational interventions (training redesign, supervision structure changes, program simplification) that prevent future errors at scale rather than just correcting individual incidents.
Error analysis that includes a question about what the staff member would need in order to perform correctly in that situation reveals development barriers. If the answer is 'I didn't know the correct procedure,' the barrier is training. If the answer is 'I knew but I was managing three other demands simultaneously,' the barrier is environmental — caseload, scheduling, or resource constraints. If the answer is 'I knew but I wasn't sure my supervisor would support me doing it differently,' the barrier is supervisory relationship or organizational culture. Systematic collection and analysis of these barrier reports across multiple errors and multiple staff members creates a map of the development infrastructure the organization is lacking. Leaders who use this data to make training, scheduling, and supervisory investments are using error analysis as the precise organizational diagnostic it can be.
ACT-based approaches to leadership error management address the private verbal behavior that leaders engage in when they make mistakes — the self-evaluative responses that can drive either effective problem-solving or shame-based avoidance. Cognitive defusion involves observing the thought ('I failed as a leader') as a thought rather than a literal truth, which creates space between the event and the behavioral response. Values clarification involves identifying what the leader is committed to — transparent, learning-oriented leadership — and using that commitment as the guide for response rather than self-protective behavior. Committed action means taking the specific steps indicated by the error analysis regardless of the discomfort those steps require. For leaders, this typically means disclosing the error to relevant stakeholders, describing what happened and what will change, and following through on the improvement action.
The substitution test, from the safety science literature, asks: would a reasonably competent person in the same situation with the same information and resources likely have made the same error? If yes, the error reflects a system vulnerability — the conditions that led to the error would affect many people, not just this individual, and system change is the appropriate response. If no — if the error required a specific failure of knowledge, skill, or judgment that is not widely shared — it is more likely an individual competence issue requiring targeted training or performance management. The test helps leaders avoid the fundamental attribution error: attributing errors to individual character or motivation when system factors are the primary driver. Most clinical errors in ABA settings involve system-level contributions that a substitution analysis reveals.
Repeated errors by the same individual, after system-level factors have been analyzed and addressed, indicate an individual performance issue that requires a structured response. The sequence: clarify performance expectations in writing, ensure the staff member has the training required to meet those expectations, implement a specific behavioral support plan with defined improvement goals and timelines, provide regular feedback against those goals, and document progress. This is a formal performance management process, not a disciplinary one — it is designed to support improvement, not to build a termination case. If improvement does not occur despite adequate support and clear expectations, formal disciplinary procedures may be warranted. The key ethical obligation is to provide genuine support before escalating consequences, which requires documentation that support was offered and utilized.
Effective modeling of error disclosure involves three specific behaviors: naming the error explicitly (not euphemizing or minimizing it), describing the analysis of what contributed to the error (which demonstrates the learning orientation rather than a self-flagellating stance), and specifying what will change as a result. A BCBA who says 'I made a mistake in how I communicated the new program protocol — I assumed the team understood the prompt hierarchy without checking for understanding, which contributed to the inconsistent implementation we saw last week. Going forward, I will add a demonstration component to all protocol rollouts' is modeling all three elements. This is different from a general apology ('sorry, my bad') which discloses without demonstrating the analytical orientation, and from a non-disclosure where the error is addressed through quiet system change without the team knowing the leader made a mistake.
The most effective structural supports are: a standardized error reporting system that is accessible, low-burden, and clearly non-punitive in how it is used; regular error review meetings (monthly or quarterly) where de-identified incidents are reviewed by the supervisory team with explicit attention to system-level factors; documentation of improvement actions with assigned owners and follow-up dates; and visible leadership involvement in the process — including leader disclosure of their own errors. Organizations that treat incident reports purely as compliance documentation, reviewed only when regulatory audits require it, have structural signals that errors are primarily legal liabilities rather than learning opportunities. The structural change required is adding a learning-oriented review process alongside any compliance documentation requirements.
Psychological safety and treatment fidelity are connected through information flow. When RBTs feel safe reporting implementation problems — a session that went off protocol, a data collection gap, an error in consequence delivery — supervisors receive the information they need to make clinical corrections before errors accumulate significance. When RBTs conceal implementation problems to avoid negative supervisory response, fidelity data shows what staff report rather than what actually happened, and clinical decisions are based on incomplete or inaccurate data. The relationship between psychological safety and fidelity is therefore not merely about staff wellbeing — it is about data integrity and clinical decision quality. Teams with higher psychological safety generate more accurate process data, which supports more accurate clinical decisions, which produces better client outcomes.
High standards and learning orientation are compatible when the response system distinguishes between the standard (which is maintained), the occurrence of errors (which is expected and treated as data), and individual accountability (which is calibrated to the degree of system versus individual contribution). The standard does not change. The response to falling short of the standard changes: instead of primarily consequence, the response is primarily analysis and improvement. Individual accountability remains — staff who make errors through negligence, deception, or repeated failure despite support receive appropriate consequences. The majority of errors in well-intentioned clinical environments reflect system vulnerabilities rather than individual negligence, and responding to them with system improvement rather than individual consequence produces better outcomes for staff, clients, and the organization.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Leveraging Mistakes in Leadership — Tyra Sellers · 1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $35
Take This Course →1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $35 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.