Why Boards Replicate Past Project Failures, According to Nick Curum

In a recent LinkedIn post, Nick Curum discusses a critical paradox in corporate decision-making: why boards and leadership teams often approve projects that are destined to repeat past failures, even when the lessons from those failures are readily available. Curum highlights a personal experience where a plan rejected in 2018 was approved two years later, despite identical vendor constraints, aggressive timelines, and clear warning signs.

The Blind Spot of Past Failures

Curum points out the irony that the very document explaining the previous failure was accessible, yet overlooked. He writes:

“The post-mortem from the 2018 failure explained exactly why this would happen. It was in the document library. Three clicks away. Nobody opened it.”

The reason, according to Curum, is not incompetence but a strategic aversion to admitting potential error. He argues that in the high-stakes environment of the boardroom, confidence and forward momentum are valued over retrospective analysis.

Confidence Over Caution

Curum elaborates on this dynamic, stating:

“Boards don’t ignore past failures because they are incompetent. They ignore them because looking backward feels like hesitation. And in the boardroom, hesitation is punished. Confidence is rewarded.”

This perspective suggests that phrases like “We’ve done our due diligence” often carry more weight in board discussions than “We checked what happened last time.” The pressure to appear decisive and committed can lead to the post-mortem reports remaining unopened, and the lessons within them unheeded.

The Cycle of Repeated Mistakes

The consequence of this oversight is a pervasive cycle of project failures. Curum cites a staggering statistic:

“73% of project failures repeat patterns from previous builds. Not because the lessons weren’t learned. But because the lessons weren’t looked for.”

Curum’s analysis suggests that the learning process is interrupted not by a lack of knowledge, but by a failure to actively seek out and apply that knowledge. The business case, the committed timeline, and the initial sale of the project often create a momentum that overrides any inclination to revisit past difficulties.

A Dangerous Question for Leadership

To break this cycle, Curum proposes a direct and provocative question for leaders to ask their boards when a major project is being considered:

“If your Board approved a major project in the last six months, ask this one dangerous question: ‘Who here has read the post-mortem from the last time we tried this?'”

By framing this as a “dangerous question,” Curum underscores the discomfort and potential political risk associated with confronting past failures. However, he implies that such direct challenges are necessary to foster a culture where learning from mistakes is prioritized, rather than suppressed in favor of perceived confidence and decisiveness. Curum’s insights serve as a potent reminder for organizations to actively engage with their history to avoid repeating costly errors.