I'm sorry to hear that, it seems to me that failure has never been an option where you worked. How was it possible in your org to innovate if they don't embrace failures?

There's a huge difference between innovating and embracing failure.

The only way to innovate is to keep trying new things until one of them succeeds. Failure is inherent to innovation.

Innovation isn't valuable or necessary for most businesses. Optimization, refinement, and careful evaluation of legal consequences get you a lot farther.

Many companies try to signal that it's okay to try new things by celebrating them even when they aren't successful. I've been on teams like that. Nobody is happy about the failure itself, but the idea, effort, and commitment that was shown, even if it was not successful, is worth rewarding. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, a ship in harbor is safe, etc. I think this is pretty much an inarguably healthy thing to do for a company that wants to keep morale up and encourage experimentation.

I run a 20+ person tech company.

People screw up and make mistakes all the time.

I'd have no employees if I fired everyone after every mistake. I'm almost certain the same is true of virtually every company on earth.

What really matters is how people handle themselves and others when failures occur, which is what the OP is asking about. Very valid question. Unfortunately a lot of low quality responses in the comments so far.

From my POV, mistakes/failures are a fact of life, you can't avoid them. So instead, you have to manage the risk of failures/mistakes and work to reduce that risk until it's at a risk level where management is comfortable. At in IC level, that probably means doing retrospects on major failures, why they occured, how to avoid in the future... and most importantly, focus the retros on the -process- rather than the -people-. Processes can be easily and quickly improved.. "this slipped through QA because it's not on our QA checklist" compared to "Bob is a bad coder, it's his fault"