[April 06, 2014] We often hear that a leader “zero defects” mentality means a struggling organization that discourages risk-taking and creativity. Why is it that senior executive leaders fall into this trap and why is there a zero defect mentality in the first place when it can be so destructive?
There is one clear critical facet of leadership for this discussion … and that is, leader traits are learned. Learning, especially in advanced leadership, means being exposed to a variety of experiences that are often unpleasant and embarrassing. Leaders frequently fail and make poorly conceived choices.
If the learning of leadership is a messy affair (and it is a very messy affair), we should expect some angst and hesitation among the senior leadership. Weak senior leaders, those that fear a loss of control and those with limited experiences, are not that uncommon. Fear is the motivation a zero defects philosophy. It is this fear will limit the exposure of the organization to external forces.
The trap itself is as successful as it is proportionate to its attractiveness. This explains both its origins and staying power. It is a trap because it has the illusion of control of unpredictability and risks but exposes the organization to threats it cannot flex to adapt. Those unexpected events also have an impact on less agile organizations.
The response is often tighter controls (more rules and regulations) to better predict the unexpected, instead of working on how to keep them from harming the organization. Leaders who exercise excessive controls believe that their success is due to their rules. While that may have some truth in it, it also makes it more susceptible to unexpected events.
Most senior leaders know this, although they may not know why. This is why the study of leadership and it history and origins is so important.
[Don’t forget to “Like” the Leader Maker at our Facebook Page.]
——————————-
Short Leader Story: Growing up as a leader in the Infantry provided me with many opportunities to error and, boy did I. One of my first lessons in leading others as a second lieutenant was that giving an order for other lieutenants was inadequate. On one night maneuver at Fort Benning’s “school for boys” – the Infantry Officer Basic Course (IOBC) – I set a “supporting force” in position to both attract attention away from and aid an “attacking force” on an “enemy” position. When it was time for the attack in which I accompanied the attacking force, we were “wiped out” to the man because the supporting force failed to do their job. In the after action report (a time to review what happened) I learned that my restrictions on the details of weapons employment had confused the support element to the degree that they were unable to adjust when the attack element went in late. One good thing that came from this was we learned to create plans that are more flexible. The next night, my friend Tim made the same mistake. Years later, we were able to laugh about our embarrassment and appreciate that we were able to make mistakes, only being the butt of jokes. Later we were both successful in combat and rose to the rank of general officer.