People love to assign blame when things derail in organizations. Cicero, the Roman writer, speaker, philosopher and politician, said that the causes of events always interest us more than the events themselves. Typically it is the lower-level managers in organizations that take the fall. But the search for scapegoats conceals poor leadership. And because so-called leaders take no ownership for the actions that contributed to the bad outcome the same misfortunes or tragedies are bound the happen again.
Jerry Sandusky, the former assistant coach of the Penn State football team has been accused of an unspeakable act: sexual crimes against young boys. When his colleagues learned about an incident of child abuse they turned a blind eye to the situation. Ironically, the head coach of the football team, Joe Paterno, a legend within Penn State, has been relieved of his post by the Board of Trustees for something he did not do: to intervene when the abuse came to light and to notify the police. The Space Shuttle Columbia was lost upon re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. A piece of insulating foam had punctured a hole in the left wing of the Shuttle during the launch. The engineers were reluctant to voice their concerns about the potential consequences of the foam strike. Management appeared to have made up its mind and dismissed dissenting opinions. Officials later criticized the engineers for not challenging prevailing opinions. Nick Leeson's unauthorized speculative trades in Singapore led to the collapse of Barings Bank. He was considered the star trader. Leeson said that his colleagues "wanted to believe what I was doing" and that the incompetence of his superiors allowed him to get away with the fraudulent activities. Although few officials emerged unscathed from the debacle it was Leeson who was the fall guy and did prison time.
Research studies have shown that people often begin their quest for making meaning with the Who questions: Who is responsible? Who caused it? Who gets the blame? People might attribute the negative event to a bad apple. The person lied. He was reckless or perhaps close minded. But in the rush to find answers to these questions people often ignore the situational determinants of behavior: What circumstances unique to the situation contributed to negative event? Perhaps the event was the result of a bad barrel. The focus here is on what organizational processes might have facilitated the bad outcome. Did the lack of a proper cost and control mechanism contribute to the problem? What about organizational culture?
The role of the barrel maker often remains under-exposed in discussions of failure. Barrel makers are individuals with the power and resources to shape the organizational environment: our leaders. There are many individuals who have the desire to occupy the position of leader and enjoy the rewards and privileges of rank. There are far fewer individuals who are truly prepared for the continuous, unrelenting work of leadership, especially in tough times when things are not going well.
Researchers at the Richard Ivey School of Business released a report titled Leadership On Trial: A Manifesto for Leadership Development. In this report we examine how leadership contributed to the most recent financial crisis. We learned a lot about the barrel makers. For example, we heard that leaders did not listen to vague whispers. They do not understand that individuals will not come into their offices saying: There is a hell of a problem here! Other leaders did not facilitate the right discussions; they did not want to get their hands dirty to learn the details about emerging problems. There were leaders who recognized the problems; but some were unwilling to act or did not have the courage to act. And others thought they were too small to act! Some leaders compromised on core values which then got magnified throughout the organization. We also heard that the crisis was a failure of "the system." But to blame "the system" risks diminishing the personal leadership failures of those who were tasked with guiding their organizations.
Leadership requires that the barrel makers put themselves on the line. Good leaders take ownership over what is happening and take decisive action. This is what Patrick Daniel of Enbridge did during the oil spill in the Kalamazoo River. In his book Rogue Trader Nick Leeson wrote: "I marveled at how every Barings person blamed somebody else - especially me - rather than themselves. It was as if they needn't have been employed at all." Wouldn't we want our leaders to be humble and reflect on how their actions might have contributed to the misfortunes of the organizations and its people? Many leaders see themselves as agents of change. But the question is - can they change themselves for the better?
The thoughts of Cicero line the library shelves. Perhaps it is time for leaders at Penn State, NASA and financial institutions to dust off the classics and pay more attention to the contributing causes of the problem, make a sincere effort to learn from negative events and build better barrels rather than point the finger at someone else and pass the blame.
Gerard Seijts is an associate professor at the Richard Ivey School of Business, the University of Western Ontario, and is the executive director, Ian O. Ihnatowycz Institute for Leadership.