Leaders responsible for a project that goes wrong say so early and specifically, naming the causes within their control and the fix, and keep the credibility to lead the recovery.
An example
Seven weeks before a planned launch, the head of product development at a maker of orthopedic implants learned that a sterilization validation had failed and that the launch would slip at least a quarter. Sales had already booked training with forty surgeons. She told the chief executive that day and asked for fifteen minutes at the next executive meeting. There she said the slip was her group's: they had compressed the validation schedule to hold the launch date and skipped a pilot run whose cut she had approved. She gave the new date, the cost of the delay, and two changes to how her group would schedule validations. The chief commercial officer had come ready to argue that product development should lose its say over launch dates. He asked instead how sales could help with the surgeons. The launch happened eleven weeks late, and her group kept control of the schedule.
Why it works
A leader who names their own controllable causes appears to understand the failure and to be placed to fix it, so their account and recovery plan look better. Blaming outside forces suggests the problem may recur and that no one is in control. Speaking early also takes the story away from critics who would otherwise frame it. It holds only when the account is specific and accurate, the causes named are ones the leader controls, and a credible fix follows.
The thinking behind it
Fiona Lee Mea Culpa: Predicting Stock Prices from Organizational Attributions (2004), by Lee, Peterson, and Tiedens, analyzed annual reports from 14 companies over 21 years and found that companies attributing negative events to internal, controllable causes had higher stock prices a year later. The authors argue that taking responsibility made the organizations appear more in control. The study is correlational and small, but its explanation fits this tactic: naming controllable causes signals that someone can fix them.
Ronald A. Heifetz Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading (2002), by Heifetz and Linsky, advises leaders, under the heading of thinking politically, to accept responsibility for their piece of the mess and acknowledge their own contribution to a problem. Saying that her group compressed the validation schedule is that acknowledgment, and limiting it to her group's piece is what keeps the account accurate.
When it fits
Setbacks you are responsible for, or share responsibility for, where the causes include things you controlled and you want to keep leading the recovery, are the case. Have a clear account of what happened and a fix you can stand behind, and reach the people who will judge you before they hear it elsewhere.
How to use it well
Speak first and early, to your boss and then to the people affected, before the news reaches them another way.
- Name the causes within your control specifically: the decision, the shortcut, the assumption that failed.
- Give the fix: what changes, by when, and what it costs.
- Keep outside factors in the account where they were real, in proportion.
- Report progress on the fix until it is done.
Own your share and only your share. Taking blame for others' decisions to look gracious muddies the record and leaves the real cause unaddressed.
What it costs and where it backfires
An admission on the record can be used against you, in a performance review or by a rival. Some companies punish the first person to admit an error, and owning a failure in such a place takes standing you may not have. An accurate account is what you are offering. It ends where owning a small error shades into hiding a larger problem behind it, or where you take blame for a cause you know lies elsewhere to protect someone.
When it is used on you
Seeing a colleague own an error early and specifically, judge the fix on its merits and resist using the admission against them; doing so teaches everyone to hide errors. If their account leaves out a cause that matters, ask about it directly. Before arguing they should lose authority, ask whether the fix addresses the cause.