Why Leaders Fail

Immediate solutions are enticing and easy.

Under British rule in India, deaths from snakebites were alarmingly frequent, involving cobras, common kraits, Russell's vipers, and saw-scaled vipers.

The British authorities offered bounties for dead cobras to cut down their numbers. Initially, this strategy worked. However, enterprising individuals in India started breeding cobras instead of killing them, leading to a surge in the cobra population and a flood of dead cobras for which the British had to pay large bounties.

The British soon discovered the clandestine operation and stopped offering bounties. Consequently, with no reason to capture or breed cobras, they were all released, causing an even bigger problem than before.

Leadership failure; Management success

In the Cobra Case-Study above, the managers of the operations were indeed successful in that dead snakes were brought over in droves helping alleviate the snake population. However the leadership failure was that unintended consequences were not considered prior to launching the plan.

While the two are often confused, significant differences do exist. For instance, the straightforward solution applied to decrease the cobra population failed to consider potential outcomes, underlying assumptions, and explore more strategic approaches.

Managers focus on daily operations, while leaders imagine future success and motivate teams to reach it. Both roles are essential. Leaders also enable team members to share their ideas and find greater purpose in their work.

The US Military illustrates this well through the organizational structure of its leadership, particularly in the top two positions for each company, battalion, or regiment. There is a senior enlisted sergeant major who concentrates on current operations, while the officer focuses on planning and shaping the future direction of the organization.

Leaders must create psychological safety in the workplace

Alan Mullaly, who previously led Boeing, took on the role of CEO at Ford during a period marked by declining stock values, exceedingly low employee morale, and a $17 billion annual loss.

As the first CEO without the "Ford" last name, he faced profound cultural obstacles. Through his leadership, he implemented data-driven decision-making processes, increased accountability among senior executives, and streamlined the company's product line. Yet, his most substantial challenge was changing the corporate culture.

He accomplished this by creating an environment of psychological safety, where challenges, setbacks, and delays were openly acknowledged and valued.

He guided the company with a vision centered on transparency, clarity, and openness, fostering an environment where individuals were encouraged to share obstacles hindering business objectives. This approach enabled the team to collaboratively address and resolve these challenges.

Mullally might have opted to reduce the workforce, close factories, and lower prices, which would probably have led to better immediate financial results and a higher stock price. Nonetheless, the persistent fundamental problems would still remain and likely bring the company down again in the near future.

The takeaways are the following:

1. Leadership isn't management.
2. Leadership should avoid the quick and easy solutions, settling for what’s directly in front of them, as the simplest and quickest option is rarely the best choice for achieving long-term success.
3. Leadership is hard.

Also, don't offer bounties for dead snakes. It may come back to bite you.