Learn from your Mistakes and Avoid the Blame game

When Tony Hayward, a former CEO of British Petroleum (BP), was called before Congress following the infamous oil spill, he denied blame. Similarly, Richard Fuld, then CEO of Lehman Brothers’ disavowed responsibility for the financial crisis. It’s interesting to note that even before the oil spill Tony Hayward’s nickname was Teflon Tony. Also, both had been notorious for mismanaging blame long before they had been summoned to the hot seat. Apparently, every time CEOs testify before Congress, they seem to lay blame on any organizations excepting theirs. They do so because they tend to be what psychologist Saul Rosenzweig called ‘extrapunitive’, that is, they blame others without acknowledging their faults.

In an enlightening article titled ‘Can You Handle Failure?’ published in Harvard Business Review  April 2011 issue, Ben Dattner and Robert Hogan write that they have identified, by using data on thousands of managers from every industry, 11 personality types that are likely to have react dysfunctional reactions to failure.  For instance, the ‘Skeptical’ are very smart about people and office politics, but are also extremely sensitive to criticism and always on the lookout for betrayal.  The ‘Bold’ have a very high regard for themselves, are often in error but never in doubt, and refuse to admit their mistakes, which then snowball. The Diligent are hardworking and pay deep attention to details, with very high standards for themselves and others, but are also control freaks who tend to micromanage.  These 11 types, they say, represent approximately 70% of the U.S. population.  The geographical, social and cultural differences apart, I believe, these personality types represent a substantial portion of the global workforce. 

They argue that these 11 types can be divided into three broad categories of dysfunctional reactions identified by Saul Rosenzweig based on a series of tests carried out to gauge anger and frustration in the 1930s; namely, extrapunitive- to blame others when something goes wrong, impunitive- to deny blame and intropunitive-to blames oneself. 

As I mentioned at the start, unfortunately, a great number of business leaders including both Tony Hayward and Richard Fuld fall essentially into the extrapunitive category. Why do they point fingers at others even when it’s crystal-clear that they have been in the wrong?  From a corporate perspective, I think they tend to do so for the fear of ruining the reputation of their organizations. At a more personal level, the high-profile leaders reproach others simply because they fear that public acknowledgement of their errors will hurt their reputation. Interestingly, in ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’, Dale Carnegie argues that it is human nature not to accept blame, and offer justifications for our mistakes, serious or not.

Obviously, however, it’s not owning up to their mistakes but making errors or misjudgements in the first place due to imprudence, negligence or ignorance that mauls their corporate image.  To make a misjudgment and then blame others in the hope of covering it up is a recipe for disaster and the shortest path to corporate failure. On the other hand, despite the initial embarrassment, to acknowledge the mistakes and start damage containment, I believe, will serve well for their reputation.

To be impunitive, that is, to deny that a failure has occurred or their involvement in it is yet another dysfunctional reaction. According to Dattner and Hogan, Carly Fiorina, a past CEO of Hewlett-Packard fits perfectly into this category. Billed by her irate former subordinates as a self-promoting attention seeker, Fiorina neglected the integration challenges and the routine operations subsequent to HP’s 2002 merger with Compaq and took little responsibility when the combined company failed to live up to its potential . When the HP Board told her to delegate greater authority to her team and more power to the heads of major business units, she refused and got ousted consequently. Incidentally, I hope the current HP CEO, Meg Whitman of eBay fame will act more sensibly.

Even if it is not nearly as common as the two categories discussed above, the third category called intropunitive is no less problematic.  The intropunitive judge themselves too harshly and imagine failures where none exists and hold themselves responsible for errors they probably never made or only tangentially involved in. Taking self-criticism too far this way only leads to paralysis and failure.

While taking the self-diagnostics, it is also important to remember that one’s life and career is more a grey movie than a black and white snapshot and that what is functional in one organization can be quite dysfunctional and destructive in another. For example, it is advisable to be intropunitive in a small collegial organization where, as it were, there is a norm of confession. But, in a larger, more competitive organization, others may pile on such a person. Therefore, it is necessary for us to cultivate both self-awareness and political awareness so that we can develop more open and adaptive responses to failure.

We should also understand that failure is not necessarily a negative phenomenon. In fact, what might seem to be a failure at a certain point in one’s career might really be a catalyst for enormous growth and change. Thus, failing in one’s career can possibly be an indicator that one has striven, taken risks and has a bold vision. That’s, precisely, why successful CEOs like Bill Gates look for people who have failed in their careers.

In conclusion, I can`t help quoting Dattner and Hogan from the article, “…It’s not always possible to right the wrong, but it’s almost always possible to make things worse by overreacting in a highly charged situation…” Well, my dear readers, that’s wisdom.