I can still vividly remember the first consequential failure of my career. It happened in October of 2004, only a few months into my assignment as the Commanding Officer of an 87-foot Coast Guard cutter. We were getting underway from a tight mooring in front of a larger cutter into a river with a swift current. My crew recommended a shiphandling maneuver to mitigate the danger of the current, but I chose a different approach. We did it my way, but as the current started to act on the cutter, I realized I had made the wrong choice. There was a period of several seconds between my realization and the sound of crunching metal as the current pushed us into the stern of the neighboring cutter. Those seconds were the most powerful of my young career. After four years as a cadet, and two years as a junior officer under the protective watch of several more senior officers, I realized for the first time that my decisions as a leader had real, physical, and negative consequences for myself and others. Thankfully the ding I put in the side of my cutter that morning was inconsequential, but the associated significant emotional event I endured led to some of the most powerful learning I’d experienced. Ever since that day I’ve known that failure, in the right dose, is a powerful leadership development tool.
Why is failure important to the development of new leaders?
Learning to lead other people is not like learning a technical skill. If you fail at a task like fixing a radar, the radar doesn’t work. There is clear feedback. Pick up the tools and try again. Failure as a leader usually means another human being experiences a negative consequence. Sometimes that is clear but sometimes it is not. A new leader cannot develop if they don’t recognize, or aren’t shown, how their actions have affected other people. If they’ve demonstrated poor leadership, they need to feel, see or hear the consequences as experienced by others. The negative senses associated with failure spark the emotional event that leads to changes in attitude or behavior. New leaders need to hear the proverbial crunch of metal on metal to learn what not to do.
As difficult as it is for a new leader to experience failure, it’s even more difficult for those supervising the new leader to stand by and allow it to happen. The natural tendency is to step in to stop all bad things from happening. But what happens if new leaders never get a chance to fail? They’ll never see, hear or feel the consequences of failure and therefore they will lose out on the powerful learning moments those senses spark. A new leader who is prevented from failing will only learn a false sense of invincibility, or will feel disengaged from their work because nothing they do matters.
The challenge of developing new leaders is that while some failure is beneficial, too much failure can obviously be counterproductive. There is a certain point of balance where negative consequences are real and enable learning, but aren’t so severe that people are harmed. Beyond that point, the negative outcomes of failure outweigh the learning benefit. Identifying the right amount of failure to allow is a key leadership development skill.
To decide about potential failure, think about a cannonball
In the age of sail, warships blasted cannonballs at their opponents in order to destroy the enemies’ masts, rigging or hull. The most effective cannot shot would put a hole in the opposing ship’s hull, below the waterline, on the part of the ship normally underwater. A hole below the waterline lets the ocean rush in uncontrollably, probably sinking the ship. A hit above the waterline would damage the ship but not sink it.
The warship metaphor is useful to modern leader developers deciding how much failure to allow their new leaders to endure. If the consequence of failure is a hit above the waterline, it’s probably safe to proceed. Conversely, if the potential failure would be a hit below the waterline, it’s prudent to step in before the cannon fires.
A potential hit above the waterline doesn’t mean the leader developer should just stand aside. The benefit of failure comes from the post-event learning. New leaders benefit most when they have someone to help them make sense of the failure. The developer must talk things over with the new leader. The goals of this discussion are to ensure the new leader recognizes the event as an undesirable failure, understands the consequences for others, and has some ideas about what to do differently next time. The new leader may also need emotional support. The experience of failure, even above the waterline failure, may be new to high performing young people who have been sheltered from bad outcomes while growing up. If they’re too upset to have a good conversation, there won’t be any learning. The developer should first focus on helping the new leader come back to an even keel, and then engage for the learning conversation.
Leader developers should create opportunities for above the waterline failure
Great leader developers don’t wait around for potential failure opportunities to present themselves. They create those opportunities for their new leaders as often as possible. The optimal, above the waterline leadership challenges can’t be contrived, but skillful leader developers will find routine leadership development opportunities in routine everyday work.
My favorite example of potential failure hidden in everyday work is the colors ceremony at the Coast Guard Academy. Colors is the traditional nautical ceremony for putting up the flag in the morning and taking it down again in the evening. At the Coast Guard Academy, colors could be completed by two people. But that would pass up an opportunity for above the waterline failure. Instead, seven cadets are assigned to the ceremony, with one cadet designated as the leader. The entire event is designed for the developmental benefit of that cadet leader.
Each of the six follower cadets has a specific job. One plays the music, precisely at the right minute. Another fires a ceremonial cannon, announcing the start of the ceremony to everyone on campus (and the surrounding neighborhoods). Others work together to put up or take down a huge national ensign and smaller Coast Guard ensign. All seven cadets need to do their jobs correctly. The ceremony is more complicated than it needs to be, but the complexity increases the potential for failure and therefore increases the importance of leadership from the cadet in charge.
I don’t think I’m revealing sensitive national security information when I share that colors goes wrong on a regular basis. The music doesn’t start on time, the cannon doesn’t fire, flags are raised upside down or end up on the ground. But those are all above the waterline failures.
In my years on the leadership development staff at the Coast Guard Academy, I lost count of how many great leadership development conversations I had with cadets in charge after colors went wrong. The cadets felt terrible about it but they walked away having learned something about themselves and the way they led the other cadets. They all learned that poor leadership has real consequences. It’s much better to learn those lessons from failure putting up a flag, than when you’re unmooring a Coast Guard cutter into a three knot river current.