Army Chemical Review presents professional information about Chemical Corps functions related to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, smoke, flame, and civil support operations.
Issue link: https://chemical.epubxp.com/i/759309
17
Winter 2016
its current environment: A lack of resources is discouraging
innovation; and despite new fights in Iraq and elsewhere,
looking back is already becoming a potential way forward.
Richard Farson and
Ralph Keyes address
an aspect of leadership
that is particularly im-
portant for fostering an
innovative atmosphere
within any organization
in their Harvard Busi-
ness Review article, "The
Failure-Tolerant Leader."
11
As previously mentioned, an
aversion to risk taking can be an intended consequence of
inside-the-system thinking. What often emerges is a culture
in which much time is spent focusing on avoiding bad deci-
sions rather than on striving to make good ones. The dif-
ference is subtle, but the former is clearly associated with
an air of defensiveness, while the latter displays more con-
fidence and aggression. Defensive positions traditionally
involve deliberate activities, often chosen based on known
and favorable terrain. In contrast, offensive operations tend
to involve more unknown variables, but are more in
execution. Defensive operations are often limited to a single
course of action, whereas offensive operations tend to be
associated with a greater number of choices. According to
Farson and Keyes, a failure-tolerant leader is one who al-
lows his or her workforce to make mistakes in search of bet-
ter solutions or innovations because mistakes are valued as
part of the problem-solving process.
12
A leader's acceptance
of failure, whether during a crisis or noncrisis situation, is
critically important. A tolerance of failure allows problem
solvers to test previously unaccepted variables and planning
assumptions that so often dominate a crisis environment.
Conversely, a climate of blame, accusation, or threat of re-
prisal can create an aversion to risk and lead to a paralysis
of action. Without the ability to learn from failure, organi-
zations faced with a crisis will continue to focus on invalid
variables and planning assumptions in the headlong pursuit
of unattainable solutions. As with conventional Army units
in Afghanistan in the months following 11 September 2001,
commanders who fail to accept innovative solutions based
on newly attained variables will ultimately lead their units
to a standstill.
Conclusion
Rolf Smith's model of Seven Levels of Change provides
some insight as to why Army organizations have difficulty
innovating. Furthermore, his model provides a sobering
indictment of a culture that establishes unattainable stan-
dards and defines success as meeting those standards, but
discourages innovation that might establish new and attain-
able standards. Crises and leadership play different but es-
sential roles as change agents for innovation. As catalysts
for innovation, crises offer unanticipated variables that in-
validate planning assumptions and can significantly reduce
the effectiveness of existing plans and capabilities. Leaders
provide a means to implement innovation, but only if they
are capable of accepting failure as part of the process of find-
ing new solutions. Risk-averse leaders who condemn failure
and reinforce system thinking discourage Soldiers at all lev-
els from being part of a
solution for fear of being
wrong. A crisis can serve
as the perfect acid test
for an organization that
talks about innovation,
but fails to build a cul-
ture that supports inno-
vators. An organization
that fears failure and worries about making mistakes will
have difficulty in a crisis, when many of the previously held
assumptions are proven invalid. Only an organization that
values mistakes as educational and solicits innovative ideas
from every level will be enough to find solutions in a
crisis, where ambiguity is the norm.
Endnotes:
1
Steve N. Zeisler, USACW Creative Leadership Lecture,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 26 May 2016,