Army Chemical Review

WINTER 2016

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

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 18 of 63

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, , accessed on 14 September 2016. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Rolf Smith, 7 Levels of Change at Work, Office of Strategic Innovation Incorporated, 1991, , accessed on 15 September 2016. 5 Donald H. Rumsfeld, Department of Defense News Brief- ing, 12 February 2002, , accessed on 15 Septem- ber 2016. 6 Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, Johari Window, 1955, , accessed on 15 September 2016. 7 Smith, 2016. 8 Leonard Wong, Innovation: Developing Leaders Today, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War Col- lege, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2002. 9 Bill Zipp, Five Leadership Styles: Which Style Are You?, , accessed on 20 September 2016. 10 Zeisler, 2016. 11 Richard Farson and Ralph Keyes, "The Failure-Tolerant Leader," Harvard Business Review, Cambridge, Maine, Au- gust 2002, , accessed on 14 September 2016. 12 Ibid. Colonel Miltner is the chief of staff for the Joint CBRN Defence Centre of Excellence in Vyskov, Czech Republic. He is a graduate of the Air and Staff College, the Joint Forces Staff College, and the War College. He holds a bachelor's degree in politi- cal science the University of Texas, San Antonio, and - ter's degrees in arts and sciences and strategic studies. "A leader's acceptance of failure, whether during a crisis or noncrisis situation, is criti- cally important. A tolerance of failure allows problem solvers to test previously unaccepted variables and planning assumptions that so often dominate a crisis environment."

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Army Chemical Review - WINTER 2016