Feature Article - February 2008
Detroit debacle demonstrates when “mistakes" are developmental or derailing
by Tom Davidson
The feature issue for this month comes from front-page news accounts in Detroit, Michigan, where Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick appears to be in some serious trouble—again, helping us take a closer look at the mistakes leaders make.
Mistakes are not always bad things. In fact, they are absolutely necessary for developing leaders. Anyone learning new things will make errors. Emerging and experienced managers commit them daily. They are expected of people who are working hard, reaching for stretch goals, and taking on added responsibility.
Sometimes, they are even encouraged by executives who want to challenge their organizations to achieve great things and develop people more fully. A county administrator recently put mistake making in his written expectations of staff, saying that there should even be “spectacular failures.” He explained that he wants to see people trying so hard to make improvements, that they sometimes get the cart before the horse in a big way. While the following news from Detroit might be spectacular, I doubt it is the kind of failure he meant to encourage.
The bloody wake
Kilpatrick’s example spans almost two turbulent terms as mayor, each with islands of progress amid a sea of scandal and acrimony. The sordid details include evidence of misusing government funds, wild parties on government property, internal investigations, reprisals, violence, and a “whistleblower trial” that led to a guilty verdict costing the city $9 million and untold opportunity costs. The story recently exploded into national news when the Detroit Free Press uncovered and published a string of embarrassing text messages between the mayor and his then chief of staff, Christine Beatty. The transcripts will be central to a newly launched perjury investigation against Mayor Kirkpatrick and his ex-subordinate.
A week later in a pre-recorded statement*, the mayor appeared contrite at first, referred to the situation as a “mistake,” apologized to his supporters and family, and said he was going back to work the next day. While he undoubtedly made mistakes, these were not the garden variety from which one learns and moves on. I think his actions were more than just learning opportunities and that they fall into a category with consequences, which I call “misdeeds.”
A distinction with a difference
Misdeeds are conscious decisions with avoidable, serious or long-term consequences, which are likely to derail careers. Mistakes are understandable oversights or missteps that have short-term or minimal consequences and offer developmental opportunities. By characterizing his misdeeds as “a mistake,” the mayor tried to make the case that he should be forgiven and allowed to move forward with few if any repercussions, especially since he learned from the experience. However, because of the pattern of choices he made and their serious and long-term consequences, the term misdeed is applicable. While he may be forgiven by the charitable among us, he is unlikely to be left alone to move forward without consequence.
While the following table will leave the inevitable gray area, it includes some key descriptors of each term that should help leaders understand, explain and apply the concepts in the workplace. Mistakes are for learning. Misdeeds are for consequences.
Mistakes: understandable oversights or missteps that have short-term or minimal consequences |
Misdeeds: conscious decisions with avoidable, serious or long-term consequence |
| |
|
- Misunderstanding or misinterpreting rules or guidelines
|
|
| |
|
- Miscalculating collateral impacts
|
- Breaking a code of ethics or other explicit rules of conduct
|
- Overlooking details, making technical errors, or accidentally omitting information
|
- Ignoring warnings, a pattern of repeating the same mistakes
|
- Making errors from lack of awareness not lack of concern
|
- Deceiving others overtly or by deliberate omission
|
- Making errors with the best intentions even though the impacts are more serious
|
- Acting in one’s own self interest without sufficient regard for the interests of stakeholders
|
- Using poor judgment due to inexperience
|
- Showing egregiously poor judgment, clearly knowing better but proceeding anyway
|
- Taking action that is misaligned with expectations or job responsibilities
|
- Performing poorly due to lack of effort
|
- Making erroneous or naïve assumptions
|
- Causing harm to the well being or livelihood of others
|
- Taking action that somewhat or temporarily diminishes one’s credibility
|
- Damaging the organization’s reputation
|
- Taking action that inadvertently leads to minor consequences
|
- Taking action that has major consequences to the organization or its stakeholders
|
- Causing harm to the organization or stakeholders that is repairable in the short term
|
- Causing harm to the organization or its stakeholders that is avoidable and long term
|
- Making decisions that lead to consequences that the individual has to live with
|
- Making decisions that lead to consequences that others are forced to live with
|
Relevance to the learning organization
The comparison of terms is relevant to leaders who are attempting to create a learning organization while maintaining accountability. This is done by allowing and leveraging mistakes while avoiding and preventing misdeeds. Perhaps more leaders need to (1) understand and communicate the difference between mistakes and misdeeds, (2) encourage learning from mistakes, and (3) hold people accountable for their actions when they are actually misdeeds. Make no mistake, it’s your job.
*See a transcript of the mayor’s remarks at http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080131/NEWS01/801310429.
Click here to Subscribe
to our Leadership Newsletter
|
Turning Points
