16

“And the Truth Shall Set You Free”—A Unique Management Style!

There is a plethora of different management styles, perhaps as many as there are managers. Each manager brings their own personality traits intertwined with what they have learned about managing or believe to be the best way to manage those who report to them. Some of the various styles reflect more generic philosophical approaches and theories, while others reflect the huge variance of personal traits and interpersonal skills of the individual manager and how they interact with subordinates.

In my opinion, there is no one management style that can be conclusively argued to be the best or most effective. Nor can one claim that one style has a clear advantage over another. In the majority of cases, it is in the eye of the beholder. I do not intend to add my own opinion regarding the different management styles. However, consistent with the purpose of this book, I would like to bring to your attention one unique management approach that is rarely practiced, yet it is one I have used exclusively over my career because I believe it offers substantial value. It is not an easy style to practice. It requires commitment, self-discipline, self-control, and avoidance of any emotional reactions. However, it could easily be adopted by anyone once they decide to commit to its goal. But be forewarned, this style can’t be partially practiced or practiced on and off, depending on mood and circumstances. It has to be adhered to totally and completely, all the time and at all times, with no exceptions. Any deviation will likely completely and permanently negate the inherent value offered by this approach.

This style is based on the philosophy that mistakes by subordinates are never to be punished in any form, regardless of the severity of the mistake and ensuing damage caused. I define “mistake” here in the broadest possible way: the classic type of mistakes made by erroneous actions; mistakes made through the mishandling of situations of all kinds; verbal/communication mistakes; proactive or passive mistakes; inclusion or omission mistakes; as well as mistakes in business judgments of all kinds.

However, there are some conditions that accompany this management style that are required for it to prove valuable. It is these conditions that make this approach one of significant value to the manager, the department, and the company. Before elaborating on the approach and the necessary conditions, please allow me first to explain the reasoning and rationale behind this management philosophy. The underpinning of this approach relies on five straightforward observations:

1.Mistakes are unavoidable. Mistakes can be made by any employee regardless of how good and competent that employee may be. Obviously, managers and organizations need to put in the effort to minimize the occurrence of mistakes. Despite best efforts, some mistakes will continue to be made.

2.Mistakes have consequences. By definition, mistakes mean that something unintended that shouldn’t have occurred has indeed occurred. Thus, the end result is much more likely to be less than optimal or certainly fall below expectations. Some mistakes may be simple and trivial with only minimal implications and ramifications. Others may be more severe with significantly greater implications and ramifications. Yet others may be grave with major damage and consequences.

3.Corrective actions must always be taken to undo the negative consequences of mistakes. Clearly, since mistakes have consequences that lead to less than optimal outcomes, corrective actions are always necessary to counter the negative impact that has occurred or may occur. Additional corrective actions will also most likely be needed to restore the original expected path to the desired optimal outcome. As stated above, some mistakes are easy to correct, while others may be more complicated. Still others may be impossible to recover from.

4.All corrective actions require analyses. Proper situational assessment is necessary to understand all the potential implications and ramifications of a mistake. Subsequent analyses are also needed to help determine the proper damage control and required corrective actions. Some of the assessments/analyses, depending on the mistake, could be simple and obvious, but others may not be and may require more energy and deeper evaluation.

5.The quality and value of the assessments/analyses, and thus the subsequent corrective actions taken, are directly correlated to how accurately all factors and circumstances related to the mistakes are understood. This is an obvious statement: the better the understanding of all variables and factors, the better the corrective actions. Conversely, the less accurate the understanding, the less effective the corrective actions will be.

There is a simple and straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from the above observations. To avoid damages that may be caused by mistakes, it is optimal to minimize the occurrence of mistakes, but should mistakes occur, it is the best analyses that will lead to the best corrective actions.

As stated, the avoidance of mistakes is an important goal for managers and organizations. There are many ways used by organizations and individual managers to attempt to reach this goal. I don’t have much to add on this specific topic; I haven’t discovered any specific insights different from the common ways that are currently practiced. All I can say is to again emphasize that this goal is indeed critically important to address in the most effective way. It deserves focus and the time, energy, and commitment on the part of both individual managers and the organization at large. I can also tell you that, although everybody agrees that minimizing mistakes should always be a critical goal, in practice it is rarely implemented with the importance and attention it deserves. So, whereas I have no insight to impart to you on how to minimize mistakes, I can strongly recommend and encourage you to do all you can in whichever way you deem appropriate to attain this goal. It definitely will impact your career advancement over time.

However, it is the second part of the above overall conclusion—it is the best analyses that will lead to the best corrective actions—that I’d like to address. It is this dimension that led me to adopt my unique management style. To explain this, I will digress a bit.

The first digression involves a small nuance, which is the intermingling of the classic or conventional type of mistakes made by negligence of one kind or another versus judgments made that were subsequently proven to be wrong, and therefore a mistake. In general, classic mistakes are dealt with and treated quite differently from mistakes in judgment. Classic mistakes should be avoided at all costs and are unacceptable. But errors in judgment are unavoidable, will always occur, are to be expected, and, therefore, are completely acceptable. The business world requires constant analyses, assumptions, and judgment calls. Judgments are made based on the best information available at the time the judgments are rendered. Such judgments are all vulnerable and understood to embody inherent risks of not materializing as predicted. Also, and as a result, it is only in retrospect that judgment calls are proven to be mistakes. They are unavoidable, and since no one can tell the future, we are all likely to make them. These mistakes are generally not looked upon with the same scorn as making errors and classic mistakes. So, you might ask, why have I included judgment mistakes in my definition, and why do I treat them the same way as the classic mistakes, which occur because of negligence and errors?

My response is that, once identified, both categories require corrective actions. In both cases, best corrective actions are arrived at through the best analyses. Also, since the management style I am advocating is completely devoid of punishment, and since the subsequent analyses and corrective actions follow the same process, then it is irrelevant whether I deal with them as a single group of mistakes or separately. Had my management style not called for avoidance of punishment, then the two categories of mistakes should not be treated as if they are the same—judgment mistakes would have been treated with more understanding and leniency, and the classic mistakes with much greater severity.

The second digression involves the understanding of human behavior when it comes to mistakes. There are two categories of reactions: (i) the reaction of the people who made the mistakes, and (ii) the reaction of their superiors. Let’s start with the reaction of the superiors.

We are taught throughout our upbringing that mistakes are bad and punishment is sure to follow, although forgiveness may be warranted on occasion. We differentiate between various severities and consequences of mistakes, and punish those who make them accordingly. This is true in all aspects of life. Without punishment, mistakes would be difficult to control. I agree with this philosophy, so why do I advocate for an absence of punishment in the workplace?

To understand the reason, let’s shift attention to the reaction of the person who makes the mistake. The reaction is quite predictable. Rarely will one volunteer that they have made a mistake, if there is a good chance that it wouldn’t be caught. When caught, the mistake maker rarely owns up to it with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They will most likely minimize the severity as much as they can, minimize the role they played in it, and minimize the blame they deserve by distorting the facts that led to the mistake. They will do all they can to deflect or influence the severity of the punishment that they believe is sure to follow, as well as the scorn and embarrassment they know will befall them. This is all quite predictable for most.

Let’s move to a situation where a mistake has been made and requires corrective action to address the potential damage. As stated above, once a mistake has happened, it is the best analyses that will lead to the best corrective action. Common sense suggests that the most critical element of the best analyses always depends on the quality of the information and understanding of all the factors involved. So, if people making mistakes rarely own up to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then we will most likely not have the best understanding of all the variables and factors involved and therefore rarely have the best analyses, and as a result not have the best corrective actions. In other words, the end result is that the damage will not likely be fully and properly addressed and corrected.

Thus, it follows that the team/department/company will end up with suboptimal results. Therefore, if one wants to get the best corrective actions to negate a mistake, one must ensure that subsequent to a mistake one gets the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The only way to do so is to make sure that everybody understands, in advance, that regardless of their severity, mistakes will never be punished. This lack of punishment is only the case that will produce the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

That being said, some employees may still wonder whether their superiors will indeed honor the commitment not to punish. Therefore, they may initially be tempted not to offer the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to see if they can get away with it. Others may feel so badly about having made a mistake that if not caught might not bring it to their manager’s attention. There are also other situations where mistakes were not necessarily made, but analyses are conducted and still require the whole truth. For these reasons, I incorporated into my approach an element of punishment. I let all staff know in advance the following rule:

Mistakes will not be punished if one completely owns up to them and tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. At the same time, any deviation from the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, or any other form of lying and misleading, will be harshly punished.

As stated, I almost never come across a manager or company practicing this management style to the fullest extent. On the other hand, the idea of making truth-telling one of the most important aspects of a manager’s philosophy is not necessarily new. It is adamantly practiced, for example, in the military. In fact, I was first exposed to it when I joined the military service in Israel. This was the first thing that was drilled into our heads and throughout our service, and for the exact same reasons. There is an added element, because in the military the damages and consequences of not telling the truth could be dire: People may lose their lives; battles could be won or lost. However, I added my own twist to this “never lie” rule from my military days. I knew that to have this outcome of the whole truth, I needed to eliminate the strongest motivation as to why someone may lie or distort the truth. In the military, mistakes are never tolerated and almost always severely punished. Thus, I needed to eliminate any reason to avoid telling the truth and thereby substantially increase the likelihood of utmost compliance.

There are other conditions that must be applied to ensure overall effective implementation of this management philosophy. They are more secondary in nature and perhaps not as evident, and thus not practiced well. Nevertheless, in my mind, they are important and require just as much attention and adherence.

The first deals with the recognition that scorn, ridicule, display of anger or dissatisfaction, embarrassment, criticism, loss of face, finger-pointing, repetitively referencing mistakes, and even teasing will be considered by many as forms of punishment, and therefore, motivators for someone to distort and lie. Thus, as part of this management style, it must be clear that none of the above happens. As a supervisor, you have to make sure that neither you nor anybody on your team resorts in any way to any of the above. I used to state it forcefully to my subordinates, but put a positive spin on it: “Once a mistake is made, the most critical thing to do is to properly analyze the consequences and take corrective actions. Thus, all our energy and focus need to be future oriented. After collecting the facts, dwelling on what happened (beyond just trying to analyze for the purpose of learning from the mistake to avoid future mistakes) and why it happened becomes unproductive and just creates a team environment that is less than optimal to determine the best corrective actions.” In meetings, I would openly admonish and immediately cut off any deviation from this approach. I made sure that there truly was no punishment or perceived experience of punishment of any kind for mistakes.

The second deals with how fully employees accept the key premise that no punishment will befall them. Here, we need to understand that not punishing mistakes is counterintuitive to our upbringing and our culture at large. As such, the first reaction from employees would be doubt and distrust. They’ll put it down as another of the thousands of promises we all hear during our lifetime to entice us to behave in a certain way, but then are rarely adhered to. It is for this reason that I said there could never be a deviation from this rule. This is easier said than practiced.

For example, imagine a mistake comes to your attention that has major consequences and was made out of complete stupidity. Could you resist the impulse to become angry and ask the rhetorical question, “How stupid are you?” Instead, using my method, you now must maintain a neutral expression and calm demeanor. The reality is that even a single deviation could give rise to the natural doubt and apprehension we all have toward promises that are counterintuitive in nature. It is the practice of adhering to it over time, without any deviation, that will serve to convince employees that this set of rules will indeed be followed.

I am positive that by now the counterintuitive aspect of not punishing mistakes in any form has raised in your own mind a doubt of credibility. I would be surprised if you haven’t questioned the wisdom of this. Even a generous nature will not forever tolerate employees who make serial mistakes. Yet you might point out that my management style will not permit someone being fired. Well, not really!

Although I advocate that making a mistake should not be punished, I actually do endorse the concept that repetitive mistakes can and should lead to punishment and even dismissal. However, to me it doesn’t contradict anything I said above. Notice that my sentence differentiated between a singular “mistake” versus the plural “mistakes.” To me, a mistake should not be punished. However, someone who persists in making serial mistakes falls into an entirely different category, one that reflects on an employee’s competence. In such cases, the punishment is not for making mistakes, but rather it is for being an incompetent employee.

Okay, I gave you my logic and now you can make up your own mind as to whether this management style could be effective and whether you might want to adopt it. If you do, just remember that it is not easy to practice and requires full commitment without any deviation. If you still are willing to do the hard work internally that it requires to keep a calm and level head, then good luck to you. I expect you will soon see the rewards of having your employees come to you when problems are small as opposed to when mistakes or a cover-up have gotten out of hand.