Crime and Punishment

The big news last week was the unanticipated firing of the top leadership of the U.S. Air Force. Chief of Staff Gen. Mike Moseley and Secretary Michael Wynne were forced to resign following a report on the Air Force’s problems handling nuclear weapons. Now, I would bet my next month’s Air Force retirement check that neither Mr. Moseley nor Mr. Wynne has ever actually “handled” nuclear weapons, especially not the ones in question. (Actual fondling of nuclear weapons is a metaphysical event. For example, did you know that the nosecone of a nuclear short range attack missile is squishy, like the stuff that they used to make Stretch Armstrong out of? But I digress . . .) So why fire these guys? Of course we’ve heard the answers about leadership accountability, and where the buck stops, etc., but in reality – these guys were fired to send a message. There will likely be lots of reminiscing during their post-Air Force consulting careers about “being in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Yet this latest round of "accountability firings" does beg the question, “is it fair to fire a leader for the unknown actions of his or her subordinates?" Perhaps the better question is "Does it work to improve the organization?"

Leadership decisions about “accountability” always fascinate me, and as a retired Air Force officer who still bleeds blue, this one enticed me more than most. In fact, it got me to thinking about things like crime and punishment and something called a “just culture.” It’s not that firing people doesn’t work to change behavior. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Air Force is being pretty damn careful with their nukes right now (just like we used to ALL the time – see “The Air Force at 60” post). The real problem with the blame game is that it only works for a while.

On Organizational Culture, Climate and Weather

This situation reminds me of a small blackboard we used to have on the wall in a B-1 squadron I once served in that said “Don’t be the next one caught doing ________.” From time to time something new would appear in the blank space. It might be anything from sloppy paperwork to letting your night landing currency expire. The point was, it was a bellwether of where our diminutive volcanic squadron commander was likely to erupt next. If organizational culture is defined as the enduring values of an organization, and organizational climate is a shorter term phenomenon, than what we were forecasting was the organizational weather – which could change quite rapidly and with little warning. The point here is that firing leadership only really changes the organizational weather – not the climate or culture. Right now, the Air Force has a metaphorical blackboard that says “Don’t be the next one caught mishandling nukes – or tolerating those who do.” But before long, that blackboard will change to the next hot topic. You see, no one really believes that firing leaders works for long. But executives come under tremendous pressure to hold someone accountable after a bad outcome. While no one advocates outcomes based punishment, nearly everyone practices it when the pressure gets intense to “do something.”

Out with the blame game – in with ?

One reaction to this problem has been the creation of something referred to as a “just culture” approach. A just culture advocates defining “clearly acceptable versus unacceptable behavior” and even provides some means for making these difficult determinations. But when we get to the point where life and death, and even more importantly – executive careers – are on the line, this system buckles under the white hot light of public scrutiny and the demands for “someone to pay for their mistakes.” Further down the spectrum are those for whom personal accountability is simply unacceptable. For example, inside the current patient safety debate there is serious discussion of whether individual human error even exists.

The real problem with all of this polarization on accountability is that it has caused the world to go brain dead on the topic of personal responsibility. We have allowed this discussion to become an either-or debate between outcome based punishment and the new enlightenment that shifts blame to the “system.” There are significant problems with both approaches when you try to actually apply them in the real world.

The problem with the crime and punishment approach is that it is a usually fool’s errand if the goal is to provide long term solutions to real problems. The problem with the systems safety approach is that is typically requires significant change to fix the systemic issues, if the culprit really is systemic at all – and to paraphrase the words of Bobby Kennedy, everyone is for progress, but progress requires change, and change has many enemies.

Both of these approaches are the metaphorical equivalent of kicking a door down when you have the keys to the lock. There is a third option of personal accountability through self awareness and individual error control. I continue to practice, believe and advocate that most human error can be predicted and prevented by the individuals who make them – if they are appropriately prepared to recognize their personal error patterns and respond to available cues. Before we throw good leaders under the train, or give up on the idea of personal accountability and professional reliability all together – let’s give self control a serious look.