Attitudes to Mistakes
Over the 30 or years of my professional career, I’ve worked in different countries with different cultures. In all of them, one of the aspects of life that interested me most was the attitude to mistakes.
In some cultures and societies, people are willing to admit they have made an error, apologise for it, and put it right. In others, admitting you’ve made a mistake is taboo. Even more of a challenge in such societies is pointing out mistakes and persuading, those who have made them to take ownership.
In extreme cases, criticising a government, or a powerful individual for a mistake may well get you deported, locked up or worse!
In these circumstances, the challenge is how to first point out the error and secondly have it corrected and used as a learning tool. Some might ask what about having it acknowledged? My response would be forget acknowledging it, the important thing to do is to learn and change (people will acknowledge it to themselves, have no fear!)
In one country, the government had a habit of announcing some new decision, process, law or other change. Following the inevitable protests, they would then announce that that decision, process and so on had been “withdrawn for further consultation”.
This was a perfectly satisfactory face-saving formula which enabled that government to appear in control. Some Western governments have tried a variation of this theme: they “leak” a pending change and gauge public reaction following the leak. If it’s favourable, they press ahead. If not, the change is simply not implemented.
None of us like admitting that we’ve made a mistake. This is human nature. By doing so, we admit that we are lacking in knowledge, expertise, care or haven’t thought the decision through properly. Whatever it is, criticising ourselves is the hardest thing we can do. As I mentioned before, in some cases to admit to any kind of weakness is to invite retribution which may result in the “removal” of an individual, a government, or an institution.
As we go through life as business leaders, we need to be highly attuned to the sensitivities around us. The problem is that these sensitivities vary, depending on individuals, cultures, governments and countries.
One has only to watch global politics to understand this. Take for example the Western way of doing things compared to that in the Far East or Middle East. It’s sometimes should come as no surprise that the actions of individuals or governments result in boycott, sanctions or other penalties.
Our only course is to learn from our mistakes and how to avoid them in the future.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Productivity, Strategy, Teamwork
The New Biological Warfare?
One thing that the coronavirus pandemic of 2020 to 2022 proved to us was that the ultimate weapon of mass biological destruction is Homo Sapiens, the human being.
The coronavirus (COVID-19) spread from “Ground Zero” (suspected to be in Wuhan) to other cities in China and around the world via people who were returning home to their families for the Lunar New Year celebrations, as well as those who travelled overseas to join or rejoin their families.
In his novel Executive Orders, author Tom, Clancy theorises that “one could infect an aircraft, say an international flight into Kennedy. The travellers would leave one aircraft and fan out into others… Maybe they’d be able to spread the disease through coughs and sneezes immediately, or maybe not. Many of them would fly again in a few days, wondering if they had the flu, and then they’d be able to communicate the virus, and so infect more.”
Our system of rapid, low-cost and plentiful international transport means that a government with malicious intent no longer needs to fire or drop a biological weapon from an aircraft or battleship stationed offshore. Simply infecting a few “human carriers” and letting them loose on international flights is sufficient.
One of the first things that happened was that, to control the spread of COVID-19, governments closed air- and seaports. No one was allowed in (except for returning citizens, and Australia refused even them!).
However, by the time and seaports were closed, it was in many cases too late. The coronavirus had to run its course whilst pharmaceutical companies frantically rushed to develop vaccines.
In the end, the combination of vaccination, isolation and testing paid dividends. The coronavirus epidermic was brought under control and, by 2022, most countries were able to resume “normal” life.
Be that as it may, we now know that one of the biggest risks is the global transportation system. If nothing else, governments have learnt that in the event of a pandemic being declared, they must take immediate and precipitate action to close down their countries.
Could we face another biological Armageddon? There are almost certainly laboratories, even now working on plagues and diseases designed to incapacitate (but not kill) a population. Whilst this may sound like a conspiracy theory, it perhaps also provides some comfort in that one no longer will need to resort to the threat of all-out nuclear war. Biological warfare, and in a less deadly form, will be sufficient to incapacitate a country, its institutions and population for sufficiently long to allow it to be taken over.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Crisis Management, Leadership, Risk, Strategy
Design Flaws?
In one of the very first apartments in which I lived, a unique design feature caught my eye…
The feature in question was plug sockets 3 feet above floor level. When I finally ask somebody why they were so high, the response was “that’s the way they do it in case of floods.”
To put this in context, the country in which I was working did suffer from flooding and so houses built at ground level had plug sockets 3 feet above ground level so that any flood water that entered the house would have less chance of getting into the wiring system, shorting it out and causing a fire. An electrical fire is not something you want in a flood zone!
Back to my flat: this was located on the third floor of a block of apartments. If floodwaters made it that high, the country was in serious trouble!
It was clear what had happened: whoever the contractor was who built the flats simply followed whatever code there may have been at the time (that plug sockets should be located at least 3 feet above the floor). Perhaps there was no such code and the contractor was simply doing it “the way we’ve always done it”.
At times, doing something in a particular way may make sense. In the case of my flat, this wasn’t true. When the flat was renovated, I had the plug sockets dropped down to a more manageable height above floor level.
When we design something, or install something, or do something in a particular way, there are a variety of reasons for doing it in that way. The question is, are those reasons still valid in that situation? In some cases, whether the reasons are or are not valid doesn’t matter: if “the rules” say you have to do it that way, then you do it that way. Otherwise, there may be penalties.
If there’s a chance that one can change the way of thinking in such a way that the result makes more sense, then this is something we need to encourage. Blindly doing it because “we’ve always done it this way” is no longer an excuse. Imagine how the world would be today if, for example, we still believed in using leeches to cure diseases!
In our day-to-day lives as business leaders, we will often come up against “things that make no sense”. Our question is: can we change them? If not, can we accept them? If not, will we be granted the wisdom to know the difference?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Customer Care, Leadership, Productivity, Strategy
