Posted on Jan 23, 2016
Who is responsible when subordinates fail to do their jobs?
14K
29
27
4
4
0
Although this topic has been initiated on RallyPoint in the past, a recent disclosure by a former aide to the President has encouraged me to raise it again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDHireIp2Zk
I once read a book on leadership written by a major general and used in one of the war colleges (Sorry, I loaned it to a friend and never saw it again) in which the author espoused the concept that a good leader was a good teacher. If you want your subordinates to do a job a certain way, you must teach them how you want it done. I've wrestled with that for several years. In effect, the author expected the leader to know how every job should be accomplished.
Now there may be those who object to my turning to President Obama as an exemplar, but shouldn't we have a right to expect the Commander-in-Chief to be an exemplar, the prototypical great leader? When it is reported that he says to his staff "I could do every one of your jobs better" he should also be instructing them in how to do those jobs, as this author implied?
I was happily surprised to hear Gates report that Obama never faulted him for speaking his mind. That seems to be an admirable attribute for the President to have. However, Gates goes on to mention that other aides/counselors to the President have abstained from voicing their opinions, ostensibly because they were afraid(?) to incur his wrath. Or they believed that Obama really is "the smartest man in the room" and they should follow him slavishly? I would hate to think that my subordinates were so afraid or reticent while serving under me.
Thus, we come to the question? When a subordinate fails, is it a failure of the superior? Where does responsibility lie?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDHireIp2Zk
I once read a book on leadership written by a major general and used in one of the war colleges (Sorry, I loaned it to a friend and never saw it again) in which the author espoused the concept that a good leader was a good teacher. If you want your subordinates to do a job a certain way, you must teach them how you want it done. I've wrestled with that for several years. In effect, the author expected the leader to know how every job should be accomplished.
Now there may be those who object to my turning to President Obama as an exemplar, but shouldn't we have a right to expect the Commander-in-Chief to be an exemplar, the prototypical great leader? When it is reported that he says to his staff "I could do every one of your jobs better" he should also be instructing them in how to do those jobs, as this author implied?
I was happily surprised to hear Gates report that Obama never faulted him for speaking his mind. That seems to be an admirable attribute for the President to have. However, Gates goes on to mention that other aides/counselors to the President have abstained from voicing their opinions, ostensibly because they were afraid(?) to incur his wrath. Or they believed that Obama really is "the smartest man in the room" and they should follow him slavishly? I would hate to think that my subordinates were so afraid or reticent while serving under me.
Thus, we come to the question? When a subordinate fails, is it a failure of the superior? Where does responsibility lie?
Leadership
Leadership Development
Responsibility
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 15
It clearly depends on a situation. Sometimes it's the leader's fault, sometimes the subordinate, and sometimes both. You can't blame every leader for every subordinate's failure just like you can't blame every school teacher if just one of their students don't do well.
As soon as you put 100% of all blame on the leader, that frees subordinates to feel like they take on no responsibility, and clearly that's not right.
As soon as you put 100% of all blame on the leader, that frees subordinates to feel like they take on no responsibility, and clearly that's not right.
(8)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
True, often 99 out of 100 are great but that one left over may never succeed due to his own failure. Most people will do what is expected to succeed but there are those that are doomed to failure and there isn't anything You can do to change that. To put it simply, You can lead a horse to water but You can't make Him drink.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I always asked myself what I did wrong or what I could have done better to HELP prevent a subordinate's failure.
(3)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
It's good that you always introspect first. Sometimes you get lucky and end up with a team of self-starters; sometimes you get bad apples who aren't up to task and there simply isn't enough time to train them. Great subordinates can make a weak leader look strong, and bad subordinates can make a strong leader look bad.
At a certain three letter gov't agency (which I was never a part of), a bunch of mediocre employees, who had been underperforming, received a new boss. The boss was actually a great, dynamic leader and was sending people off to advanced training and holding everyone to higher standards than they were accustomed to being held to. The higher standards were actually THE standards which they hadn't been meeting for some time. The employees weren't interested in raising the quality of their service; they were simply there for the paycheck and were content to hang out and give the appearance of being busy while putting forth minimal effort to get by. The employees consequently rebelled and leveled frivolous EO complaints against their supervisor. The sheer volume of complaints couldn't be ignored and management ended up firing their new boss.
Employees 0, Management 0
When budget cuts come, guess who's getting cut...
At a certain three letter gov't agency (which I was never a part of), a bunch of mediocre employees, who had been underperforming, received a new boss. The boss was actually a great, dynamic leader and was sending people off to advanced training and holding everyone to higher standards than they were accustomed to being held to. The higher standards were actually THE standards which they hadn't been meeting for some time. The employees weren't interested in raising the quality of their service; they were simply there for the paycheck and were content to hang out and give the appearance of being busy while putting forth minimal effort to get by. The employees consequently rebelled and leveled frivolous EO complaints against their supervisor. The sheer volume of complaints couldn't be ignored and management ended up firing their new boss.
Employees 0, Management 0
When budget cuts come, guess who's getting cut...
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.
Commanders have staffs because plates can only get so big, and only be stacked so high.
It's great to believe that the commander will always be the smartest man in the room. It's far more likely that he will be the one with the most experience however, and is relying on "experts" to tell him things.
We use a Staff Structure of highly specialize areas. Administration, Intelligence, Operations, Logistics, etc. If the commander misses one of those, it was because he made a "bad call" but if we dig deeper, he either ignored the Experts advice, or didn't get the Experts advice. If it was the former, that's on him. If it was the latter, it becomes even more complex.
We delve into management vs leadership theory at that point. As a manager there is no excuse why the Expert did not provide it. As a leader, the question arises as to whether "he" created an environment where it was not worth providing.
So, as you reported, Hon. Mr. Gates was able to speak his mind. That implies no failures on the subordinate's part. However that may just be a force of will issue. The follow on of "others were afraid" points to a greater issue.
Commanders have staffs because plates can only get so big, and only be stacked so high.
It's great to believe that the commander will always be the smartest man in the room. It's far more likely that he will be the one with the most experience however, and is relying on "experts" to tell him things.
We use a Staff Structure of highly specialize areas. Administration, Intelligence, Operations, Logistics, etc. If the commander misses one of those, it was because he made a "bad call" but if we dig deeper, he either ignored the Experts advice, or didn't get the Experts advice. If it was the former, that's on him. If it was the latter, it becomes even more complex.
We delve into management vs leadership theory at that point. As a manager there is no excuse why the Expert did not provide it. As a leader, the question arises as to whether "he" created an environment where it was not worth providing.
So, as you reported, Hon. Mr. Gates was able to speak his mind. That implies no failures on the subordinate's part. However that may just be a force of will issue. The follow on of "others were afraid" points to a greater issue.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google