We use a leadership diagnostic at Defy Expectations that looks at the key elements of leadership.  It asks a question about the process for review at the end of a project.  Is there a regular review of successes and failures that is committed to learning lessons (rather than just allocating reward or blame)?  It’s a multiple-choice answer where the most common response is “We only ever look at what went wrong”. At least the response of “We’re so relieved that the project is over that we don’t review it at all” doesn’t get too many ticks.

This focus on what went wrong is a very human response, you see in in the media all the time.  Someone must be to blame (and it’s not me).  The search for the guilty goes on everywhere. 

There are two problems with this.  The first is that it is very rare for there to be one person, or even several people who are responsible for what has gone wrong. Mostly it’s a series of errors, omissions, good intentions, none of which are fatal but cumulatively make the project fail.   There is no smoking gun and the most you learn is the obvious: people are well intentioned but over-worked; the processes really aren’t very good, and communication is poor.

The second problem is that the root cause is poorly trained leadership and poorly trained management – and no-one wants to admit to that.  The people that should be held to account, the Board and the Executive Team, generally escape unscathed.

That’s why I am a fan of reviewing successful projects, working out what went right, and then asking how it could have gone better.  Successful projects generally suffer from many of the problems of their unsuccessful relatives, but without the stigma attached. 

If it was a success it is much easier to admit that it could have been even better if processes had been better; if communication had been faster; and the leadership had been better trained.  It’s all a question of perspective. One way looks from a basis of fear and denial “someone is going to suffer for this” the other from a basis of pride, “we’re great, how could we be greater?” 

No prize for guessing which approach yields the best results.