Go to navigation

Yuri Gadow

There Are No Bad Soldiers

I believe that as a leader I am always to blame. Always. But I am not always the cause. Without this distinction, I consume myself trying to find causes within or I externalise blame and harm others. Because I deprive people of information necessary for improvement, both extremes lead to poorer performance. And more blame. And before I know it, Jack’s left town and all I’m leading is soft and steaming. But, there are root causes and immediate causes. I am the root cause of failure in my teams, I am to blame. The results of that failure are the immediate causes. As I must understand and fix the root, I must show and help others understand the immediate. When I tell people they are failing, I am saying I have failed them – and now they are failing because of it and will have to fix that. I believe that is hardest thing I will face; acknowledging that I am both causing and incapable of stopping someone else’s suffering. At least, I sure as hell hope it is.

Comments

  1. sally

    September 8th, 2006

    I wonder how this translates into education. I realize, as an educator, that I am responsible for a student’s failure, even though the student’s actions are the immediate cause. You warn readers to “expect contradictions” and this may be one: an intractable contradiction between systems and individuals, both in business and education. Or maybe educators just need to create systems that — using your word — delight their users. Meanwhile, a student is pleading with me to change an F to a D so she can receive her degree. I hate the feeling you describe, that I am “both causing and incapable of stopping” her suffering . . . unless I betray the system.

  2. Yuri Gadow

    September 10th, 2006

    Sally, I think there is a different level of responsibility to the student in your scenario. I think there are two dynamics at work here, first how much choice is inherent in the relationship and secondly how much interaction (or ability to influence.)

    Combat leaders have almost complete ability to influence, not because of command law but because they live with and fight with their soldiers – they experience the most wonderful and horrifying experiences man has to offer (surviving and killing) together.

    Business leaders operate in relationships with a lot of choice (hiring and firing out our discretion) but with limited influence.

    The teacher and student relationship has choice flowing only one way (the student can choose whether to study under a given teacher.) Moreover, the ability to influence fundamental behavior is virtually nonexistent in a one or two hour a week relationship.

    I would argue that a teacher’s responsibility is to provide as much passive support – for students who want to change the dynamic of their learning relationship – but not to take on active responsibility for individual success. At least, not without re-imaging the whole learning relationship between teacher and students. And that’s huge topic in itself.

Add to the discussion

Freely write further on this, critique it, or add related links—especially your own.

You should know

  1. I will only ask you to edit unrelated commentary.
  2. I only edit as a last resort and show where and why.
  3. I do not store any information but that you volunteer.

Thank you.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/