A leader should begin a miss by examining the part they owned: the brief they gave, the decision they delayed, the resources they withheld, or the expectations they left unclear. In 1961, after the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba failed, President John F. Kennedy faced a public failure attached to his administration.
Kennedy had inherited plans for the operation, but he approved the invasion. In the days after it collapsed, he did not make the CIA carry the whole public burden. The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library documents his acceptance of responsibility for the decision. That did not erase the serious questions about planning, intelligence, and execution. It established the order in which a leader should ask them.
A team can learn from a miss only when people can speak honestly about it. That starts with the person holding the most authority.
Responsibility creates room for an honest review
When a project falls short, the first temptation is often to inspect the most visible mistake. Someone missed a handoff. A draft arrived late. A customer received the wrong information. Those details matter, and they may need a direct response.
But leaders shape the conditions around those details. Did you define what good work looked like? Did you make space for a team member to raise a concern before the deadline? Did competing priorities make careful work unlikely? Did you change direction without making the new expectation clear?
Owning your contribution does not mean accepting blame for every choice another person made. It means refusing to use your position as a shield.
Jesus teaches this posture with uncomfortable clarity in Matthew 7:3-5. Before focusing on the speck in another person’s eye, examine the log in your own. In leadership, that examination turns a tense review into a truthful one. It also gives others permission to tell you what they saw.
Start with the conditions you set
A missed goal often has a long lead-up. The final error may be easy to name, while the conditions behind it are harder to face.
Perhaps you approved a deadline that left no margin for checking the work. Perhaps your weekly meetings kept moving from problem to problem, so the team learned that raising risks would only add pressure. Perhaps you expected initiative but overruled people whenever they tried it.
These are not excuses for poor execution. They are leadership data.
Before your next postmortem, take ten quiet minutes and write three answers:
- What did I make harder than it needed to be?
- What signal did I miss, dismiss, or fail to invite?
- What will I change before asking anyone else to change?
Bring one answer into the conversation first. “I set an unclear priority here,” is more useful than a speech about accountability. “I should have asked for an earlier checkpoint,” gives the team something concrete to build on.
This approach also protects against false humility. Avoid broad statements such as “Everything is my fault” when they prevent an honest account of what happened. Name the actual contribution. Then listen for the rest.
Ask about execution after you have made it safe to answer
Once you have owned your part, you can ask clear questions about the team’s execution: What happened? What decision seemed reasonable at the time? Where did the process break down? What support was missing? What needs to change before the next attempt?
Those questions seek understanding before judgment. They make room for accountability without turning one difficult outcome into a verdict on someone’s worth.
This takes discipline, especially when you are tired or embarrassed. A leader may want a fast explanation because uncertainty feels expensive. Yet a rushed search for a culprit can teach people to hide weak signals next time.
If listening feels too close to approving every explanation, this reflection on listening and agreement may help. You can hear a person fully and still set a clear standard for what must change.
Build renewal into the way you lead
The habit of self-examination requires more than good intentions. It needs enough margin for body, mind, relationships, and spirit to recover. A depleted leader can mistake exhaustion for urgency, defensiveness for discernment, and a short reply for a complete answer.
Set aside a regular review before a project reaches crisis point. At the end of the week, consider where you gave clarity, where you created confusion, and one repair you need to make. Keep it small enough to do. Send the clarifying message. Restore the cancelled check-in. Admit the decision you delayed.
Kennedy’s acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs did not undo the failure. It did show that authority includes the duty to face one’s own decisions in public. Your team does not need a flawless leader. They need a leader who can say, with precision, “Here is the part I own. Now let’s understand the rest and take the next responsible step.”
Comments
No comments yet.