“To err is human; to forgive, divine.”  Alexander Pope

Let’s talk about the first part of Mr. Pope’s quote— human error.  I once worked with a group of construction electricians under a team leader whose virtues included an ability to anticipate and minimize critical mistakes on the part of his crew. He saved our company and its clients time and money, and his leadership unquestionably averted drastic malfunctions after our installations were complete. A man of common sense and a devout Christian, he never let us forget the need to police our work, frequently reminding us that, “Where there are human beings, there is imperfection”— now ain’t that the Gospel truth! My purpose here is twofold: (1) to embellish on this old electrician’s admonition with a warning about how easy it is to underestimate the potential for human error; and (2) to briefly discuss the mindset of effective leadership that offsets the inevitable problems associated with human imperfections in organizations and helps to turn potential chaos into productive action.   

Anticipating human troubles is crucial in any enterprise, and one of the few things that any business leader can be 100 percent sure of is that where people are concerned, the potential for error will never be zero. Less frequently discussed however, is the likelihood of problems in a given system based on the number of human participants involved. It doesn’t take an organizational genius to realize that as the latter increases, so will the former. But watch out— the increase in troubles is exceedingly easy to underestimate, as I’ll try to illustrate. Also, please excuse my rather crude attempt at quantifying the problem. I’m not a mathematician, but I hope to represent the kind of thinking involved in making complex enterprises work productively, if not always smoothly. 

What’s rock & roll got to do with it?

Like lots of other baby boomers, my young years included the agony and the ecstasy of being part of a rock & roll band. We had high hopes and competent musicians, and at times it seemed that the sky was the limit. What stopped us were issues that had nothing to do with music: Conflicts of interest, differences in preferences, egos, and insecurities— a whole range of nonmusical factors that worked together to “discombobulate” our best efforts.  Those kinds of problems inevitably emerge in any human enterprise, and I later distilled the lessons I learned into a principle I now call the “Law of Escalating Troubles” (LET, if you like acronyms). I even cooked up a formula that relates the number of participants in an enterprise to the difficulty in accomplishing whatever ends are involved. For the moment, I’ll limit my illustration to the number of participants in pop music ensembles, but its application to other kinds of systems should be evident.

Troubles escalate exponentially relative to the number of participants involved. There are difficulties in executing any organized task, including performing music as a solo act. Add more musicians, and there will be more coordination issues, regardless of the competency of those involved. Based on my own experience and some of the tragic stories of highly successful music ensembles of the past (think of Simon & Garfunkel, The Supremes, The Beatles, or whomever you choose), I’ve come to accept that it is much easier to underestimate than to overestimate the amount of chaos that ensues with greater numbers of participants. Let’s just assume that a solo act might involve five units of difficulty to execute. How big an increase in troubles might we expect if we expanded the group to two, a duet?  One estimate might be 5 x 2, or 10. The “Law of Escalating Troubles” warns against such a rosy prediction, however, suggesting that 52, or 25 “units of difficulty” would be a safer to anticipate. For ensembles of three, four, and five, the estimates would be 53 (125), 54 (625), and 55 (3,125), respectively. With each individual added, the potential for problems doesn’t just simply increase—  It skyrockets.

Despite the obvious problems of the above predictive system, it does speak to my first point— that it’s all too easy to underestimate the number and variety of problems that are sure to emerge in human systems. While I’m obviously not a mathematician, I am sure that anyone who has managed people can relate at least to some degree to something along the lines of what is being suggested here. I would even go so far as to wager that the better that those who manage people relate to it, the more successful that they are.

The mindset of successful leadership

My second point is more important: That countless examples exist of leaders who successfully offset the forces that cause chaos and produce marvelous results.  Leadership, perhaps more than anything else, is the central theme of human history.  When people are productive, prosperous, and safe, it’s because of wise leaders who understand how to anticipate problems and coordinate human activity to deal with them. When things deteriorate, look to failures in leadership for the root causes. Let’s accentuate the positive and focus on some crucial aspects of the mindset of highly successful leaders that any of us may incorporate to our own benefit:

They expect problems— not just those that are intrinsic to their immediate business, but problems in the generic sense. They carry some version of “The Law of Escalating Troubles” around with them at all times, and figure it into their planning and daily dealings.

They love history— the best leaders are invariably history buffs. They admire those who have managed to create ways to surmount the seemingly insurmountable. This not only provides inspiration, but can be a form of entertainment, relaxation, and a source of personal growth.

They never underestimate their own potential for error— they watch out for their own humanity, learn to laugh at their own foibles, and they learn from their mistakes. Note that the best cases of leadership have traditionally exploited their weaknesses and benefited from doing so.

They are never afraid to seek counsel— far too many people in leadership positions suffer from the sense that doing so is a sign of weakness. If you think you have all of the answers, that’s a warning sign that that should be acted upon immediately.

Noting the four elements above, remember that only those leaders that are ever in search of ways to improve themselves can be counted among the best, so never stop looking for the means to do so yourself. Books, seminars, and other sources may not have all the answers, but your openness to them is a good sign.

Summary

In addition to being high drive goal setters who know their business and communicate effectively, successful leaders are also lifelong learners who are characterized by humility as well as confidence. What is often less emphasized however, is their appreciation for the pervasiveness of human error and its inevitability. An additional aspect of effective leaders that is often overlooked is their love of history and what it has to offer. Most of all, they are always on the lookout for ways to improve themselves.  The old electrician I cited at the outset was successful because of his constructive outlook on human error. He also happened to be a history buff.  I’ve always appreciated his simple, but useful insights and his ability to put them to work in himself and those he led.  Hopefully, you will too.