By Sage Moran and Doug Moran
“Mary” was amazingly talented. She was dedicated, smart, hard-working, savvy, and likable, and she had leveraged these assets to move up quickly. Success had bred success, and she was excited to take on her newest challenge. Her boss had asked her to take over a department that had been underperforming for the past eighteen months, and they were confident that she could turn it around.
Mary quickly realized that things were worse than she had expected, and she was concerned that, for the first time in her career, she would fail. That scared her terribly. The problem was that her boss’s expectations, and those of other key corporate stakeholders, far exceeded her team’s capacity. While she was able to fix some of the problems and improve the team’s performance, most of the issues required more people and more money. Her boss had made it clear from the outset that neither was available.
Mary had always taken pride in the jokes that she could stuff twenty pounds into a ten-pound bag. She was exceptional at living the adage of doing more with less, but now she was literally facing twice as much work as she had people to do it. She was deeply concerned. Mary and her team had spent weeks analyzing the work, investigating options, and challenging deadlines, but she kept coming to the same conclusion – she couldn’t get everything done in the time she was being given. With the facts in hand, she sat down to negotiate tradeoffs with her boss. While he was sympathetic, he declared the deadlines firm and reiterated that she wasn’t getting any more resources.
Confronted with these realities, Mary and her team developed a triage plan that optimized the team she had. She took the triage plan to her manager and other key stakeholders to ensure they understood the tradeoffs she was making. The most important thing she did was highlight those tasks she would not be doing. Mary had discussed her plans with several trusted colleagues and her mentor, who concurred with Mary’s assessment and plan. To Mary’s chagrin, her boss kept reminding her that all her projects were important and that missing any deadlines would be seen as a failure. He ended many meetings with some version of “failure is not an option.”
Despite the facts, Mary was expected to deliver, so she and her team hunkered down and did their best. Over the next six months, Mary was open and honest about their progress and equally clear about the missed deadlines, budget risks, and projects that she was not working on. Most of her key stakeholders were thrilled, but those whose projects were getting ignored began to rumble. They complained to Mary’s manager, who responded by calling her into his office to repeat his warnings about failure.
As the year came to an end, Mary and her team had delivered more than they had predicted, but she had failed to meet several critical deadlines. Mary was frustrated and scared. She knew that the results they achieved were outstanding and that the projects they delivered were far more valuable than those she had not; however, according to Mary’s boss, she had failed. Mary feared that she had done irreparable damage to her career. Fortunately, some of the complaints about her work had come to the CEO’s attention, and he decided to look into matters personally. What he found deeply troubled him. He quickly realized that Mary had presented a compelling case for more resources, which had been ignored. Worse than that, no one had the courage to push back on these shortsighted decisions. He was disappointed with Mary’s manager and the corporate executives who had failed to listen when Mary had presented a clear and compelling case. Mostly, he was angry with himself for allowing this type of culture to thrive in the company he founded. He moved quickly to address the underlying issues that had created this situation. He recognized Mary and her team for their achievements. He also asked her to lead a team to find the root causes of the thinking that had led to such poor decisions and destructive actions.
In the end, Mary’s failure led to real change. It provided a concrete, tangible demonstration of the impossibility of the demands she and her team faced. They exhausted all other methods of communication without substantial change, leaving them overburdened and overwhelmed. When their voices went unheard, action and results spoke volumes. The situation put her in a position that necessitated what we call “strategic failure.” It is the rigorous process of failing in a way that exposes challenges or problems that are being ignored. It is a risky strategy that should be used only as a last-ditch solution in unmanageable circumstances with poor communication and no feasible resolution. The risk of using “strategic failure” is evident in its name: It is a failure. It hinges on the contention that while putting forth our best effort, we are still likely to fail.
When we have tried everything to communicate the impossibility of unattainable demands, there is really no choice in being unable to meet superhuman asks (without violating our boundaries*). There is authenticity in such scenarios. When we try in earnest and demonstrate the way our unheard concerns become a reality, our failures can affect positive change. When used well, “strategic failure” can lead to positive results like those described above.
If we aren’t careful and disciplined, though, using failure as a tool can go terribly wrong. When we make the active choice to fall short in a task, we may be practicing what psychologists call “weaponized incompetence.” This label refers to when an individual acts as if or pretends that they cannot do the task, usually in the hope that someone else will assume responsibility instead. The key to identifying this behavior in ourselves is recognizing the actual ability to complete the task or the easy accessibility to it, making any failure not an inevitability. As a result, this behavior can be manipulative or passive-aggressive. This behavior may also be called “skilled incompetence” when someone uses this tactic to obtain a specific result that offloads their own burden.
As discussed above, communication is one of the most important ways to distinguish “strategic” failure from “weaponized (or skilled) incompetence.” How well or poorly we communicate will often be the determining factor. We often find ourselves in situations where our workload exceeds our capacity, and we are forced to prioritize and make hard tradeoffs. These situations can be highly stressful in many ways. First, tasks do not simply disappear when left incomplete. The reality is that assignments must be done, and sometimes saying “no” – even in the forms of “I don’t have the capacity” or “I don’t know how” – doesn’t work. Our concerns may be ignored or rejected. In which case, we may have no choice but to perform more poorly than we would like. It is the moment of direct communication of limitations as well as our earnest consideration that distinguishes ethical failure from weaponized/skilled incompetence. This direct communication must be upfront and honest, establish clear expectations, and allow the person assigning the task to seek alternatives. When, despite our clear and explicit articulation of the risks and issues, we find ourselves in an untenable position, our communications will create accountability for adverse outcomes.
To a large extent, communicating the risks associated with strategic failure comes down to saying “no.” Regardless of how well you say it, saying “no” is difficult and dangerous. It’s essential to recognize that structural, organizational, and cultural obstacles may inhibit this type of direct (seemingly contentious) communication. Some of us may be uncomfortable with setting boundaries and/or acknowledging limitations. Saying “no” requires confidence, boldness, and vulnerability. This is especially true because our accomplishments determine our career success and our (and potentially our family’s) well-being. It may feel easier to nonconfrontationally avoid difficult assignments, letting them fall to others to deal with. However, this type of passive behavior has its own risk. Portraying ourselves as inadequate or unqualified for an assignment or avoiding direct communication may create the perception we are guilty of weaponized/skilled incompetence.
It is important that we remain aware of our own behavior to avoid potential missteps that could be (or perceived to be) weaponized/skilled incompetence. What questions should we ask to help us distinguish between strategic failure and weaponized incompetence in the workplace?
- First, we can consider our motivations and intentions: Am I earnestly attempting to prioritize and complete assignments within my job description? When I pass a task to someone else, do I truly believe the other person would be a better fit? How am I choosing to prioritize responsibilities?
- Next, we can look at our access to resources: Do I have the ability (or easy access to acquire the ability) to complete the task? This includes time, training, experience, materials, etc. This piece is especially important when individuals are overworked or overburdened.
- Then, we can assess our context: Are there structures of power at play that might disproportionately negatively impact those with less privilege?
- Finally, we can analyze our communication: Have I made attempts to communicate as directly as possible in the forms the target audience(s) will be most receptive to? This communication should include elements from considering the above questions, especially in terms of one’s prioritization rationale and limitations.
Questions for Self-Analysis: The following set of questions builds off of the above for us to ask ourselves when considering the choice – or lack thereof – in a situation of overwhelm and potential failure.
- Have I communicated clearly about the situation that has created unachievable demands?
- Have I spoken explicitly about the limiting factors (time, materials, resources, etc.) as well as the necessary prioritization of tasks?
- Have I identified one clear, tangible message and communicated it to the appropriate parties?
- Have I given myself time to reflect on this situation?
- Are the unachievable demands meeting a minimum standard or a standard of perfection?
- Who else will I affect in this situation? Who will pick up the slack?
- What do I hope the outcome will be?
- Are there any emotions in my actions (towards the situation, towards others, towards yourself)? Am I feeling frustrated, tired, overworked?
- Do I feel respected? Do I respect those to whom I am sending the message?
- Have I looked at other ways to address unrealistic expectations? Some simple examples:
- Develop a workflow timeline and explicitly communicate it to team members/supervisors.
- Set definitive priorities and verbalize them to all appropriate parties with the understanding that lower-priority items may slip through the cracks.
- Solicit support from coworkers when possible.
- Set and enforce boundaries to maintain balance in the workplace.
- Meet with supervisors regularly with clear and concise feedback regarding their expectations.
- Have I considered the effectiveness of my communication? Here are some principles of effective communication:
- Clarity in ideas – Is my message clear in the mind of the sender?
- Appropriate language – Is there any room for misinterpretation of my message?
- Attention – Does my message have the attention of the receiving parties?
- Proper medium – Is the medium of the message most appropriate for both the sender and the receiver?
- Consistency – Does this message align with others I have communicated/my coworkers have communicated?
- Depth and breadth – Is this message complete? Does it contain all the necessary information?
- Proper time – Are there any time elements that may impact the receivers’ abilities to hear my message?
- Formality – Have I considered my usage of formal versus informal communication?
- Feedback – Have I gotten any indication that the appropriate parties have understood my message?
- Authenticity – Am I in alignment with my coworkers and working towards shared values and goals?
Strategic failure can be a powerful and effective tool for effecting change and communicating difficult messages, but it can also be risky. These risks aren’t just limited to those who use it. It can also adversely affect others. In the coming weeks, we will explore further the adverse impact strategic failure can have on those who lack the power or influence to avoid the problems using it can create.
*A Note on Boundaries: It is important that we consider and implement appropriate workplace boundaries when examining situations of failure. We should not have to repeatedly disrespect our own boundaries in order to meet expectations. The choice to avoid doing so does not reflect an active choice to fail, even if giving more and more to the workplace may make the impossible demands feel more achievable.
