#1 ·
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how much pressure there is on leaders to be the "fall guy." It’s everywhere, from corporate boardrooms to professional sports. There's this unspoken rule that if something goes sideways, the person at the top has to step up and shoulder the blame, even if the circumstances were way more complicated than a single person's mistake.
I saw a situation a few years back at my old job where a massive project failed, and the manager basically went on a public crusade to take the heat for his team, even though half the issues were due to bad software and vendor errors. It was noble, sure, but it felt almost performative. On one hand, it builds massive loyalty with the crew. On the other, it feels like we’re prioritizing "image management" over actually figuring out what went wrong so it doesn't happen again.
Is it actually better for a group when the leader takes the hit, or does it just bury the truth and prevent real accountability?
I saw a situation a few years back at my old job where a massive project failed, and the manager basically went on a public crusade to take the heat for his team, even though half the issues were due to bad software and vendor errors. It was noble, sure, but it felt almost performative. On one hand, it builds massive loyalty with the crew. On the other, it feels like we’re prioritizing "image management" over actually figuring out what went wrong so it doesn't happen again.
Is it actually better for a group when the leader takes the hit, or does it just bury the truth and prevent real accountability?