Leaders Who Don't Lead—A Cautionary Tale

OK, it's tempting to defer tough decisions, to avoid upsetting people, to postpone the day of reckoning for the can't/won't, to hope for a magic turnaround in the late and over-budget project. It feels as if it could be easier, saving the angst and heartburn for another day.

News flash! It is not easier. For openers, the overwhelming odds are that the problem will get worse with time. To ice the cake, a deferred solution is likely to be more complicated if not faced until later in the game.

And, in a blow in which no good deed goes unpunished, a tough situation could well detonate an explosive outcome that shatters hopes and expectations beyond repair. In the political arena, one current candidate has opined that a failure to lead, not taking thoughtful action in a timely manner, severely reduces one's options for correction, remedy, rescue, or redirection.

Guess what? The observation is, first, true, and second, applicable in supply chain management, in business, and in life. Not leading, not acting, not embarking on a corrective course, makes the problem the driver and definer of the ultimate outcome. How defective is the thinking, or lack thereof, that leads to that pot of fool's gold?

At that point, the pseudo-leader is limited to purely defensive moves—explanations, excuses, papering over the residual challenge, hoping that a toothy grin and a firm handshake will overcome the negatives involved. How much better off would the situation be if the leader had initiated an active effort, with evolving options and outcome possibilities, early in the game—and been forceful and consistently firm until resolution had been reached?