Have you ever noticed how some leaders have an amazing ability to take credit for success while avoiding responsibility for failure?
When the organization exceeds its goals, they’re quick to explain how their vision, strategy, and leadership made it possible.
But when something goes wrong, suddenly it’s the employees who failed to execute, the managers who didn’t communicate, or the circumstances nobody could have anticipated.
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
I’ve encountered this kind of leadership over the years, and I’ve never understood how anyone could believe it inspires confidence or loyalty.
If you’re going to take credit for the victories, you’d better be willing to accept responsibility for the defeats.
Unfortunately, some leaders seem to operate under a different set of rules.
Success belongs to them. Failure belongs to everyone else.
And the people working for them know it.
Think about what happens when an organization achieves something significant. Perhaps a company lands an important contract, a department exceeds its performance goals, or a military unit successfully completes a difficult mission.
There may have been dozens of people working behind the scenes, solving problems, putting in long hours, and making sacrifices to accomplish that result.
Yet when it’s time to celebrate, the person at the top sometimes becomes the center of attention.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with leaders being recognized for their contributions. Setting the direction, providing resources, making difficult decisions, and keeping people focused are important responsibilities.
But those responsibilities don’t diminish the contributions of everyone else.
A leader who accepts the applause without acknowledging the people who made success possible sends a message that won’t soon be forgotten.
And when failure occurs, that message becomes even clearer.
Imagine an employee who follows management’s instructions, works diligently, and encounters a problem that could have been prevented with better planning or communication.
Instead of examining what happened, the boss immediately looks for someone to blame.
The employee becomes the convenient explanation for a failure that may have originated several levels higher.
That’s not accountability. That’s self-preservation.
And there’s a difference between holding someone responsible for a mistake and using that person to protect your own reputation.
During my military service, I learned that command responsibility carries obligations that extend beyond simply giving orders.
A commander is responsible for establishing expectations, providing direction, and ensuring that people have the resources and training necessary to accomplish their mission.
That doesn’t mean every mistake made by a subordinate is automatically the commander’s fault.
People remain responsible for their own actions, and poor performance must sometimes have consequences.
But leaders cannot reasonably expect their people to accept responsibility while refusing to examine their own decisions.
The same principle applies in business.
If an employee repeatedly fails to meet clearly established expectations despite receiving appropriate training and support, the leader has an obligation to address the problem.
But if an entire department consistently struggles, perhaps the first question shouldn’t be what’s wrong with the employees.
Perhaps it should be what’s wrong with the way they’re being led.
Are expectations realistic? Have people received adequate resources? Were concerns raised and ignored? Did management make commitments it couldn’t fulfill?
Those questions may lead to uncomfortable answers.
And that’s precisely why they matter.
I’ve always believed that one of the most revealing moments in leadership comes when something goes wrong.
It’s easy to appear confident and generous when everything is running smoothly. It’s considerably harder when customers are unhappy, deadlines have been missed, or an important decision has produced disappointing results.
That’s when people discover what kind of leader they’re actually working for.
Will the boss immediately begin assigning blame? Will he rewrite the history of his own decisions? Will he sacrifice someone else’s reputation to preserve his?
Or will he take an honest look at what happened, accept his share of responsibility, and focus on making things right?
Employees remember those moments.
They also remember leaders who publicly recognize their accomplishments, defend them against unfair criticism, and refuse to claim personal credit for work they didn’t perform.
That kind of behavior builds something far more valuable than a flattering performance review.
It builds trust.
And trust is difficult to earn when people suspect their leader will celebrate with them when things go right but abandon them when things go wrong.
A leader who wants the credit when the team succeeds must also be willing to shoulder responsibility when the team fails.
Otherwise, he’s not leading the team.
He’s simply using it.
Dean Gemberling is a West Point graduate, former U.S. Army officer, small business owner, and author of Servant Leadership Made Simple, a practical guide to building trust, strengthening relationships, and developing more effective leaders. Explore his books and leadership insights at DeanGemberling.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA