People in the DC area take State Dinners seriously. Getting invited to dine with the President and his guests at an exclusive State Dinner is the most coveted invite in Washington. How then were two people auditioning for a reality show able to just walk right in to Tuesday’s Dinner, meet the President, pose for some photos with the Vice President and then exit stage left?
It likely had to do with a break down of leadership on the Secret Service’s part. And, I’m not talking about the Director of the Agency, I am talking about the frontline supervisors that work directly in the White House. What type of climate did they create for the their employees–the Secret Service agents serving in the White House and on the President’s detail- who as humans, are susceptible to making mistakes? Did they allow for failure by coaching and mentoring agents who made mistakes back to a level of acceptable performance? Or was it a zero-tolerance, “no mistakes will be made” environment where frontline employees were hammered for even the slightest error? My guess is it was the latter- an environment hostile to mistakes- perhaps in some part due to the significance of the mission of securing the leader of the free world, our President. Yet leaders don’t allow the significance of a mission to lead them to believe their colleagues can be perfect. All humans make mistakes–true leaders know this and lead accordingly.
The break down in security at the State Dinner was the result of a poor judgment call made in a moment. A Secret Service agent scanning a guest list did not find the names of the two people standing in front of him on the list. For a split second he likely weighed his options, and chose to wave the couple past the checkpoint in order not to embarrass them by letting them know they were not on the list. Everything appeared in order, the couple handed him proper identification, they were dressed in formal attire, they looked legit– therefore the mistake must be on the list of names– the agent’s instinct did not suspect party crashers at the White House.
The decision made by the Agent or Agents involves demonstrates that there must be a fear of responsibility within the Secret Service culture at the White House. What I am talking about has nothing to do with fearing the responsibility of sacrificing one’s life for the President. I deeply respect the men and women who protect the President and their willingness to do so at all costs. What I am talking about is a simple fear that I see present in many teams in corporate America and beyond– the fear of responsibility of making a wrong choice or the fear of repercussions for making a mistake.
For some reason the Agent who realized the names of the two people seeking to crash the State Dinner were not on the guest list, chose to let them pass the checkpoint versus raising the issue to managment (and possibly embarrassing two Dinner guests and himself if he was wrong.) While the facts are still coming to light, it’s clear there was a breakdown in security that night at the White House. The media is already placing blame on the Director of the Secret Service. While ultimately senior management members should be held accountable for the mistakes of their team, if the problem is to be solved, the leadership skills of the frontline management team- the supervisors on the White House detail-should be improved.
The best leaders inspire high performance by creating a culture where mistakes can be made in a way that empowers development and excellence. Every human being will make mistakes. How managers handle those blunders sets the tone for how willing team members will be to raise the issue when a future mistake is made. When someone fears retribution for pointing out an error, they will start to make poor judgment calls to cover up mistakes. That’s what happened at the White House. Someone suspected a mistake, but they didn’t feel comfortable highlighting the concern. Instead, in an instant they made a poor choice.
That poor decision likely had something to do with a “zero tolerance” attitude towards mistakes. Great leaders treat mistakes with grace not hostility. They certainly hold people accountable for their shortcomings and work to develop them to avoid the same mistake in the future, but they recognize that humans will err. True leadership creates a climate that allows for the little mistakes in an effort to prevent the absolute failures.
When someone can crash a party at the White House, that’s a leadership failure. When a simple choice to err on the side of caution and detain a guest for further screening cannot be made by the frontline Agent, I’d question the breakdown of practical leadership skills at the lowest levels of the management chain.
Use this example as a chance to check the climate you’ve created in your office or home. Can people make decisions without the fear of retribution or ridicule if they make a mistake? Or, are they hammered for minor missteps only to render them paralyzed when it comes to making the important calls? Leaders empower others to be decisive, supporting the good choices and coaching beyond the poor choices their colleagues make. They do this so when a minor judgement call must be made to prevent a big failure, the frontline worker knows they are empowered to make the best choice without fearing ramifications if they are wrong.
