(Repost from October 19, 2017) Are the best leaders currently excellent? No, they are not. The best leaders are those who always strive to become a little bit stronger in the near future. In a recent article in the Harvard Business Review the authors identify that Good Leaders are Good Learners.[link] Leaders who are in “learning mode” tend to develop stronger leadership skills than their peers.
This learning mode is exhibited through three behaviors:
“First, leaders set challenging learning goals in the form of ‘I need to learn how to…’”
“Next, they find ways to deliberately experiment with alternative strategies.”
“Finally, leaders who are in learning mode conduct fearless after-action reviews, determined to glean useful insights from the results of their experimentation.”
Several organizational indicators of the fixed-mindset mentality are contrary to the idea of a “learning mode.” Consider psychometric testing that selects the most innately qualified leaders on a snapshot basis. How useful is this information if you can’t identify an upward trend? If the rules in your business keep changing, what use do you have for a leader who was top-performing under last year’s rules? Surely the best leaders are the ones who can move upward and onward from any new starting point. You get to change the rules more often with these types of leaders. The world is experiencing more changes of the rules, so these types of people are well-suited for the current era.
Also consider the use of forced ranking performance appraisals and winner-take-all reward systems. Basically, these systems use backward-looking performance indicators that anoint those at a high performance level as worthy of recognition. But with a learning mode mindset, those mitigating from a disadvantageous starting point might be your new heroes. Especially if they are learning and leading along the way.
My interpretation is that the “learning mode” mindset is simply the leadership-development element of an engaged workplace. If you’re required to lead an engaged learning organization, only those with a growth mindset will excel. And when they excel, the business will perform better. So the leader, the culture, and organizational performance will move in synch.
Leaders cannot get fearless feedback unless they have fostered a workplace of high trust and two-way communication. Leaders cannot openly name the things they need to learn unless they have sense of humility and an absence of back-stabbing amongst leaders. Leaders cannot experiment with alternative strategies unless they have permission to fail; an onus of perfection would oblige leaders to stick to the tried-and-true.
It’s reassuring to know that a variety of broader truths are coming out of the evidence. Engagement, learning, leadership, and change are all built on a foundation of focus, collaboration, curiosity, and trust.
Now if only we could make sure those types of people are actually put in charge, I think we would be set. But that doesn’t always happen, does it? It’s a warning-shot to those who think they are already awesome. Excellence is in knowing your next step.
You can inadvertently become the creepy leader. To avoid doing so, you need to know more about what creepiness actually is. Here’s an example. If you are a parent, you may have noticed in your duties as tooth fairy that you need to safely hide the teeth. In our family it was my duty to make the money-for-tooth exchange silently in the dark. Also in the darkness – but not as stealthily – I would diligently place the tooth in the hiding space my wife had designated, in the middle drawer of her jewellery case. One time in the light of day my wife fully-opened the drawer, saw the collection of teeth in all its glory, and screamed. She was creeped out by herself. We joked about making a necklace, and we laughed and laughed. They’re gone now.
Creepiness was the subject of fresh research published two years ago in the paper On the Nature of Creepiness. It’s by Francis T. McAndrew and Sara S. Koehnke in New Ideas in Psychology as of March 30, 2016. It’s only six pages long, it’s well-written, and you can download it here.
The Definition of Creepiness
They define creepiness as follows:
A mugger who points a gun in your face and demands money is certainly threatening and terrifying. Yet, most people would probably not use the word “creepy” to describe this situation. It is our belief that creepiness is anxiety aroused by the ambiguity of whether there is something to fear or not and/or by the ambiguity of the precise nature of the threat (e.g., sexual, physical violence, contamination, etc) that might be present. Such uncertainty results in a paralysis as to how one should respond. In the mugging situation, there is no ambiguity about the presence or nature of threat. [Emphasis added]
The findings from the paper come from a survey of 1341 people who ranked items on a creepiness scale. They ranked careers, behaviours, hobbies, and features of physical appearance. With some consistency, the items at the top of the creepiness scale represent an ambiguity of whether there is something we should fear.
The creepiest occupations are clown, taxidermist, sex shop owner, and funeral director. Creepy behaviours are things like standing too close, making it impossible to leave, and odd clothing or laughter. The creepy features of appearance are greasy hair, bulging eyes, long fingers, and pale skin (i.e. features that make people look like a zombie or a skeleton). Creepy hobbies include things that involve a lot of watching (such as bird watching), or collecting dolls, insects, or body parts. I mean really, who collects body parts?
It’s fascinating that creepiness, although real, is three steps removed from a matter of substance. The substantial item is harm. You take it back one step and perceive a threat, which is the intention of harm or the likelihood one will experience harm. Then you perceive the ambiguity of that threat. The final step is that this ambiguity is subjectively-felt as anxiety. So, whereas there may be material evidence of harm after it has been experienced, creepiness anticipates harm, three steps removed, has less evidence, and is hard to prove. It’s no wonder why creeps lurk in this environment.
Eliminating Creepiness in the Workplace
It’s one thing to understand creepiness in public spaces. But what does this new understanding about creepiness say about how we should behave at work? We know that leadership and organizational culture shape our environment. As a manager or human resources professional you have significant influence over several perceived risks such as health & safety, workplace cleanliness, and sexual harassment. You can also influence things that could adversely affect the employee’s economic wellbeing such as layoffs, promotions, and performance conversations. It is critical to convey a sense that you mean the best and you’re not going to sacrifice the employee’s wellbeing for your own self-interest.
There are also risks associated with the questionable use of data. If you handle data about peoples’ address, benefits claims, and participation in wellbeing programs, you should feel a great sense of responsibility. Add to that the secrets given to you by other managers about secret agendas and the organization’s direction, and you soon discover that you are truly a guardian of privileged information that can be used for good or evil.
Handling information properly can impact your reputation and how people feel about your leadership and your judgment. You need to feel that healthy sense of fear that if you mishandled something, bad things could happen. When I snuck into my children’s bedrooms at night to swap money for teeth, I was quite worried that I would be exposed as the tooth fairy and scar their innocence. I felt the weight of generations past, that I must do this one thing well.
If confidential work is done poorly, you could harm a third party, the organization, or your own career. The harm could be a matter of substance. Or it could simply be a threat to those affected. If you cannot provide credible assurances that you mean the best, then you are creating ambiguity about a threat of harm.
You can inadvertently become the creepy leader.
To avoid being creepy you need to be truthful, consistent, and transparent. Or to be precise, you need to show a competent handling of truth and transparency, as if lying and secrecy were things you only do as a duty to society. After the truth is known, will people say you did the right thing?
More than anything, trust is about advancing a sense of integrity and authenticity, that things are as they seem. A trustworthy environment allows people to forget about bad things. Trust allows people to stop spending precious work hours protecting themselves and each other. If you want people to contribute their best work and share their best ideas, they need to feel safe.
So could you please keep your story straight about the tooth fairy? Other leaders are trying to keep it together, too. We need to tell the same story. And keep that tooth collection hidden.
Is there something about payroll systems that cause everyone who mucks with them to be destroyed? It’s as if payroll systems have deep dark secrets, requiring years of study to allow people to interact with them safely. Indiana Jones achieved a doctorate before his most epic physical quests. How much do we need to learn about payroll systems before attempting to make improvements?
In last week’s blog post I provided a summary of the Auditor General’s report on the Government of Canada’s Phoenix payroll fiasco. Whenever I read about the Phoenix fiasco, I shed a tear for anyone who has goals. Payroll is supposed to be one of those things that happens automatically in the background. The rules are clear, the numbers are known, and most of the decisions have already been made. All that’s required is that we upgrade the software every few decades. What could possibly go wrong?
But it is exactly that presumptuousness which is fatal. Have you ever talked to a payroll person? These are people who quietly persevere doing intelligent work with no glory. They are careful, and they discourage foolish moves. Do they know something I don’t about the risks of screwing everything up?
Payroll Systems are Like Russian Winter
I came up with Nazi Germany’s invasion of Soviet Russia as the right metaphor to describe the Phoenix payroll fiasco. It is a great allegory that demonstrates how grand plans can be ruined by a complex landscape and the blindness of arrogance.
There’s a really good article about winter combat produced by the U.S. Army. It’s titled Fighting the Russians in Winter: Three Case Studies, by Dr. Allen F. Chew, December 1981 under the Leavenworth Papers series from the Combat Studies Institute. It covers three major battles, the third of which is the battle between Germany and Russia in the winter of 1941-42.
With winter combat, preparing well in advance is key. Combat engagements in the freezing winter are sensitive to whether troops have “…appropriate clothing, weapons, and transport for that harsh environment. Acclimatization and pertinent training are also essential.” Appropriate transport means pony carts, as the animals keep warm when busy. For appropriate weapons, landmines malfunction when the detonator is encrusted with ice. Burning campfires with charcoal instead of wood reduces the visibility of the plume of smoke.
The Soviets also had larger numbers of trained ski troops because they had learned from their engagement in Finland a few years earlier. Skis are critical for covering longer distances without getting exhausted. This lesson was available to anyone who did their homework. For the Russians, this homework was like an overview of yesterday’s lecture.
Also, defense has the advantage. Soldiers on the offensive must expose themselves to freezing winds in addition to oncoming gunfire. Attackers also lose the element of surprise because sound travels better on the snow’s crust. Those who stay-put are more likely to win.
There is a theme that you must hang back a little, and look for small tactical tips that make a big difference. Leaders must seek out this information and reflect on what this means for efforts big and small.
The Cold Teaches You Humility in Leadership
Leadership and strategy are all about the embodiment and communication of the most suitable emotional state and mindset. With winter combat, what is most important is having humility, knowing there is so much to learn. There’s a traditionalist saying that we stand on the backs of giants. Those who came before us learned their lessons the hard way, and we must heed their lessons. Particularly if they lost.
…perhaps the most important lesson is simply the folly of ignoring the pertinent lessons. …the highest German commanders were slow to profit from Russian examples [of the past] because of their feeling of superiority, and some refused to learn until they went down in defeat. There may be a message for others in that conceit. [p. 41, emphasis added]
These lessons echo the Phoenix payroll fiasco, as Phoenix was an epic blunder of arrogance and the negation of contrary evidence. We can interpret that the size and importance of a major project can warp a leader’s ego. Unwieldy efforts can be intimidating, and in order to move them forward you may need some bold and reckless courage. But that’s an emotional posture that you would need to choose, logically. If you actually are a bold and reckless person whose courage comes from an illogical abandonment of information, then you’re in a pickle. Instead of advancing emotional strength, you may be advancing emotions that are relatively stronger than a hobbled intellect. And that spells trouble.
Phoenix was most significantly damaged by the failure to identify that centralizing payroll processing in Miramichi resulted in a skills and productivity dip amongst new staff. The phenomenon was real, and incoming information that this skills dip was a material problem turned out to be something that could not be overlooked. Executives negated the evidence, and small problems became part of a landscape that could not be overcome.
A more reasonable goal is to not be destroyed by the landscape. You would develop this goal because you observed from experience, and from your homework, that the environment is humbling.
Maybe you, too, can adopt the chill demeanor of a payroll representative wearing wool socks by the fire when it’s winter outside. Who wants to go outside and play? Not me. I think I’ll sip hot chocolate while looking out the window, watching the snowfall, ever so slowly.
What if junior staff and those far from head office knew more than their superiors? It’s an impolite question which may offend those who have worked so hard to get to the top. But it’s an important question to ask.
In February 2016 the Government of Canada implemented the Phoenix payroll system, and it was bungled from the start. According to the Auditor General’s report in Spring 2018, mistakes were consistently made by three Phoenix executives that negated the input and information coming from those lower ranking than themselves, and those who did not work in their particular bunker. Auditor’s reports make for great reading, because they are often “true crime” page-turners of corporate malfeasance. Let’s take a closer look.
The Productivity of New Employees at the Miramichi Pay Centre
The first stage of the Phoenix project was to centralize staff working with the old software, then the new software would be brought in. But the project team chose Miramichi, New Brunswick as the geographic location for centralization. The previous system was staffed by people all over the country, so the move to Miramichi was a tough sell. Many experienced pay advisors chose not to move.
Because of the move, there was a loss of experience and a drop in productivity. A lot of staff were new. Think to the first time you have done anything – you’re slower until you hit your stride. It takes months to get on top of the work, after which you eliminate errors and do things faster and easier. But there was no allowance for this ramp-up in the Phoenix schedule, and no anticipation this time was even needed. Prior to the move, each pay advisor could handle an average workload of 184 pay files. After the move, productivity dropped to 150 files.
This was troublesome because Public Services and Procurement Canada had expected productivity would rise to 200 files per advisor. This gap played out on the grand scale.
…Miramichi pay advisors could handle a total of about 69,000 pay files, not the 92,000 files the Department had transferred to the Pay Centre. …outstanding pay requests were already increasing because of centralization, and pay advisors in Miramichi were already complaining of excessive workload and stress. …Even though pay advisors were less productive than what was expected of them, Phoenix executives still expected that their productivity would more than double when they started to use Phoenix. [Paragraphs 1.71-1.72]
Some Interpretations on How to Mitigate a Tactical Blunder
If information was shared and accepted, there might have been a clear opportunity to overcome the problems at the Pay Centre. Centralization required either the acceptance of a downshift in experience level and hence more staff would be required. Or they could allow additional time for expertise and productivity to slowly build. As a third alternative, centralization would need to include locations where there was an established labour market.
But these are all tactical solutions to tactical problems. The strategic issue is that powerful people were negating information that was coming from the ground. It’s a “no complaining” mindset. And because the tactical complaints were real, leadership decisions to negate these voices caused tactical problems to overpower strategy.
Yes, Org Charts and Internal Audits are Important
The larger and more complicated a project is, the more important internal audit becomes. The Auditor General’s report asserts that a proper audit prior to implementation “would have given the Deputy Minister an independent source of assurance… that could have resulted in a different implementation decision.” There were guidelines in place for independent review, but the review was controlled by three Phoenix executives. Those executives determined the interview questions and the list of interviewees. The interviewees chosen were all members of the Phoenix project team, who were under the thumb of those same executives. So, watch what you say…
The project had significant problems with governance and the chain of command. The organizational chart shows a reporting structure that bottlenecks through the three Phoenix executives who in turn reported to the Deputy Minister. There was no direct line to the Deputy Minister that was unfiltered by those three people. Say anything you want, and they’ll pass it along. Or not.
The Fake Consultation Meeting
In order for a meeting to be productive, you need the right people in the room and freedom for those people to share information and opinions. However, the key meeting prior to implementation was rigged to provide one-directional information flow. The briefing was January 29, 2016 when 30 deputy ministers from across government were told that Phoenix was about to be implemented. Fourteen departments and agencies provided feedback prior to the meeting that they had “significant concerns with Phoenix”. But the people leading the project assured those in attendance that all the issues had been resolved. Critics were cautioned that any delays would cost too much money and cause a knock-on series of additional delays. They were going ahead.
The project’s leaders didn’t have to try hard to win people over. That is because Public Services and Procurement Canada chose this particular briefing meeting because it did not have any decision-making authority.
As an information-sharing and advisory forum, the Committee could not formally challenge the information it received from Public Services and Procurement Canada or the decision to implement Phoenix. [Paragraph 1.100]
All subsequent stories were about pay advisors struggling to get out from under a backlog as their workload doubled while grappling with a new piece of software. In the story of this project’s failure there is little discussion about the quality of the new software itself, because the project was eaten alive by the landscape.
Appropriate Leadership Styles in Information-Heavy Strategic Efforts
It’s too bad there weren’t low-level people who were free to speak their mind about how things were going. And it’s curious how high-ranking people could develop a lifestyle where they never talk to lower-ranking people. Why do leaders do this to themselves? I know that democracy can be unpleasant and messy. And egalitarianism involves a lot of extra work. But for senior people to be so single-minded in their goals that they would bar feedback from those they are affecting goes beyond arrogance and into strategic self-harm.
It’s like reverse-provincialism. Provincialism is the notion that there are people living in remote areas who are less sophisticated and overly concerned with their local issues, to the detriment of higher-level goals. But what if people in the provinces and remote pockets of the hierarchy are the ones who have a better grasp of the truth? What do we do about high-level people in head offices who know nothing about what’s happening in the field? What do we do about people who think their big fancy plans are brilliant and best, when they are really just playing fancy board games for which the only prize is a slightly more expensive used car.
I know what we should do with these people. We should teach them.
We need to get excited about maintenance, according to a great counter-intuitive article by Andrew Russell and Lee Vinsel. The authors propose that we should give “maintenance” higher priority in our society. By maintenance they are mostly referring to government-owned physical infrastructure; ensuring it is functioning, well-maintained, and not closed-down for emergency repairs. While the authors also tip their hats to computer infrastructure, the connection to public transit keeps the idea tangible for everyone.
The article asserts that “Americans have an impoverished and immature conception of technology, one that fetishizes innovation as a kind of art and demeans upkeep as mere drudgery.” They highlight that while “innovation” describes the art of doing something new, technology broadly-defined should rightfully consider technology that is mid-life or old.
Many of the coolest stories in business shine a light on this misunderstood area. There are vulture funds that pick up the assets of distressed companies and refurbish the “old” company into something new. There are entrepreneurs that buy old, depreciated assets at bargain-basement prices and in the process net high percentage returns on the asset they got for cheap. There is a company in my region that tried to close down their business, held an auction to unload their old equipment, and discovered that auctioning is an incredibly lucrative business to get into.
But those stories are a little too sexy; let’s get back to drudgery. It turns out that a large number of engineers and computer programmers are devoted to maintaining something that has already been created. In addition, maintenance workers are often paid less than those who are closest to ribbon-cutting ceremonies, IPOs, and product launches.
Workforce Management and the Maintenance of Human Capital
The connection to human resources is that people are trying to articulate how we should think of employees as “human capital.” The phrase itself invokes a metaphor that the people who show up every day are a treasure that you invest in and get great work out of. Perhaps we should extend the metaphor into the importance of human capital maintenance. Do we have opportunities to conserve, re-build, renovate, and polish-up our pre-existing cadre of staff? If you think about it for a while, examples abound:
When employees are injured, there is significant value to intervening early to help them stay at work or return to work sooner. The “return to work” field is a specialized field which has a knack to it, and major employers take these efforts seriously.
It is well understood that new hires have higher engagement than longer-serving staff. By default, the implication is that if you want to improve engagement, your greatest opportunity is with longer-service staff. At the crux of workforce analytics and employee engagement is the opportunity to refresh the workplace experience of those hired long ago.
In the c-suite, there is the recurring challenge that “culture eats strategy for breakfast.” (Drucker) However, it is understood that workplace culture changes very slowly. This tension implies that those who want to advance a strategy must have significant understanding of the longer-serving staff who carry the workplace culture. Perhaps looking to the wisdom of longer-serving staff is an easier way to predict which initiatives will take hold in the pre-existing culture?
When attempting workforce analytics and workforce planning efforts that align to strategy, stale strategy documents and longer-serving executives can be your only opportunity for alignment. New executives and new strategy documents can have a long runway, in some cases with a perpetual churn.
Long-serving staff tend to learn a number of shortcuts that allow them to achieve their work goals more easily. This grab-bag of quick-tips, tacit knowledge, and mature social networks are a troublesome source of high productivity. Workplaces fear the retirement of long-service employees who understand the physical and organizational machinery in a manner that is undocumented. In such cases there is a demand for knowledge management, the active cultivation of repositories of information where tacit knowledge is curated and transferred between newer and longer-serving staff.
As millennials age, our struggles to understand this generation are going to shift. It’s not so much that we don’t know what they’re thinking (they tend to just tell us). Rather, what will their experience be as millennial managers, dealing with the next batch of young whipper-snappers in Generation Z? This multi-generational transfer of energy and wisdom will demand a workplace culture of humility and curiosity. Workplace traditions can emerge in just a couple of years, and can evolve around the behaviors of employees young and old. Yet it is not so much the best perspective that matters; it is the ability to move a diversity of perspectives amongst peers.
As the shine comes off workforce planning and workplace analytics as a novelty, we are obliged to take our practice into a mode where great work is done quietly, well, and with a known value. As we look at the legacy of buzzwords that came before us and the shiny new practices to come, there is a new opportunity to understand the boundary between engineering drawings, breaking the ground, and replacing broken parts. Cultivating and maintaining people, their knowledge, their relationships, and the workplace culture are key to delivering strategy. There is an opportunity for your employees to age gracefully and keep delivering the goods.
Several of the things that make work unpleasant are actually making you more effective. And that bodes well for increasing your value, improving your job security, and advancing your career.
I have a confession to make. I keep a list of things that I have failed at. It’s on the back-page of my in-house accountability document, the “boast report” where I write down my team’s accomplishments for the year. Only a few people have read it, contrary to the very spirit of boasting.
The document came in handy one time when my value was questioned. My own boss simply forwarded the document to another senior leader, and that was the end of debate. It was seven pages long… in bullet form. I doubled-down after that and started to list efforts where I had attempted and failed. It’s one of my favorite things to do.
Talking About Mistakes Improves Learning and Relationships
We have come a long way since feeling shame about our mistakes. And talking openly about our failures is considered a key to success.
We must now think of talking openly about mistakes as a key to success. A New York Times article by Oset Babur from August 17, 2018 delves into the research on meaningful failures.
Babur talks with Allison Wood Brooks from Harvard Business School, who encourages people to discuss their failures. That is because “…discussing failures can help to humanize the sharer by making them seem more approachable and relatable in the workplace. It also generally increased levels of so-called ‘benign envy,’ which can motivate and drive employees to perform better.”
It brings to mind the principle from Brené Brown’s famous TED talk that making yourself vulnerable is the key to meaningful relationships.
By contrast, boasting about your achievements creates malicious envy. Attempts to convey an image of perfection are “…harmful for those in leadership positions who risk coming across as disingenuous..” It’s an in-person version of the effects of Facebook, that if everyone is portraying their best moments, it makes us collectively miserable we’re not doing as well as everyone else. To be precise, if we are engaging with others about what is truly happening in their lives, we become more connected and happier. But if we’re passive observers of these boasts, we become increasingly unhappy.
Babur interviews Amy Edmonston from Harvard Business School who describes different types of failures. One failure type is called intelligent failure, which occurs “when we’re working in areas in which we don’t have expertise or experience, or in areas that are unchartered in a broad, industry-wide sense.” Intelligent failures are a result of exploration and they generate new information. Refusing to talk about failure prevents learning, causing a recurrence of the same mistake. You need a safe environment where you can trust that talking about failure will be valuable.
Constructive Friction – How Jerks Make You More Effective
But you don’t want to be too safe. It’s also helpful talking to people you disagree with. To summarize, jerks make you more productive. An August 2018 Linkedin article by Michael Arena reports on research from Stanford University’s Bob Sutton and Huggy Rao when describing feedback on ideas produced in-house:
…constructive friction is essential to scaling ideas because the resistance to the initial concept creates a pressure-testing effect that encourages iteration and co-creation. …when ideas and concepts are modified in response to friction from another team, their perspective is incorporated, therefore enhancing the likelihood of broader organizational endorsement. Internal friction, creates organizational lift—much the way headwinds assist with an aircraft’s takeoff.
Arena notes that there is a distinction between constructive friction and destructive friction. Yes, there are jerks who are just dragging things down and poisoning the organizational culture. The positive force is constructive colleagues on rival teams that provide brutal-yet-accurate feedback that your first and second drafts are not going to fly. It’s as if we need a companion course for respectful workplace workshops, that if you truly love your colleagues you must give powerful feedback.
Is there anyone in your workplace who cares for you in this way? I hope so. Sometimes you need friends who always take your side. But other friends keep you guessing. And it’s the ones that keep you guessing that are helping you grow.
Instability and Uncertainty Cause Your Brain to Learn
In an Inc.com article from August 2018 Jessica Stillman shares research that you only learn when you are uncertain about the outcome. The research comes from Yale’s Daeyeol Lee who did research on monkeys.
…scientists taught a group of monkeys to hit various targets for a reward of tasty juice. Sometimes the odds of a particular target producing a sweet treat were fixed … Sometimes the target was more unpredictable… If the monkeys could predict how often a target would pay off, brain regions associated with learning basically shut down. When the monkeys couldn’t guess what would happen, their learning centers lit up.
Once you have figured out the best way of doing something, such as your commute home, you stop thinking about it and don’t try to improve the outcome. “For this reason, stability kills learning.”
Stillman recommends that in order to keep learning, you need to seek the unpredictable and bring “strategic instability” into your life. She recommends travel, change of routine, new projects, and seeking unusual perspectives, including a list that she got from Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison.
The Best Workplace Culture is Not Too Cozy
You may have thought that if you achieved success, you might get to live a life that is easier. You won’t have to deal with jerks, things will finally become settled and comfortable, and you will only have to talk about success. But the opposite is true. To be a winner you must expose yourself to constant disruption, seek out the jerks, and talk openly about your failures. You can’t climb to the top and rest, because that pile of people below you is still moving. You must always be in play, always strive to break even and get ahead. Excellence is in the striving, not in being there.
Talking about failure without punishment depends on the trust level in the organization. The high-productivity learning organization needs a workplace culture that nurtures, provides support, and fosters trust. Only then can we get that savage feedback we desperately need. Only then can we stay constantly on-edge with new changes that keep us learning every day.
You can slip into bed at night knowing that on average, the world is just. These uncomfortable moments feel good when they end. To sleep, perchance to fail.