A leader who demands perfection is bound to end up disappointed. This is not to say that leaders should accept sub-par performance, but they should see this as a chance to develop an imperfect subordinate, not to dismiss them altogether. A zero-failure leader is one who will not tolerate a lapse in performance or ability, and who treats all transgressions, regardless of severity or impact, as being equally intolerable. This in itself may seem like a sound approach, but it is in reality idealistic. A leader may aim for a zero-failure organisation, but if that is their expectation and if it forms a part of their leadership philosophy, they are setting themselves up for failure. 

Are you angry with him whose armpits stink? Are you angry with him whose mouth smells foul? What good will this anger do you? He has such a mouth, he has such armpits: it is necessary that such an emanation must come from such things — but the man has reason, it will be said, and he is able, if he takes pains, to discover wherein he offends. Well then, and you, too, have reason: by your rational faculty stir up his rational faculty; show him his error, admonish him. For if he listens, you will cure him, and there is no need of anger, the stuff of tragic actors and whores.

Meditations Marcus Aurelius Book V, Chapter XXII

A zero-fail approach needs to be coincided with a willingness to motivate and support subordinates, helping them to achieve the ambitious aim, and accepting that it is not always possible. Where a failure is observed, a leader should see this as a chance to learn and improve themselves and their team. Subordinates who expect severe punishment for even slight errors are more likely to become overly cautious and risk-averse, lest they draw the ire of their leader. At the small team level this erodes effectiveness and cohesion. At the strategic level it may lead to falsification, such as the inflated body-counts during the latter stages of the Vietnam conflict.

Central to the meditations of Aurelius is the notion of tempering one’s response to stimulus. This encourages a reserve of emotion, and control over thoughts and actions, predicated on the idea that it is only over the self that a person may have mastery, through their “rational faculty”. The universality of rational faculty is something a leader must be aware of when mentoring subordinates. Whereas a zero-failure leader may dismiss a poorly-performing subordinate altogether, a leader with a more keen sense of empathy will recognise an opportunity to develop them and “stir up [their] rational faculty”, and in so doing, encourage them to greater performance. 

The logic on which this dictum is based is the idea that no one (extreme cases notwithstanding) intentionally performs to a poor standard. It follows that bad performance results from extenuating circumstances. It is the obligation of the leader to identify these causes and work with the subordinate to address them, resulting in benefit to the leader, the individual, the team, and the organization overall. 

Aurelius suggests that “him whose armpits stink” is likely to be unaware of this affliction. It would thus be illogical to punish the individual, without first informing them of their deficiency, and providing an opportunity to correct it. In a contemporary leadership setting this can be achieved through formal or informal counselling and the subsequent development of a plan to rectify the shortcoming, which is able to be monitored and quantified. Aurelius concludes that the offender will, in following such a plan, be “cured”. Should this not be the case then further action needs necessarily be sought. Consistent throughout is the admonishment of anger as an unhelpful response, deriding it as “the stuff of tragic actors and whores”. The implication is that at no stage is anger warranted, nor is it beneficial. 

Underpinning all of this is the necessity for empathy. Without this, it is impossible to for the leader to fully appreciate the situation and devise a solution that benefits the subordinate and the team. 

So how can leaders improve themselves through the application of this mediation? The first step, as in most of the mediations, is to learn to control reaction. Anger, or unreasoned punishment, is not conducive to the establishment of an effective team. Subordinates will become resentful of a leader who displays little self-control or respect to the team. As a result, they will produce work that merely placates the leader, rather than enhances the greater organizational good.

Once this control has been achieved, the next step is to establish the reason for, or the circumstances that led to, a supposed failure. There may be personal problems that require rectification, or it may be the result of a training or experience deficiency. Whatever the case, these are best resolved through an action plan, rather than a myopic drive towards punishment. When punishment is warranted, this does not obviate the need to address the extant issues. In identifying and treating the root cause, the leader is insuring themselves against recurrence, rather than seeking a quick-fix.

Finally, this presents a good opportunity for a leader to reinforce the standards they expect of their team. That they were not met is an indication that they were poorly articulated in the first instance, or that they have slipped from the team’s consciousness. The act of reinforcing these standards demonstrates the commitment of the leader to their team and to the goals to which the team is working. 

Through these three actions, leaders demonstratea capacity for empathy that will strengthen their position at the head of their teams. For the zero-failure leader, this seems like making concessions; however, the trust and respect that will be gained will far outweigh any benefit from a punishment driven approach. 

Ultimately this meditation is about respect. A respected leader respects the merits of their team members and does not treat them as anonymous slaves to the organizational effort. This is achieved by not regarding poor-performance as an insult or deliberate act of sabotage, but rather seeing it as a chance to motivate, mentor, and guide subordinates, and therefore the team, to a better result in the future. 

CAPT Brenton Realph is an officer in the Royal Australian Infantry Corps and is currently posted to the Combined Arms Training Centre, working in the Land Range Safety Branch. His operational service includes Iraq as a mentor and team leader, and Malaysia and Papua New Guinea as an instructor. He is a Malaysian linguist and is currently undertaking a Masters degree in War Studies.