Why President Bush needs a yardstick for failure in Iraq

Having a standard for success isn't enough.

from the May 11, 2007 edition

Page 1 of 2

san francisco - President Bush has a (changing) standard for success in Iraq. But does he have a standard for failure? It's the kind of question I've faced with my clients in my work as an executive coach, helping leaders become more effective.

I met recently with a CEO client I've had for years. He has several pet projects that, in my opinion, should be shut down. His view is that, come hell or high water, they will continue until they succeed. We both have our perspectives, and many others have weighed in as well. At our recent meeting, I asked him to describe what success would look like. He did. But then I asked a tougher question: What is your standard that, if met, would leave no doubt of failure? Something that would say it's time to walk away from Business X or Project Y?

We discovered that he hadn't defined one. So as Business X limped along for nine months without scoring a win, and Project Y looked headed for defeat as well, there would continue to be plenty of opinions – but no definitive action. That's why we agreed on the need for a failure measurement that transcends opinions.

Great leaders set and stick with clear standards for failure as well as success. Others act like gambling addicts, greedily seeing only success, depleting their cash without any off switch.

Similar to my client's situation, there has never been agreement on the status of the war in Iraq because there are no agreed-upon measurements. Until such a yardstick exists, we can't agree about whether the US is winning or losing.

If we can't agree on present conditions, then it's critical that we have tripwires at both ends of the effectiveness spectrum: one for success, and one for failure.

Page 1 | 2 | Next Page