𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 “𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁” 𝗜𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗘𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵

This is a pic from my recent swimming class.

Originally published on Linkedin - here

This is a pic from my recent swimming class.

During one session, a new, submerged metal ledge was added at the start of a lane for kids. It was a thoughtful intent but rolled out with zero signage. 

To the younger swimmers it was an "efficient" change but for another elderly swimmer with a prior knee surgery, that unannounced change was a high-impact risk. A misstep could have set her back months.

I see this "𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗢𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻" in countless places. 

We solve for the majority, assume readiness, and go blind to the outliers. 

𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹. 

History is littered with "mostly successful" systems that failed the 1% catastrophically:

🛑 𝗧𝗼𝘆𝗼𝘁𝗮’𝘀 𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟵 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀: A floor mat variation led to a global trust crisis.

🛑 𝗘𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗔𝗶𝗿𝗯𝗮𝗴𝘀: Designed for "average" adults, they injured smaller passengers.

🛑 𝗔𝗜 𝗛𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀: Codifying historical bias, disadvantaging qualified talent.

Maturity in leadership isn't just about celebrating flow; it’s also about anticipating failure modes.

Execution without an awareness of consequence isn't scale - it’s a liability. 

This requires slowing down enough to care before we strategize to scream "success".

Let’s stop only asking: “Did this work for most?”

And slow down enough to also start asking: 

“Where are the fracture points and what is the price of the fallout?”

hashtag#Leadership hashtag#Governance hashtag#BusinessTransformation hashtag#OperationalExcellence hashtag#AI hashtag#SystemsThinking hashtag#ResponsibleLeadership