The 'Cover Up and Blame' Game

veryone who has an e-mail account has received at least one message about the Darwin Awards. They are "given usually posthumously, to the individual(s) who remove themselves from the gene pool in the most spectacular fashion," according to one of several Web sites that post the winners (www.darwinawards.com). Admit it. You've read them and laughed.

For the three of you who have never read about a Darwin Award winner, here, by way of illustration, is one of the few citations suitable for this publication. It's credited to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in January 1996:

CALCUTTA, India-A tiger killed one man and mauled another at the Calcutta zoo yesterday when they tried to put a marigold garland around its neck in a New Year's greeting. Prakesh Tiwari, the dead man, and Suresh Rai had been drinking before they bought the floral garlands and crossed the moat around the tiger's enclosure, authorities said.

Federal managers certainly are not exempt from flaws and foibles. Events over the past few years from the President's various missteps to the colossal failure of the Agency for International Development's new management system serve as a reminder that public officials continue to suffer from self-inflicted wounds. The wounds are seldom fatal, but they often damage careers. The Darwin Award rules state that "if said individual does not die, however does render him/her self incapable of producing any children-they [sic] may be eligible for the dubious honor of receiving the award while still alive." If we create a new classification for rendering oneself politically impotent, I think we have some real contenders.

Let's start with a basic premise. Bad stuff happens. As a result of acts of nature, unforeseeable events, technical glitches, lack of training or just plain bad judgment, public officials and their organizations make mistakes or disappoint their customers in some important way every day. Bad stuff even happens in the vaunted private sector. Remember the poisoned Tylenol incident? How about New Coke? Projects and systems fail all the time. While many of us devote many waking hours to avoiding project failure or computer security violations, they continue to happen. And even with the best controls in place, humans have weaknesses-except for thee and me, of course.

We need to keep investing in measures that prevent failure, whether that means strong project management, computer security, financial controls or good training (especially in ethics). What distinguishes the effective organization or executive from those whose names will always be associated with scandal or failure is not that they never made a mistake. It is what they do after the mistake is made.

Here is a sure-fire recipe for disaster-one that public officials follow every day:

• Deny. Pretend the incident never happened.
• Cover up. If denial doesn't work, make sure that any evidence of your association with the event is wiped out.
• Blame someone else. If denial and cover-up both fail, then put all your energies into blaming someone, anyone, other than yourself.

We've all heard about the manager who, upon taking a new job, was given three envelopes by his predecessor with instructions to open them in sequence as each new crisis arose. Sure enough, a major scandal erupted and, despite initial skepticism, she opened the first envelope to find the instruction: "Blame your predecessor." It worked, so when the inevitable second crisis arose, she eagerly opened the second envelope, which advised her to "form a committee." Flush with success after a second near-miss, when a third disaster befell her agency, she opened the third envelope, which said: "Make up three envelopes."

Do these approaches really work? I would submit that each so-called scandal or report of agency incompetence or wrongdoing can be traced not to the initial act but to what the principal(s) did or did not do once the act had occurred. Was Richard Nixon forced to resign because of a "third-rate burglary?" Did Gary Hart's presidential prospects plummet because he had an affair? I think not. And, regrettably, President Clinton devoted the greater part of a year, not to apologizing for his personal life, but to explaining why he failed to be truthful when first confronted.

Let me suggest an alternative approach:

Admit the Problem

If you messed up, admit it. If the project was not as promising in reality as it seemed to be, acknowledge it. This is pretty easy to do if you are not the person who caused the problem, but even if the failure was yours, fess up to the problem. Recent history tells us the public is forgiving of individuals who make almost any mistake short of taking a human life. Admit it and try to make amends. If you keep repeating the same mistake, people eventually will catch on, but in most games you are allowed at least one strike.

Fix the Immediate Problem

When the makers of Tylenol learned in 1982 that contaminated bottles of their product had been found in Chicago-area stores, they pulled the product from all stores. They concluded quickly that no amount of protesting that the problem was probably isolated and not a manufacturing defect would restore customer confidence. Removing the product did. When Coca-Cola saw that their new cola product was being rejected by loyal customers, they moved quickly to re-release their old product (renamed Classic Coke to save face) and moved on.

If the project no longer makes sense or is out of control, kill it. If your customers are unhappy, deal immediately with their pain. This is not the time to look for causes or excuses.

Look for Causes

Find the causes only after you've done 1 and 2. This is not the same as fixing blame. It is possible that someone did something malicious and should be held accountable, but the emphasis should be on finding causes and possible preventative measures, not finding a scapegoat.

Even if you did not cause the problem, ask yourself and your organization how similar problems might be prevented in the future. The makers of Tylenol set about developing a tamper-resistant packaging that has since become an industry norm. They reaped a public relations bonanza. And I'll bet Coca-Cola has revised its new product testing and release process.

Learn from your mistakes. "Older and wiser" is just a euphemism for "been around long enough to make lots of mistakes but smart enough to learn from them." You can, if you prefer, continue to play the old "deny, cover up and blame" game. We will be looking for you in a new version of the Darwin Awards.

Franklin S. Reeder teaches, writes, and consults on public management and information technology issues.