Joseph Ellin's Commentary on "Owning up to a Failure"
Author(s):
Joseph Ellin
I
In the course of a meeting with the customer XYZ, R&M
engineer Walt Winters understands that failure of a part was
the fault of R&M, probably due to insufficient testing.
Should he blurt out this insight then and there? No, one should
not talk about internal company problems in the presence of the
customer. Call a recess, or wait. Walt's insight is
confidential to R&M, and might embarrass them and cost them
money and customer confidence. Wantonly damaging your own
company is not appropriate behavior.
At the same time, what is left on the table is that R&M,
through Norm, has asserted that the equipment is fine; which it
isn't. Perhaps Walt should have called a recess in order to
persuade Norm to abandon this position, if not expressly, at
least implicitly. The engineer has the responsibility to see
that management does not repeat errors, even if they might not
confess to having made them.
II
Walt says nothing, and R&M people work out a solution
with XYZ without admitting any fault. The solution presumably
satisfies the customer, so it's not clear why R&M should
have to go further. Nor is there any indication that XYZ is
harmed in some way by R&M's failure to confess error. XYZ
is free to draw their own conclusions about what went wrong; if
they want R&M to tell them, then can make further
inquiries. Nothing is to be gained at this point by Walt going
further than management wishes to go. Candor is fine, but at
times serves no purpose and can be counter-productive.
III
The lesson Walt might learn is that honesty is one thing,
discretion another. Here R&M used discretion in not
revealing something they weren't asked about. No harm is done,
the client is satisfied, and presumably R&M was prepared to
be more candid if asked.
Can Walt learn anything from negotiator Norm's stonewalling
by stating R&M's 'official position' that R&M wasn't at
fault? Apparently Norm believes in playing 'hardball,' and Walt
doesn't. But the case doesn't give enough information about
this. Does 'hardball' lead into an adversary relationship which
is ultimately detrimental to both parties? Is hardball
necessary to avoid legal problems, or to get a better position
should there be a legal dispute? Was it really necessary for
Norm to go out on a limb and adopt an 'official position' which
turned out to be mistaken, and which potentially could have
been embarrassing for R&M to retract? In a sense, R&M
is lucky that XYZ hasn't pushed matters further. They are also
lucky that the failure was not of such a nature to cause XYZ
serious problems, or R&M might have had the obligation to
confess their error voluntarily. Walt might learn something
about this from this case, but evidently there were no further
consequences so maybe he didn't.