<div style="font-size: 0.94em; line-height: 1.4;"><p align="justify">Ivey Business School Professor Emeritus Glenn Rowe has learned a lot about leadership by studying decision-making in the private sector, but his most valuable leadership lesson was learned as the officer-in-charge of Patrol Boat Standoff in the mid-1980s, when Rowe was a staff officer at a Canadian naval reserve division. On his first day as officer-in-charge, Rowe made an error that led to his ship’s grounding—a cardinal sin in any navy. This article—which Rowe co-authored with Ken Nason, another former Canadian naval officer with a second career in business—examines how failure can drive leadership development by highlighting how it positively affected Rowe’s career. Although we often hear that failure is not an option, this is a costly perspective. After all, failure shapes our character, restores focus, renews motivation, and teaches us about accountability, transparency, responsibility, adaptability, and ownership. Learning from failure, however, can’t happen unless one embraces failure as a teacher. When Rowe grounded his patrol boat, he learned the value of staying calm during a crisis and discovered that he had command ability. Earlier in his career, when approaching HMCS Preserver’s commanding officer to discuss issues tied to his performance, he didn’t save his job, but by admitting to himself and navy authorities that his performance was less than ideal, he avoided the “ostrich effect.”
The 21st century has witnessed colossal missteps by corporate leaders, from Enron to Wall Street. While business spent the first half of the 20th century searching for and securing capital, it spent the latter half devoted to the use and flow of those funds. The second half of the 20th century witnessed the space race, the introduction of the computer and Internet, the expansion of food distribution, and the interconnectedness of global finance. What made this rapid development possible might have been the innovative ideas of management. Over successive decades since 1950, universities have educated and informed management students using a range of tools and concepts. While these can be influential and transformative, they can also be misused. Leaders have gradually allowed their authority to become eroded as their attention has shifted from purpose to performance. Management’s ideas and concepts have become a substitute for leadership and this leadership vacuum has had three primary negative effects. 1. Shareholders and stakeholders have lost confidence. 2. Generations X and Y have lost significant respect for business. 3. Boards of directors, who are supposed to provide organizational oversight, are now scrutinized and less autonomous. In the 21st century, leaders must allocate time for serious reflection on strategy, understand the boundaries and limitations of management protocols, appreciate the untapped value of collaboration, and communicate with integrity.