On Christmas day, a Nigerian named Uman Farouk Abdulmutallab failed in an attempt to blow up a jetliner flying from Amsterdam to Detroit. In the aftermath, it became clear that the $40 billion in security precautions put in place since 9/11 had failed. In response, the Department of Homeland Security decreed that all passengers on international flights would not be allowed to leave their seats during the last hour of the flight. It took about 48 hours before the “leaders” at Homeland Security realized the silliness of their ruling and rescinded it.

Journalist Christopher Hitchens had a thing or two to say on this subject in an article in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2239935/); here’s an excerpt: “In my boyhood, there were signs on English buses that declared, in bold letters, “No Spitting.” At a tender age, I was able to work out that most people don’t need to be told this, while those who do feel a desire to expectorate on public transport will require more discouragement than a mere sign. But I’d be wasting my time pointing this out to our majestic and sleepless protectors, who now boldly propose to prevent airline passengers from getting out of their seats for the last hour of any flight. Abdulmutallab made his bid in the last hour of his flight, after all. Yes, that ought to do it. It’s also incredibly, nay, almost diabolically clever of our guardians to let it be known what the precise time limit will be. Oh, and by the way, any passenger courageous or resourceful enough to stand up and fight back will also have broken the brave new law.”

Holman W. Jenkins expressed similar sentiments in his Dec 30 Wall Street Journal column: “Al Qaeda can still count on the sizeable damage we will inflict on ourselves through an airport security apparatus that specializes in expensive political displays of barn-door closing that seldom have any real security payoff.”

Kudos to Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Jenkins. They’ve highlighted another dim-witted and ineffective example of our government punishing the 99.999% to “protect” us from the 0.001%. No doubt, Homeland Security knew this “solution” would be ineffective and subject them to ridicule. I suspect they also know that aggressive efforts focused on keeping dangerous people (instead of dangerous stuff) off of airplanes would be far more effective. Why don’t they have the courage to implement such programs? Have they decided that it’s better to be ridiculed than to subject themselves to the criticism that would accompany the use of new technologies and bold but effective security measures? I think that’s the case.

So why have I published this blog under the heading Leadership Lessons? It occurs to me that in too many organizations there are behaviors that parallel what we see at Homeland Security. Have you ever implemented a program you knew would be ineffective? Are there times when you lacked the courage to step on a few toes and do something that was unpopular but effective? If so, would you surprised to learn that behind your back, people are ridiculing your decisions just as Christopher Hitchens and Holman Jenkins ridiculed our government officials?

Next time you catch yourself making a weak decision, take a quick time out, remember the Dec. 25 bombing attempt and ask if you want to be viewed the same way most Americans view the Department of Homeland Security.

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 31st, 2009 at 9:05 am and is filed under Leadership Lessons. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.