The Window and the Mirror

I just finished reading Good to Great, an exceptional book by Jim Collins. Apparently, I am the last person in the continental United States to read it. Fortunately, its content is still relevant.

Collins drives home several noteworthy points--one of which he calls the "window and the mirror" concept. In describing Level 5 leaders (Collins's consummate leader), the author describes the individuals as passing praise on to others and taking responsibility for mistakes upon themselves. In essence, when things are going well, they "look out the window," and when circumstances are dire, they find the solution in the mirror, identifying something that they themselves can do to make a difference.


This concept is practiced all over the place--nowhere more evident than the sports world. Interview a great quarterback after a fantastic individual performance, and you'll hear comments like, "Our coaches came out with a great gameplan today, and the offensive line was really working hard to protect me. And since the receivers wouldn't let a ball hit the ground, we had a good day through the air." Follow up with the same leader after a team loss and ask him what went wrong. In contrast, you'll hear, "I didn't get it done today. We worked hard, but I did not make the plays I needed to when the game was on the line." Even though the objective reality tells a different story than the quarterback, he takes responsibility but passes on praise.

The concept is effective (at least according to the author's research) and certainly earns the admiration of fans who appreciate selflessness. But is the practice sound philosophically? After all, if the coach of that same team employs that approach 100% of the time, then players are never chided for mistakes in games--the coach takes the blame. If a wife praises her husband consistently but always assumes any problem in the relationship is her fault, then the man is never forced to honestly assess his responsibility in the marriage. Clearly, the subjective reality created by this practice does not always hold water.


A legitimate response to this question might be, "But surely if the coach is humbly taking responsibility then the players will follow his lead, and if the wife is meekly working on herself the husband will as well." That's true. Unfortunately, we live in a broken world with unmotivated and irresponsible people who don't always do the right thing and don't even know what the right thing is oftentimes. Without honest correction and assignment of responsibility from an outside party (a spouse, coach, administrator, or law officer), some people would never own up to anything. 

So what's the balance then? How can this principle be so effective sometimes and ineffective other times? If Aristotle's Law of Noncontradiction is correct, then some other variable must be present. I submit, after approximately 4 minutes of uninterrupted thought on the matter, that this variable is internal vs. external setting.


Interval vs. External Setting. These selfless statements are generally heard in public settings. The CEO is generally quoted by Business Week and the quarterback is always interviewed on national television. Furthermore, these inquiries come from outsiders looking in, seeking to understand the inner-workings of a complex system. Because of the public setting, the leader disperses complements and absorbs criticism. The rules change in different settings, however. 


When I coached softball, I had an unspoken understanding with our head coach: neither one of us would ever undermine the other in front of the players. If the coach was being criticized, it was my responsibility to support him as best I could (whether I agreed with him or not). However, behind closed doors we had frank and candid conversations. In that setting, I had the freedom to offer criticism and speak honestly about our disagreements. We could discuss changes to practices and personnel decisions, but we had those conversations at the proper time--out of range of the players and parents.


The same has to be true for a married couple. Even though your spouse should be your biggest cheerleader,

if that person is not confronting harmful behavior, the relationship will suffer greatly. This is especially true because of the equal standing of both parties. Although it is not a wife's primary responsibility to correct her husband, she is obligated to keep him accountable. The same goes for a coach who is responsible for a team and CEO who runs a business.

So what's the final prognosis on the window/mirror philosophy? I think the heart of the concept is great, rooted deeply in humility and thankfulness. I also believe that an honest assessment of any situation is necessary if you're going to make progress and move from good businesses, good teams, or good marriages to truly great ones. Together, this balance of praise, personal responsibility, and honesty can make those movements happen.