Details

I hate it when details get in the way of results. Last week we heard about golfer Jim Furyk who was disqualified when he overslept and was five minutes late to the Pro-Am tournament preceding the Barclays tournament. By missing the Pro-Am, he is also disqualified from the four day event. This may cost Furyk some real money (read millions) as it qualifies for the FedEx Cup. The winner gets a $10 million bonus. Furyk was third before missing the tee time. It's hard to imagine how this can happen. My wife sets three alarms to ensure she makes an early flight.

Sticking with golf, how about Dustin Johnson a couple of weeks ago? You may remember him as the golfer who was penalized two strokes on the final hole of the PGA tournament. He was heading for a three man playoff when it was discovered he ground his club in a sand trap. Admittedly, it was hard to tell it was part of the trap but a notice explaining this very situation was posted in the locker room before the final round. No playoff, no chance for a major.

Going outside of sports, it was revealed that the State of New Jersey missed out on $400 million of education funding by the Federal government this week. It turns out that the person filling out one page gave the incorrect information. Governor Christie was spitting tacks, but everyone else filled it out correctly.

Attention to detail is not every one's strong suit. Sometimes, it's situational. In many circumstances, I can be very detailed and ensure the job is complete. In other situations, not so much. I find that when I know someone is checking my work, I tend not to do as complete a job. Sounds a bit backwards but there may be a lesson. When we are ultimately accountable for projects, revenue, proposals-we tend to make sure its right or we stand up and take the blame like Jim Furyk and Dustin Johnson. When there is an army of checkers, my theory is that folks slack a bit knowing someone else may catch anything important. Not a very efficient way to run an organization.

Mistakes will happen. Organizations that solve for mistakes by adding additional checks and balances run the risk of bloating the staff and lessening accountability. Creating responsibility, even at the lowest levels of the organization creates efficiency and high expectations. It also promotes creativity, empowerment and opportunity. Be careful in your response to mistakes by creating checkers. Instead, create an organization that is attentive to the details and takes responsibility for their work.