Top Chef Masters: The Good, The Bad and The Guilty

I noticed on a recent episode of “Top Chef: Masters” that there is a significant difference between the way these seasoned, successful chefs treat failure and the way the normal reality show contestant acts when faced with the judges’ panel. It’s a good lesson for most executives, (whether they watch reality TV or not).

In most cases when someone goes before the judges on a reality show they do one of four things. They claim it wasn’t really a problem, they provide reasons why they really aren't unhappy with the outcome, they blame something or someone else, or they act like what we know happened didn’t really happen. We can call these the Justify, Rationalize, Excuse and Deny strategies. The trouble is, trying to Justify, Rationalize, Excuse or Deny when we know something went wrong just makes things worse. It makes people want to argue with you so that you “get it”, or it makes them want to punish you so that you “get what’s coming to you”.

A key issue that many executives don’t know how to deal with well is the presence of regret. Regret is when you think something like “how much better this would have been if it had turned out another way.” It's OK to feel and express regret. Regret isn’t the same as guilt. Guilt is when you not only regret something, but feel morally responsible or worthy of punishment. For example, if you hit a child who runs out from between parked cars you would naturally feel regret…but if you were speeding or driving under the influence you should probably feel guilty as well.

When people feel guilty they should ‘fess up and face the consequences. When people feel guilty and don’t want to take responsibility, or feel the consequences exceed what they are prepared to face, they Justify, Rationalize, Excuse and Deny.

The Top Chef Masters certainly made mistakes and did things the judges might have found questionable. One very well known chef cooked his pasta in the bathroom, (you have to see the episode). Another froze all his fresh produce before the contest started. However, although both chefs expressed regret, in the sense that they would have preferred things to have happened differently, neither acted guilty. Consequently, the judges didn’t feel the need to argue with them, or punish them.

Most of us make mistakes, and when we do we should be prepared to face consequences without attracting undue argument or punishment. We should regret what happened, and accept the consequences without acting guilty. The way the master chefs acted was exactly the way to do this.

First, they acknowledged what happened without shrugging it off. Again, think of our driver who has hit a child in the road. We would be shocked and angry if the driver’s response was too glib, or didn’t appropriately acknowledge that we all would rather the child weren’t hit. Imagine if the driver said something like “well it’s really too bad but it’s not my fault…it’s not like it was my responsibility not to drive in the road rather than that negligent child or parents’ fault.” Ouch! Instead, our top chefs admitted what they had done and definitely didn’t downplay what happened or shrug it off.

Secondly, they agreed it would have been better otherwise, and expressed appropriate regret. In Top Chef Masters the chefs come before a panel of judges who have eaten their food and sat among their customers. If something the chefs have done affected the judges personally, they apologize, and express regret. A simple “I’m sorry about that” goes a long way to disarm the Argue/Punish response.

Finally, if you watch the episode carefully you see the third element of the chefs’ way of handling their mistakes. They remain quietly optimistic about the future. Either they say they learned from their mistake, (that chef will check the fridge again before he risks freezing his produce), or they put the mistake in context, (obviously the chef who cooked in the bathroom did so because of the extreme circumstances of the setting, not because he thought it was a good place to cook).

I have often seen successful executives take this one step further if they are going to have an ongoing relationship with the “judge”. Sometimes we make a mistake and the person we end up discussing it with is our boss, our colleague or our customer. When that happens it’s good to take the approach of “how can we make this better”. This ONLY works once you’ve gone through the first three steps, (Acknowledge, Express Regret and Behave Optimistically), otherwise you just set off the Argue/Punish response. Note also the “we”. I describe it as mentally getting you both on the same side of the table. Adopt the attitude that you’re going to sit side-by-side with this person and figure out what will improve the situation.

Good executives make mistakes. If they don’t they’re probably not trying hard enough. When they do it’s important they NEVER resort to one of the guilty behaviors, (Justify, Rationalize, Excuse and Deny). Instead, it’s OK to express what's appropriate in the circumstances, (Acknowledge the situation without shrugging it off; Express regret with an apology where appropriate; Be quietly optimistic about the future). Where an ongoing relationship is involved, the good executive knows the importance of engaging the other in making the situation better.