While striving for excellence and setting high expectations will generally lead to performance success, leadership is often impaired when outcomes less than perfect are seen as failures. Organizations with perfectionists in positions of authority can be crippled by micromanagement, difficulty with decision-making, lack of delegation, procrastination, and risk avoidance. Accordingly, despite the efforts of the perfectionist to improve quality and performance, organizational productivity ultimately suffers.
Is Perfection Necessary?
In certain contexts, elevated levels of precision are requisite. Roles that are highly technical, policy-related, financial or legal require a high attention to detail. Sarbanes Oxley requires corporate officers in the United States to certify that their company’s financial reports are accurate. A measure of exactitude is expected in these situations and less than perfect performance could be considered criminal. At lower levels, perfectionism is actually reinforced. Individuals who are highly accurate are rewarded by quickly accelerating through the ranks. However, at a certain point in the path to leadership, perfectionism becomes a derailer.
A Matter of Degree
The difference between healthy striving and perfectionism is often a matter of scale. Setting high standards, using normal anxiety to create energy, accepting helpful criticism and seeing mistakes as opportunities for growth are positive and beneficial. Conversely, setting standards beyond reach and reason, stagnating due to disappointment, being preoccupied with failure, reacting defensively to criticism and seeing mistakes as evidence of unworthiness contribute to negative thought patterns.
Learn about the Three Types of Perfectionism.