The Culture of "Failing Forward" in Politics

Failing Forward in Politics: The Cycle of Incompetence and Opportunity

As seasoned staff I will tell you that the fast-paced world of political campaigns, where success hinges on strategy, discipline, and sound decision-making, it may seem baffling that certain individuals consistently rise to high-stakes roles despite a track record of questionable competence. A term often used to describe this phenomenon is “failing forward”, the strange reality where leaders or staff in politics, who make repeated mistakes or bad decisions, somehow keep advancing into new and important opportunities to the amazement of colleagues.

The recent experience on my 2024 campaign illustrated this trend all too well. Working alongside a Chief Operating Officer (COO) with limited knowledge and a history of poor decision-making, I watched as crucial mistakes accumulated. Yet, rather than being sidelined, this individual seems poised for the next big role in politics, which has left many of us wondering: How does this cycle persist, and why is it tolerated? To understand this phenomenon, it’s essential to examine the political culture, incentive structures, and the risk-tolerant environment that allows failing forward to become the norm.

Political campaigns are unique environments that, in many ways, defy conventional organizational standards. They are high-stakes, fast-moving, and incredibly high-pressure arenas where timelines are tight, stakes are enormous, and accountability is often murky. Campaigns prioritize survival and quick wins, often at the expense of long-term strategy and sustained competence. Within this environment, several factors contribute to the cycle of failing forward such as:

Network over Meritocracy Politics is an arena where “who you know” often outweighs “what you know.” Many leaders on high-stakes campaigns ascend because they have strong connections rather than demonstrated skill sets. When a person with limited experience is placed in a leadership role and fails, they are often protected by their network, and the failure is reframed as a learning opportunity. A poor performance might be attributed to the “tough environment” rather than individual competence, allowing them to exit gracefully and reenter at a high level on another campaign.

Crisis Culture: Rewarding Resilience over Results Campaigns are known for a “sink or swim” mentality, where resilience is rewarded as much as—or even more than—competence. Leaders who survive crisis situations, even if they are the ones who caused or exacerbated the crisis, are often celebrated for their “toughness” or “grit.” Their failures are recast as evidence of their “ability to withstand pressure,” thus granting them permission to repeat the same mistakes on another high-stakes project. This prioritization of “resilience” over results reinforces the idea that failure is just part of the journey, even if it compromises the campaign’s success.

Image Management and Blame Deflection In politics, there is often more emphasis on managing perception than on executing sound strategy. Leaders who fail can often reframe their mistakes as learning experiences or blame external factors—opposing parties, unexpected events, or vague “circumstances.” The ability to deflect blame becomes a skill, which paradoxically enhances their reputation as “savvy” or “adaptable,” while the team or the campaign itself suffers. This blame-shifting approach insulates leaders from accountability, allowing them to escape consequences and move forward unscathed.

Short-Term Memory and High Turnover Campaign staff turnover is exceptionally high. Once a campaign ends, even if the results were unfavorable, the team often disperses, and memories of individual failures fade. By the time the next election cycle begins, these leaders are often considered “veterans” with “experience under their belt,” and the details of their missteps are forgotten or downplayed. A new campaign can be eager to recruit those who have worked on multiple high-profile campaigns, even if their specific contributions were marred by errors.

The Appearance of Experience and Inflated Credentials Titles like “Campaign Manager,” “Chief Operating Officer,” or “Chief Strategist” create an illusion of credibility. In politics, titles are given generously, and they can significantly elevate someone’s profile regardless of their actual impact on the campaign’s success. When such individuals move on to the next project, these titles serve as impressive credentials, regardless of whether they were earned through measurable accomplishments. The lack of industry-wide accountability mechanisms means that few individuals are ever truly evaluated based on the outcomes they deliver.

Why Failing Forward Persists in Campaigns

While failing forward can occur in any field, it is uniquely pervasive in political campaigns for several reasons:

• Unpredictability of Campaigns: Politics is an inherently volatile arena, with endless factors at play—polling fluctuations, opponent moves, media coverage, and voter sentiment. Campaigns often struggle to measure failure objectively, allowing leaders to attribute poor performance to external factors. This ambiguity provides cover for ineffective leaders to dodge accountability.
• Urgency to Fill Roles Quickly: Campaigns have short lifespans, so staffing decisions are often made rapidly and based on availability rather than a deep vetting of skills. Those with experience on paper are given a priority, even if their past performance has been less than stellar.
• The Value of “Insider Knowledge”: In campaigns, leaders with an insider’s understanding of the process are seen as assets, even if they bring baggage. The political world values individuals who are accustomed to the chaos of campaigns, even if that familiarity has not translated into success.
• Consequences of Speaking Out: Within campaign hierarchies, there is often an unspoken rule that mistakes are not to be discussed publicly, and challenging leadership decisions is considered detrimental to career growth. Those who question incompetence may be seen as “disloyal” or “not a team player,” which discourages junior staff from pointing out problems and enables incompetent leaders to continue unchecked.

Breaking the Cycle of Failing Forward

The first step to disrupting this cycle is to build a culture of transparency and accountability within campaigns, regardless of the campaign’s immediate demands. Here are a few recommendations that could help counter the problem of failing forward:

Stronger Vetting Processes: Campaigns should develop comprehensive vetting procedures that assess candidates not only on past titles but also on measurable accomplishments. A leader’s success should be evaluated based on campaign outcomes, team feedback, and the soundness of their strategic decisions.

Accountability Structures within Campaigns: Instituting regular performance reviews and post-mortem analyses for campaign leadership could create a more transparent culture. These reviews should be conducted by an unbiased, third-party entity within the campaign to ensure they are objective.

Open Culture of Constructive Feedback: Creating a structure for feedback from all levels of a campaign team can encourage more honest evaluations. Junior and mid-level staff should feel empowered to speak up about inefficiencies or poor leadership without fear of retribution.

Reducing the Influence of Nepotism and Favoritism: Campaigns must move toward a meritocratic structure that reduces the sway of personal connections over objective performance. Adopting a stricter stance on avoiding nepotism and ensuring a diverse, qualified team can help curb the influence of incompetence.

Failing forward is a disheartening reality in political campaigns, sustained by a culture that prioritizes connections, crisis survival, and optics over genuine competence. As a result, too many campaign leaders find themselves in positions of influence despite repeated missteps, putting at risk the candidates and causes they are meant to champion. Changing this culture requires a commitment to accountability, merit-based hiring, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about the impact of incompetence at the highest levels of campaign operations. Only then can political campaigns evolve into organizations that are truly effective, ethical, and resilient in the pursuit of their goals.