Effective Leadership: Why the Best Companies Don't Strive for Perfection.

Managerial rhetoric has long celebrated the strength of the organization as an intrinsic quality that asymptotically tends towards infallibility, where error cannot lurk.

However, the distance between narrative and reality shows that this strength is often fragile, built more on the myth of cohesion than on the ability to operate in complex contexts, which requirecritical approachand ability tothink outside the box.

The risk of giving in to the charm of cohesion is a mistake that leaders often stumble into, and no harm done if this gives them an aura of invulnerability. The problem, already known asgroupthinkin scientific research starting from the 1950s, it arises where group cohesion is sought as an objective in itself, becoming apathologyof the organization: any divergence of thought between group members is suppressed for the sole purpose of minimizing conflicts and exhibiting external security based on undue consensus. Critical analysis, lateral thinking, individual creativity (perhaps the scarcest resource that organizations infinitely need) are sacrificed in the name ofgroup cohesion. But really 'all united we win'? Or rather 'all united we are wrong'?

Giving up the advantages deriving from ahealthy comparisonand balancing different ideas and principles means exposing the 'boat' (that is, the one in which all the members of the organization find themselves) to the dangers of a stormy sea, without having a compass to maintain the course and guarantee a safe landing place.

And here the worm of the error in organizational format forcefully resurfaces! Error, whether personal or collective, supported by an inadequate system of thought, represents a 'certain' risk, an oxymoron whose awareness instead represents a lifeline for leaders.

Every decision is based on an imperfect knowledge of the data, an opaque awareness of the purposes, a limited ability to process the data (AI is currently unable to help us in this except in limited areas) and above all on a process that in reality follows a non-linear and largely unpredictable trajectory.

In other words, there is no escape for the organization:the only certainty is error. So no perfection. So where is the strength of the organization? To say that an organization is strong without clarifying with respect to whom or for whose benefit means accepting an incomplete and misleading representation. In many organizational situations, declared strength masks rigidity, internal dependencies and excessive exposure to external pressures, with risks ofgroupthinkand conformity to stereotyped models that jeopardize their sustainability.

A recent article byNew Yorker, “The Pain of Perfectionism” (2025), shows how perfectionism is not a noble ideal, but a psychological survival mechanism rooted in the fear of being inadequate. It's not the search for the best: it's the terror of error. The article distinguishesthree forms of perfectionism(self-oriented,other-oriented,socially prescribed) and documents theconsequencespsychological and physical: anxiety, depression, isolation, exhaustion.

In the organizational context, perfectionism is celebrated as excellence, but it produces fear of making mistakes which leads to the rejection of change and therefore to a lack of innovation, decision-making delays and a culture of fear. Perfectionist organizations make no less mistakes: simplythey hidemoreover.

Perfectionism, as discussed inNew Yorker, reveals how the search for absolute excellence does not strengthen the organization at all: it stiffens it and exposes it to cognitive and emotional failures. It is not driven towards improvement, but towardsfearto deal with the unexpected that could call into question the principles on which the organization is based, revealing that it is not up to the challenges, generating anxiety, frustration and a reduction in creativity. Recognize ilimits of the decision-making processand theerror valueas a learning opportunity it therefore means opening up to a range of opportunities that strengthen the organisation's chances of persisting dynamically over time.

The concept ofgood enoughIt therefore introduces a generative alternative: an organization that works well enough to learn, correct itself, and keep moving. It does not aim for perfection, but for the sustainability of its evolution. Its strength lies in the ability to adapt quickly, maintain cognitive permeability and build relational reliability.

Authentic strength emerges when the organization recognizes and accepts the imperfection of its internal relationships. Knowing each other is not about liking each other, but about predicting each other, reducing uncertainty and allowing forpragmatic cooperation. Mutual disillusionment does not weaken the group: it allows it to mature, to overcome idealization to build adult coordination, based onclear roles,functional communicationeshared responsibility. Is this true excellence?