In the event of failure
Learning from the D-Day speech Eisenhower never needed to give
Today is the 81st anniversary of D-Day. In his speech ahead of the 1944 invasion of Normandy, General Dwight D. Eisenhower famously told his troops, “The eyes of the world are upon you.” But there is a lesser-known speech that Eisenhower prepared in case the invasion was unsuccessful, which reads as follows:
My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air, and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.
It’s a rare piece of leadership. A particularly revealing aspect of this "In the Event of Failure" speech is that in the original draft, the phrase “This particular operation” was crossed out and replaced with “My decision to attack.” This subtle yet deliberate edit reveals a deeper level of accountability and ownership—one that aligns compellingly with W. Edwards Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge.
Ownership of the System
When Eisenhower said, “If any blame or fault attaches... it is mine alone,” he assumed responsibility for the system—the planning, the coordination, the timing. That is the role of leadership. If there’s failure, it belongs to management. Not to the troops, not to the machinery. Ninety-four percent of problems come from the system, and the system is management’s responsibility.
Deming’s concept of a “system” is an interdependent whole, where outcomes emerge from the interaction of the parts—not from any single element. Eisenhower’s words reflect this understanding. He acknowledges that the outcome of the invasion depended not just on the decision to attack, but on the execution by the Army, Navy, and Air Force, stating that they did “all that bravery and devotion to duty could do.”
Yet, by focusing responsibility on his own decision-making rather than on operational execution, he demonstrates an awareness of his role as one component—albeit a crucial one—in a larger, complex system. He understands that the military machine operated under a shared goal, but it was his decision that set it in motion.
No Blame for the Workers
Eisenhower explicitly removes blame from the troops: “... did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do.” He recognized the variation in outcomes due to the system, not the individual. If the system was flawed, no amount of heroism from the troops would overcome it.
Deming taught that all systems are subject to variation—both common cause (inherent in the system) and special cause (attributable to specific events or actors). Eisenhower’s speech reveals an implicit recognition that even the best-executed plans are subject to the unpredictable: weather, enemy resistance, luck, and timing.
Rather than attributing failure to these inevitable variations or to the people executing the plan, Eisenhower shoulders the responsibility. This anticipates Deming’s later assertion that most performance problems stem from systemic causes rather than individual ones. It also reflects a leader who understands that risk and uncertainty are baked into complex undertakings—and that a system leader must account for those uncertainties.
Deming emphasized the importance of using data and theory to inform decisions. Eisenhower’s phrase “based upon the best information available” mirrors this principle. It acknowledges that decisions must be made in the face of incomplete knowledge—but not arbitrarily. The inclusion of this clause suggests an epistemological humility, a recognition that leadership decisions are made probabilistically, not with certainty.
His edit from “This particular operation” to “My decision to attack” further localizes the epistemic burden: it is not merely that an event was attempted and failed—it is that he, based on his understanding and theory at the time, initiated it. The responsibility lies in the knowledge and judgment applied at the moment of choice.
Leadership with Constancy of Purpose
Eisenhower's words reflect constancy of purpose. There’s no short-term evasion here. No shifting blame for political survival. Just commitment to the mission, the people, and the outcome. He understood leadership: removing fear, enabling trust, and assuming the consequences.
Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge places significant weight on understanding human behavior—what motivates people, how they react to fear, responsibility, and respect. Eisenhower’s acceptance of full responsibility is not just a statement of fact; it is a deeply psychological gesture.
By shielding subordinates from blame, Eisenhower not only leads with moral integrity but also reinforces psychological safety. In a high-stakes environment, knowing that their commander would take responsibility in the event of failure would have strengthened the trust and morale of the troops. This approach aligns perfectly with Deming’s advocacy for eliminating fear from the workplace and creating environments where people are empowered to do their best.
The Significance of “My Decision to Attack”
The edit from “This particular operation” to “My decision to attack” is perhaps the most Deming-like gesture of all. It shifts the locus of responsibility from an abstract event to a deliberate human choice. It reflects:
A systemic viewpoint. The operation exists because of a decision.
A humility before complexity. The operation may fail despite good planning.
An epistemic transparency. The decision was based on the best knowledge available.
A psychological commitment. No scapegoating. All responsibility accepted.
This linguistic change shows a profound understanding of what it means to lead within a system—something Deming would argue too few managers or leaders grasp even today.
Final Words
The speech is short. So was Lincoln’s at Gettysburg. Both did more with fewer words than any performance review or PowerPoint deck ever could. General Eisenhower’s unspoken leadership, embedded in a never-delivered speech, resonates powerfully with Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge. It showcases a model of leadership rooted in systems thinking, accountability, data-informed decision-making, and deep respect for people. It also serves as a timeless lesson in how profound knowledge can be practiced not just in business or quality management, but in the crucible of history itself.