Okay, let’s start with an answer to escape the doldrums of pretzel rationality. The answer is a combination of Audacity and Ignorance. I emphasize the conjunction because, without it, the standalone audacity or ignorance is just that: running headlong into a concrete wall.
Why pretzel logic? Well, mostly because it sounds better than circular logic or infinity loops, and also because I am hungry for a warm pretzel with mustard just about now. It’s a snack and a meal for a buck, what is there not to like. Furthermore, a pretzel, unlike a circular or infinity loop, has a start and an end, if one chooses to recognize it.
In my leadership career, I have had multiple occasions, more than I would like to admit, where it just felt impossible to come to a consensus among the leadership. Mind you, these were very intelligent senior-level experienced people with data to back up their assertions. From the previous tour as a leader in a significant size company decades ago, we frequently had to result to drinking (only the finest single malt) to come to some sort of an agreement, just so that we can get on with the rest of the day.
Ensuing days, or weeks, we come back to the next iteration of the same topic under a different heading. By this time, we simply rotate bringing the booze to the fight, jousting, discussion, or whatever you call it. The argument in the first 10 minutes is about whose whisky is better, which was the most pleasant part of the congress. Ah, the joy of working with Type-A people.
Why did they have such a strong opposing opinion from the same data? This escaping comprehension has been a career-long struggle for me. And, as a data-driven fact guy, it has mystified me for the never-ending-days-long. And, as a leader who has to choose one of the recommendations or form one from the aggregation, it is a blood pressure-inducing endeavor.
For the sake of the argument, I’ll trim the fat, such as ego, personality, desire, and insecurity, and just focus on the facts….. Yup, this is a pure oxymoron, so I will reserve this exercise just for myself.
Without having been privy to the full events leading up to the disparity of stances, I fall back to Occam's razor. This is actually easier said than done. I am an opinionated person(yup I have been called an a-hole before) and I like to opine as much as the next dude/dudette, but that would violate my own strategy. As a leader, unless the arguments are all together nonsensical, I try hard not to add my own opinion into the discussion.
What I’ve learned from this, and still learning, is that everyone is right, and no one is right, and we are all falsely incorrect. It’s pivotal on where one is experiencing the data from. From any point of view, all can see the full pretzel and where they stand on the journey, but the direction of travel is important, all with vested momentum. On a pretzel, there are two points of entry, and it could be either a beginning or an end of the journey, or both.
So, if they are traveling to a different end(Goal) on said pretzel there will be collisions. These impact points will cause paralysis of the decision-making process. Most leaders will go after the impact points, whether by whisky or by directive or both, but the impasse will not be resolved systemically by incidental resolutions. Hence the weekly drinking fest continued. Don’t get me wrong, I had a great time in these meetings. And, yes we were able to move past these impasses once we all agree on where the Endpoints are. I do miss these meetings, but I digress.
What did I learn from my decades of leadership experience? Well, since you asked (at least I hope you did): The common goal and vision are important. Having an outcome-centric focus is important. Correcting these on the wrong path is important. Making a decision and sticking with it is important. Measurable actions are important. Understanding obstacles are important (not just people, but mostly people). Empathy is important. Lead by example is important.
BUT, Hope is absolutely not a strategy. Don’t repeat the same expecting different results — thanks, Albert.
CANDITLY, the AUDACITY to DECIDE, and an ABILITY to IGNORE DISTRACTIONS are the KEY!
Sorry to YELL, but it’s difficult to do justice for decades of Analysis Paralysis.
