Alibis.
'Explaining your situation is not going to be nearly as useful as trying to change it through action.'
- Merlin Mann
'I have nothing to say to you,' he said over the telephone.
He was a policeman so he knew his rights.
I had powers of investigation, but not over him.
I was on a deadline and he was a critical witness.
I thought about driving the three hours to try to speak with him in person only so I could say to my boss: 'I even drove for three hours to try to speak with him in person.' I would hang my head and he would put a reassuring hand on my shoulder.
The witness's refusal left me with so many questions and I was running out of time. No less than the Chief of Air Force was waiting on my report. I had so much work to do. I had to write so many more words to hide the fact from the Air Vice Marshal that I had nothing to say. 'What a long report,' he would say. 'You obviously worked so hard.' I needed to do some hard work.
So I went out and bought a newspaper and a coffee and a croissant and did the crossword at a café overlooking the Yarra River. I finished the crossword and sat and watched people for about an hour. Okay it was two.
I was following a rowing crew stroke its way past when it came to me.
I returned to my desk and rang him back.
'I just wanted to let you know that all the other people I've spoken with have laid the blame with you. The evidence as it stands will lead me to make an adverse finding about you so I wanted to give you the opportunity to put your side of the story.'
He spoke for the next two hours.
Step 1: Step Back.
Step 5: Hearing.
Grief.
A very intelligent and competent friend of a friend was caught up in a workplace dispute recently.
He described how he felt:
'wounded',
'the kind of workplace I cannot tolerate',
'heartbroken',
'grief',
'lost my joy and cannot seem to get it back'.
While intelligent and worldly, this was his first experience of workplace conflict.
He had assumed that if he did his job well and with all his heart, that he would be protected and supported by the organisation.
He was wrong.
He's now questioning everything.
Not just work.
Everything.
Beard.
There's an old man with a long white beard and a big book who sits at a large desk in a larger office at the head of every organisation.
Even Liz concedes that it's a man and that he has a long white beard.
That old man is very wise and has all the answers.
('The Onion' ran an article along similar lines about a team of people in a room looking after the entire United States.)
But he's kept in the dark by incompetent people in the management hierarchy below him and so bad things happen to people without his knowledge.
If only we could get past our line manager, her line manager, and everyone in between us and the old man with the long white beard.
If only we knew his direct number and could bypass the help desk, customer service or call centre operator.
If only we could appeal to him the decision that we didn't like.
If only we could tell him our side of the story.
He would listen. Nod. Stroke his long white beard.
He would open up his big book and flick a few pages. Run his finger down the wise words written in it.
He would look up, adjust his glasses, smile at us from behind his long white beard and say:
'You're right. Sorry. I'll fix it for you.'
He would make things right.
He would make us happy again.
I worked for an organisation whose policies allowed a decision to be appealed up to six times - beyond the Chief Executive Officer and to a government minister.
One appeal step was a review of the decision by a committee of experts and the complainant's peers.
'Nothing ever gets resolved,' complainants complained.
'Nothing ever gets resolved,' managers complained.
Leaders nurture good decision making by supporting decisions made at the lowest appropriate level and at the earliest appropriate time.
Because there is no old man with a long white beard.
Distance.
Step One of Good Decision Making: Step Back.
Viktor Frankl wrote:
'Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom. '
Stimulus: information. A complaint. Criticism. Bad news. New and unexpected data. A problem.
Instinctive reaction. Surprise. Shock. Anger. Defensiveness. Denial. React. Respond. Return fire. Fight.
Impotence.
Step Back.
Lean back in your chair. Stare at the ceiling. Get up and walk. Down the corridor. To the kitchen for a cup of coffee. To a sympathetic colleague's office. Or home.
Have a lemonade or three. Vent to your spouse or pet. Take the cat for a walk. Go for a run. Smash a golf ball. Have another lemonade. Wallow. Feel sorry for yourself. Search the job ads. Watch a movie. Reclaim your freedom.
Be human. Not boss, manager, leader, decision-maker, company woman, parent, mother, father, son, daughter, prodigy. Be worried, annoyed, frustrated, sad, impatient, unreasonable. Wallow. Be selfish.
Allow yourself to be yourself so you can choose to become yourself.
Create the space.
Expand it.
Step up and begin doing what your boss is paying you to do and what you promised her that you'd do. (That's called 'Integrity.')
'I'll have an answer to you by next Friday.' (Aim to have it to them by Wednesday. Under-promise and over-deliver.)
You feel your power returning.
The psychologist Yaacov Trope argues that:
'Psychological distance may be one of the single most important steps you can take to improve thinking and decision-making. It can come in many forms: temporal, or distance in time (both future and past); spatial, or distance in space (how physically close or far you are from something); social, or distance between people (how someone else sees it); and hypothetical, or distance from reality (how things might have happened).
But whatever the form, all of these distances have something in common: they all require you to transcend the immediate moment in your mind. They all require you to take a step back.'
Begin the rest of the Good Decision Making Process unencumbered by the emotions that strangle your ability to analyse and assess data openly and logically and on its merits. Earn your salary. Build your Widget. Become who you are.
'You can't change what's already happened but you can change what happens next.'
- Peter Baines, Disaster Management Specialist.
Dance.
Dance, as with most art, can teach us about how to harness the tension between order and creativity in an organisation and in ourselves.
An hour spent watching professional dancers rehearse is a humbling experience. Their discipline, intrinsic drive to perfect the smallest of moves, facial expressions, even the position of their fingers are inspirational for most workers whose main driver is whether Dorothy put doughnuts in the boardroom for morning tea.
The Weekend Australian newspaper had an article about the work of the choreographer Stephanie Lake that captured the paradox of creating beautiful art.
"When I watch her create movement phrases, to me it's the musical equivalent of listening to Bach improvise a fugue," says Fox, a renowned composer and sound artist. "It's incredibly intuitive but brilliantly precise at the same time."
Lake says of her collaboration with Fox on A Small Prometheus: "We have pushed each other into this place and we have ended up with a piece that has quite a lot of tension in it. We didn't set out to make that; it's where we have been led."
Lake says she often works with dancers in an improvisatory way and then selects those passages she wants to "fix", or retain in the final piece.
But for A Small Prometheus she wanted the dance to suggest instability, or constant flux, so some passages are fixed and others are a little unplanned. "Bodies melt, cascade, fall into each other," she says. "Often things go wrong. It hasn't been lethal, but it's risky. There are sections in this work - which is new for me - that are essentially loose and unpredictable."
Intuitive.
Precise.
Space.
Tension.
Led.
Improvisatory
Instability.
Flux.
Wrong.
Risky.
Unpredictable.
These are the nouns of an authentic life of a person and an organisation. We suppress them at our peril.
Almost all of us read these as signs of error, failure, disaster, impending job loss. Leaders not only allow these elements to exist, they fan them.
That's why Leaders are brave and rare. Not for the reason we traditionally assume - ie that they need courage to make the tough, unpopular decisions needed to preserve order.
A Leader is called to create the space and hold all of these contradictions within, amidst the fear, anger, anxiety, conflict and uncertainty that inevitably arise. The Leader perseveres despite the failures and the criticisms because this is what she is called to do. There is almost no choice for her.
As Stephanie Lake said about her work:
'We didn't set out to make that; it's where we have been led. '
Purpose.
Every experienced decision maker knows the frustration of having to deal with the aftermath of the right decision that was made the wrong way.
Nicola Roxon, the former Federal Attorney-General and Health Minister gave a speech this week in which she told of the previous government dealing with the same consequences. It was a rare insight into the fundamentals of good decision making in the leadership of the country.
She explained why the Labor Party chose to remove Kevin Rudd as the Prime Minister.
'I think we had all the right reasons to act,' she said, 'but I think we were clumsy and short sighted in the way we did it.'
'Even though the reasons were there to justify our action, I don’t think we handled it properly at the time, and Labor has paid a very high price for this mishandling ever since.'
In other words, Labor's process leading up to and following the removal of Kevin Rudd revealed, tested and shaped its Widget in the eyes of the electorate. The re-defining of its Widget that this caused, and the damage to Labor's integrity is hard to overcome.
'If Kevin had been an employee,' Ms Roxon a former industrial lawyer said, 'he would have won his unfair dismissal case. Not because there wasn’t cause to dismiss him, but because we didn’t explain the reasons properly to him, let alone to the voting public.'
'I used to see a lot of these cases - where there was good cause to dismiss someone but the employer hadn’t given notice of the problem, or used a different excuse because it was too embarrassing to simply tell a colleague they weren’t up to the job, or that everyone found them unbearable.'
She spoke about how attempts to save people from the consequences of their actions and the decisions that they draw upon themselves can actually be crueller in the long run.
'After the most brutal and speedy sacking, we got overcome with politeness and thought it would save Kevin pain to say as little as possible and move on quickly. What the rest of the world calls a polite white lie, became political poison.
'So although at the time it seemed unimaginable to contemplate being so publically rude to your own PM, with the benefit of hindsight, some of us should’ve spoken out - if not before, at least immediately after.
'Instead, we made a brutal decision and then shied from the brutal explanation that was needed.
'We left everyone looking for other answers and by doing this we did a great disservice to both Kevin and Julia. On its own it would’ve cast a long shadow over the next three years in government, and with active fanning by Kevin and his supporters, it proved impossible to recover from.'
It's either sobering or reassuring for the average boss to know that the senior law and justice officer in the country and an expert in employment law was collateral damage from her government's poor workplace performance management and decision making.
This is a striking example of how even the most experienced, intelligent and powerful decision makers can be so fixated on the need to make the right decision, to be 'decisive', that they neglect to make the decision in the right way.
They got what they wanted - the removal of Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister - yet at the cost of their Widget. As Ms Roxon said in response to the argument that political expediency justified the decision:
'We know bums on seats in Parliament do matter - but they aren’t all that matters. If the damage to our sense of purpose, to our reputation for delivering good policy and for caring for the community is severe, this reputational loss, and lack of purpose, can take longer to recover from than it takes to win back seats here and there.
'And it is harder to win the seats back if your people don’t think you stand for anything.'
Hard.
A Leader recognises the tension between the uncertainty, anxiety and chaos that flow from navigating virgin territory, and the fear that this is evidence that she is failing and that she needs to turn back.
Leadership is Leadership because it is advancing where no-one has been before. Leadership is taking people in a direction that they otherwise wouldn't have chosen. It follows (no pun intended) that this will give rise to emotional turbulence in both the Leader and those following her.
It is hard.
Leaders are Leaders because they continue to advance towards where they want to be beyond the point where the PowerPoint leaders turn back because there's no path and it's hard and people are complaining.
The PowerPoint leader talks of leadership of leading of leaders of lead of leadership positions with the background hum of their wheels running over the smooth bitumen highway that was beaten, then surveyed, then graded, then laid out in front of them to travel on in air conditioned comfort with the cruise control on directed by the onboard navigation system while everyone's asleep in the back.
The PowerPoint leader then makes a decision in their voice to deviate. They immediately become disconcerted by the sound and unevenness of the gravel and the bumpy ride as they veer off someone else's route. Those in the back seat stir and mutter at being disturbed by the poor driving. They peer through the windows and feel anxious as they don't recognise their surroundings. They seek comfort and affirmation of the legitimacy of their fears in the other anxious fellow back seat faces. There's murmurs of dissent.
The PowerPoint leader makes another decision that relies on what they learned from their first decision. They veer off the track and into virgin terrain. The back seat grumbles grow into calls to turn back because surely the vibrations and the shaking and the noise and the uncertainty mean that this can't be the right direction.
Wrong way. Turn back. You must be lost. There's no track let alone marked highway and signs. Look around. Nobody else is on this route. Here - look at the map that proves you're wrong. Everyone in the back seat thinks you're wrong. We took a vote. Democracy.
The fear for the novice Leader transcending from PowerPoint slides is that the voices behind them and in their head might be right. Who do they think they are to deviate off the bitumen?
The real time symptoms of error are the same as those of Leadership. It's only those who may follow who can see the sense and predictability of the path.
Choosing to transcend the PowerPoint slides and into Leadership demands exceptional confidence that can survive the battering to ego and identity and the ceaseless gnawing of self-doubt that is louder than the critics' voices. Not motivated by any external goal or incentive because these may never be grasped.
But because to do so is to become who you are.
Integrity.
The events leading to the suspension of James Hird as coach of the Essendon Football Club are a classic study in how decisions reveal, test and shape who we really are - beyond what we say we are.
James Hird stated in January that he took 'full responsibility' for everything done in the Football department. To you and me 'full responsibility' means that whatever happened, James will accept the consequences as if he pulled every lever, regardless of what he actually personally did or knew.
This is a sound legal and ethical position to take. Very commendable. His words gave comfort and reassurance that transcend the uncertainty about what happened. They were saying to us 'Don't worry. I was in charge and you know me. I am a Man of integrity and I would never allow illegal drug taking to go on. If it did, then I'd see it as such a heinous oversight on my part that I would resign. I'm still in charge, so that tells you that all is well. That shows you how confident that I am in my Club, and therefore you should be also.'
Then look at what he actually does because this is what speaks loudest. He dodges and weaves and blames others. What we assumed he meant by 'full responsibility' was wrong.
Yet we don't get to say 'James - you're wrong. You should do such-and-such.' James gets to define his Widget. Essendon affirms his definition for as long as he is employed as coach. He explains to us what he means by 'full responsibility' by his actions. He's not wrong if he acts differently to what we assumed. We are wrong in what we assumed James meant.
The result for James Hird is far worse than us thinking that he's 'wrong' - or indeed that he was ultimately suspended for a year by the governing body. There's nothing wrong with being 'wrong' - this is important and - in James' case - sad. The result of James' actions is that we can no longer make assumptions about what James will do when he says that he will do something. Indeed there's a double whammy because people also generally react badly to being duped.
'Integrity' is simply doing what you said that you were going to do. James no longer has integrity for those of us who assumed 'full responsibility' meant its plain meaning. We now have to second guess him when he says that something is a spade. Does he actually mean a shovel?
This should be such a fatal blow to his ability to lead - in any sense. We lack confidence in where he says he's going to take us. He says he's going to lead us to victory. Whose definition of victory? James' or ours? This uncertainty is death to a leader.
Our decisions - not our words - reveal, test and shape us.
It was so, so easy for James to sound noble and Churchillian in January. 'Full responsibility!' Yet James' decisions were harder to make than those words were to utter. Real life tested his courage to stand by his words.
And most fatally for him and Essendon, they will continue to shape how others will behave in the future in response to whatever he or Essendon say. This is damage that can't be undone.
It takes a few clicks of a marketing manager's keyboard to declare what an organisation is 'committed to'. But that is just plastic clickety-clack noise until a decision reveals what that actually means, tests just how 'committed' it is, and then shapes our assumptions about what it will do in the future.
As for James Hird - Essendon has offered him a two year contract extension. It appears that he has produced his Widget precisely to his employers' specifications.
And as for the governing body - the Australian Football League - what does it tell us about its Widget? How much did the $1.253 Billion in television rights and James Hird's popularity among supporters and viewers and ratings affect its decision-making? Again, it's pointless for us to argue whether it should have.
A better way to shape the AFL's Widget to our specifications? Stop buying it. Switch off the TV and with it the advertisers who pay the broadcasters who bid for the TV rights from the AFL which decides whether James Hird's Widget is well-made.
Spades.
We initially define another's Widget based upon what they say it is.
If they say it's a spade, and we buy it, and it performs as we assume that a spade does, then no problem.
If it performs as an axe, then we have a problem. We say 'But I assumed that this would dig holes' and they say - whatever.
We could argue or complain and perhaps win.
But the real problem is that we can't rely on them any more. Even if we win and convince them that it isn't a spade but it's an axe - we might get a refund or an exchange - but we can never trust them again because we can't rely on what they say aligning with what we think that they mean.
That's why defining our Widget and then acting consistently with it is such a fundamental and important part of what any person or organisation needs to do. One tenth of the job is defining the Widget. Then the other 90% is communicating it in both words AND actions such that it aligns with what people expect the Widget to be.
We are all ethics teachers both internally and externally. Everyone watches to see what we DO and then there is almost no going back.
Employees won't usually say 'Hey - you said that people are your most valuable asset and yet you treat me like dirt'. They will just absorb it into their assumptions about the worth of your words and then treat everything that you say with skepticism and begin to silently disengage without trace.
This is why our response to people or organisations who do not deliver on the Widget as we expect them to do is critical and where our freedom really lies. If we accept the Widget as delivered - axe not spade - then we accept the organisation's definition of the Widget.
As employees, consumers, or observers, we do contribute to defining an organisation's Widget - but not through saying 'You're wrong' (especially as an employee) but through how we choose to act in response.
Debating whether a person or organisation's Widget is 'correct' is wasted energy, especially if it involves conflict. It's their Widget not ours.
A better response is to say 'Oh - so that's what you meant when you said 'Integrity''.
We make our decisions in response to their newly-defined Widget. If we're a customer, we don't give any more business and tell our friends to do likewise. If we're an employee, we quit. If we're an elector, we vote out the Government. If we do none of these things then we're accepting and affirming the organisation's definition of its Widget. It will continue to sell spades that chop trees, disrespect our work, or make bad laws.
Once an organisation loses our trust by saying its Widget is one thing yet delivering another, it's very very hard for it to recover. Because even if it says (as many do when their profit, polling or other measure of their Widget success begins to fall) 'We were wrong and now we're going to do things differently' - how do you know what 'differently' means?
Principle.
A lot of workplace unhappiness and conflict arises from being dishonest with ourselves.
We are frustrated because our work is not contributing to our Weekend Widget. Or because our Weekend Widget is unsatisfying. Or because we don't know what our Weekend Widget is.
We're unlikely to acknowledge this root cause, let alone take responsibility for it. To do so sounds selfish and stupid - because it is. Worse, it would confront us with our inertia, and the effort it takes to overcome it.
Can you imagine this admission: 'I'm really unhappy in my job because I want to be a professional photographer.'
It's too hard to be ourselves.
It's easier to blame our co-workers or our boss or our employer or the government or our family or someone else who is responsible.
But we can't tell this story to our fellow jaded employees over sandwiches: 'You all need to change so that I can feel more authentic in my workplace.' There has to be a nobler story where we are the hero or victim.
It's usually about Injustice or Unfairness. We hold the attention of our bored co-workers with regular updates about Our Fight for A Principle.
As Liz once said: ''Principle' is often code for feeling vulnerable about disclosing/being honest with yourself about underlying fears, motivations and needs.'
The struggle gives us meaning where we had none. The fight to bring a happy ending to our Story of Workplace Injustice becomes our Weekend and Weekday Widget combined. (The definition of a dream job.)
We may even win our battle. We get a captive audience over lunch. We get an apology from our boss or co-worker. We get a transfer. Or the worst outcome - a pay rise.
Now we've got alienated or new co-workers or boss, or a different desk, or more money in our bank to do - something - on the weekends.
And we're not travelling the world taking photographs for National Geographic.
Other.
There's a theory that matter only becomes matter by virtue if its relationship with other matter.
The word 'monk' comes from the Latin for 'alone'. Yet monks live in community because they discover themselves by bumping into other monks discovering themselves.
We exist only because of our relationship with another.
We need encounters with other particles to define our reality.
The more that we bump into each other the more we bring ourselves into existence.
The more we become who we are.
A Complaint About Me? Why thank you for filing smooth my uneven edges.
A Performance Review? How kind of you to buff me into a sparkling shine.
Shall I Make a Decision? Oh please do so that I can learn more about you.
Cooo-EE!
Marco!.....
...[polo].
Criticism.
A senior official in local government was interviewed on radio about their response to a report that had criticised some decisions that the council had proposed.
The journalist asked him whether he was concerned that a political agenda was what motivated the report. His reply surprised and delighted me.
'No, not really. It's just another piece of information that we'll consider in deciding what is in the best interests of the community.'
Widget Thinking in action.
I'm a naïve inquirer.
This is information and I get to decide its value.
Its value is determined by what it tells me about making a better community (Widget).
It will be considered on its merits along with all the other information.
(Thank you and please keep sending me information about my Widget.)
Always.
Your boss is always right. Always.
This is the First Rule of Employment.
Remember this - and you will set yourself free - one way or the other.
Your boss is always right because it is her Widget that you are helping to build. Your job is to give whatever expertise that you have to your boss in whatever form that you usually give it. If she says that you're wrong - then she should know because it's her Widget that you're wrong about.
Your job is to build the best Widget possible for your boss to incorporate into her Widget.
If you think that your boss is wrong - there are two possibilities: There is something about your Widget that you don't understand or there is something about the boss's Widget that you don't understand. Because your boss is always right. If you think that your boss is wrong (and of course she's not) then ask sincere questions with the mind of the naïve inquirer. Not in an annoying way - she's busy.
If you're the boss being asked those questions, then be secure enough to respond to them in a non-defensive, open-minded manner. Why wouldn't you? You want the questioner to make the best Widget possible because your Widget depends on it.
If you know that your team will always assume that you are right once you've made a decision - then the pressure is on to make sure that you are right - because they're off making their Widget to plug into your Widget based on the specs that you've given them.
You can't lose, boss. Because if you're confident about your Widget and how your team contributes to it, then the questioner will go away with their answers and do their bit to make sure your Widget is shiny. If the questions do reveal a flaw in your Widget, or at least the questioner's understanding of their Widget, then best to find that out now and remedy it, before your boss - or worse still - your customer does.
(This is the real incentive to have a genuine Open Door policy.)
The 'My Boss is Always Right' Rule is so counter-intuitively empowering. You can't lose - boss or worker.
It frees you up to focus your energies on making your Widget. Or to go and find somewhere else to work where your boss's right aligns with what you think is right.
Or better still - leave and become your own boss. And quickly learn how good life was when you had a Boss that was always right.
Moorings.
'And McNamara's shifts back and forth from urging caution to urging action one is tempted to attribute in part to lack of moorings such as those in the minds of Kennedy, Rusk or Taylor.’
This observation by the authors of ‘The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis' is a reminder of the importance for decision makers of having a clear purpose - a Widget - that should be served by each decision.
Such a ‘mooring’ helps to give stability and clarity amidst the buffeting of details, emotions, biases and agendas.
Curious
Malcolm Turnbull MP the Federal Member for Wentworth said in a recent interview:
'You know, there was very good advice that my father-in-law actually, Tom Hughes when he was a Member of Parliament, was given by a very distinguished member that was much older than him. And he said:
‘You should treat every question no matter how provocative as a polite request for information’. ’
Substitute ‘complaint’ for ‘question’ and this is even more helpful advice.
If good decision making was to be reduced to two words it would be:
Be Curious.
Tension.
In the Conclusion to the book The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the authors state:
‘Perhaps, above all, we observe in this record - more clearly than in any other documents we have seen - the contrary pulls of detail on the one hand and belief (or conviction or ideology) on the other.’
These battles between evidence and bias, and the micro and the macro, are critical ones to recognise and win for any decision maker.
The authors note that histories of decisions - whether insignificant or that such as faced by Kennedy; the destruction of the world- rarely see or even know the subtle flow of details and therefore underestimate their pushing and pulling on the mind of a decision maker.
This effect of detail on the ‘conscious and unconscious minds of decision makers, who see facts and form presumptions within frameworks of understanding shaped both by their personal interests and by their accumulated experience’ is further exaggerated when there are multiple contributors towards a decision. Each has their biases and personal frameworks and agendas and projects their advice on a decision accordingly.
Kennedy was under constant pressure from the military to use overwhelming force to solve the crisis, which was a seductively simple response, yet with potentially catastrophic consequences. Fortunately for the world, the President had learned a bitter lesson about accepting the generals’ advice after the Bay of Pigs debacle early in his Presidency. He even resists the taunt of General Curtis Le May that Kennedy’s cautious response to the Soviet aggression is ‘almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich.’ The President has the self-confidence and mental strength to not be influenced by Le May’s highly emotional ‘argument’ against the quarantine.
There are many lessons for decision makers and their advisers in the way in which President Kennedy behaved during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The need to reconcile the incessant tension between realities and beliefs is one of them.
Emotion.
In the Conclusion of ‘The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis’, the authors assess the decision-making of the Soviet and American leadership that is revealed almost word-for-word in the nearly seven hundred pages of taped crisis meetings in the book.
Khrushchev made his decisions alone and without seeking advice or analysis. He ‘acted more from instinct than from calculation’, was an ‘impulsive risk taker’ and was described by aides as ‘reckless’. Khrushchev had little experience or knowledge of foreign affairs and his understanding of the world was framed in simplistic Marxism-Leninism. He made assumptions about Kennedy based purely on the President’s youth and family wealth, and saw his ‘flexibility’ as a weakness. Khrushchev also suffered from an inflated sense of his influence on world affairs as a result of his mis-reading of the motivations for America’s responses to his previous decisions.
In short, Khrushchev’s decision-making was driven by emotion more than reason. If this made it difficult for the Americans to read and anticipate his actions, it must have been equally so for his generals and ministers.
In comparison, President Kennedy ‘did not make any impulsive decisions during the crisis’. He ‘opened up much of his reasoning….and likely consequences of his choices before he made them. He explained his thinking to a range of analyses and critiques from formal and informal advisers and even representatives of the British government.’ He also allows his advisers to ‘reason through the problems’.
At the height of the crisis, the authors argue that Kennedy ‘seems more alive to the possibilities and consequences of each new development than anyone else’, remaining calm and lucid, and clear about his objectives.
While Kennedy kept himself open to the advice of others, and had obviously nurtured a working relationship that meant his advisers felt confident enough to disagree with him, he was firm when he needed to be. He overrode the generals’ planned air strike in retaliation for the shooting down of an American U2 aircraft, even though that was the response that he had initially agreed upon.
The ability to remain uninfluenced by bias is one of the most important qualities of a good decision maker. It makes her thinking visible, her actions predictable and teachable and gives confidence to her team who may have to execute their own decisions that flow from hers.
Kennedy used many tools to keep him focussed on the facts. He verbalised his logic, exposing his thinking even to those outside his circle to avoid ‘groupthink’. He had private venting conversations with his brother, the Attorney-General Robert Kennedy. Most importantly, Kennedy did not surround himself with ‘Yes Men’.
President Kennedy’s willingness to be transparent in his decision making and open in his uncertainties showed courage and were evidence of great leadership.
Athwart.
During one of the meetings in the White House to discuss the US response to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Robert Kennedy, Attorney-General and brother of President John Kennedy referred to a memo that had been prepared by Under Secretary of State George Ball.
The memo argued against a surprise strike against Cuba. It said that to do so would be to behave ‘in a manner totally contrary to our traditions, by pursuing a course of action that would cut directly athwart anything we have stood for during our national history, and condemn us as hypocrites in the opinion of the world.’
Robert Kennedy said ’I think George Ball has a hell of a good point….I think it’s the whole question of…what kind of country we are.’
Every decision that we make is a statement to the world - louder, more honest and memorable than words - about who we really are.
But
During a recent workshop I was explaining about a simple tip that my friend Liz used to remind me about that can help avoid or defuse conflict. Simply using the word 'And' instead of 'But'. It can make a huge difference to how another person hears what you say to them.
'For example,' I explained, 'You will try to give helpful feedback to someone by saying something like 'I really think that you did an excellent job, but you need to try to finish on time'. Yet the other person will most likely only hear everything after the 'But' and the compliment will be lost on them.
'Now hear how differently this sounds: 'I really think that you did an excellent job and you should also try to finish on time.'
'And' not 'But'.
I scanned the audience to check their understanding and everyone was nodding and smiling. Except for one very attentive elderly woman. Her face was blank and she looked confused. So I repeated my explanation, finishing with 'So remember, it's 'And' not 'But''. She still looked worried. So I repeated it again, this time looking directly at her. 'You should try not to use the word 'But', and use 'And' instead. Her face suddenly relaxed and she nodded.
'Oh,' the very prim and proper woman said. 'You're saying 'And' not 'But'.
'I thought that you were saying 'Hand on Butt'.