Happy.
'I want everyone in my team to be happy.'
He made this declaration half way through a Good Decision Making Workshop with a group of senior leaders.
He was experienced, but new to my client organisation. He'd arrived half an hour after the Workshop had started.
It's wrong to argue with a manager who wants happy workers. So I did.
'What about if two of your staff members are in conflict?' I asked. 'How would you know when it was resolved?'
'When they were both happy,' he said.
I was distracted by a unicorn passing beneath a rainbow made up of a chorus of coloured butterflies outside the window. So I don't know whether the other executives were rolling their eyes.
'What do you think is the likelihood of resolving it then?' I asked.
He made a speech about how he could never work in any organisation that did not put the happiness of its employees above everything else. It was a very good speech. It gave me time to think up a response that would help him to realise the folly of his ways without embarrassing him in front of his peers. I was all loaded and ready with my rebuttal when he concluded with:
'So I'm sorry - but my Widget is the happiness of my staff.'
I screwed up my mental notes.
'You're right,' I said, triggering the other executives' heads to swivel from him towards me.
'As the line manager of your staff - it's your Widget and it's not for me or anyone else bar one person to tell you otherwise. So if your Widget is universal staff happiness - then so it is.'
He looked disappointed that I'd laid down arms.
'And if your line manager is satisfied with that Widget, then great,' I continued. 'If she affirms you producing happy staff and that serves her Widget - excellent.'
I was being sincere.
I hope that he was as well.
I hope that he had a line manager who did support his Widget and that his line manager's manager supported her...and so on.
I hope that his staff is happy.
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.
Beyond.
Listening is Stepping Back.
Listening is the beginning of Leading - Create the Space.
Listen beyond your answer and towards theirs.
'You make other people smart by how you listen to them.'
- Steven Tomlinson
Consequences.
The Australian Electoral Commission gave another example of Good Decision Making today.
Ed Killesteyn the AEC Commissioner was interviewed on Radio National on the decision by the AEC to declare the Senate result in Western Australia despite the disappearance of 1375 votes.
He began by acknowledging the 'gravity' of the situation and apologising to the electors.
He said that he was left with 'a nagging and almost irreconcilable doubt' about the result of the WA Senate election.
The journalist then asked him if this was the case, 'Why on earth is the AEC going to declare the Senate result in WA this afternoon?'
'I have no choice,' Mr Killesteyn replied. 'I am obligated to declare the result. Legally I have no other choice.'
'So you need to do this so that it can be referred to the courts?' the journalist asked.
'That's correct. The 40 day petition period to the courts is only enlivened once the last of all the writs has been returned. '
The Commissioner then summarised to the Australian public, via the journalist, everything that he had done to find the missing votes.
The AEC had already begun an inquiry into the missing votes and was reviewing its procedures.
Mr Killesteyn understands that he is a servant of the Law, which says that he must declare the election. Despite some withering criticism, he recognises that he must make this decision to allow the consequences to begin flowing from it, whatever they may be.
He steps back from his own doubt and uncertainty and does his job. He produces his Widget so that others may produce theirs.
Like most good leaders, Mr Killesteyn is not in the heroic model. He is a career public servant who appears to have discharged his duties without fanfare or fuss.
In a 2009 speech he listed the four principles under which the AEC operated in order to build public confidence in its impartiality, one of which was 'decision-making in accordance with objective application of the law'.
He quoted from a speech given by the Indian Chief Election Commissioner, who said that the Indian organisation was able to retain the confidence of the electors because it was 'a listening Commission'.
Listening.
The Indian Commissioner concluded by saying:
'Being human, we can be wrong sometimes, but our intention should never be impure.'
Mr Killesteyn's words and tone of speech showed that he understood and accepted that his organisation had failed in fulfilling its public duty to deliver on nothing short of the democratic process of a Federal Election.
Yet his voice during the interview was calm, measured, steady and without the edge that one expects from someone under so much criticism. Possibly because he was liberated by the knowledge that while he had failed in his Widget, his decision making was flawless.
His response today was even more remarkable given that it was he who decided to overrule the WA Electoral Commissioner's original decision and to allow the re-count that has ultimately revealed his organisation's errors and undermined public confidence in it, and in him.
Leaders are Brave.
Breathing.
Step 1 of the Good Decision Making process is to Step Back.
Don't mistake decisiveness for good decision making.
Don't mistake power for Leadership.
Don't mistake reaction for action.
Step Back.
Keep Breathing.
Listen.
Listen.
Keep listening.
Listen until your ears bleed.
Listen until the other person falls silent.
Then keep listening.
But they're not speaking.?
Doesn't matter. Keep listening.
They're talking again.
Listen.
They've stop talking.
Keep listening?
Yes.
They're still not talking.
Keep listening.
Neither of us is talking now.
It's been quiet for a while.
Okay it's feeling a bit awkward.
Listen until your ears bleed.
Sure - but there hasn't been anything to listen to for at least half a minute now.
Is it feeling awkward?
Yes.
Keep listening.
Okay this extended silence is starting to feel a little creepy.
You can talk now.
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.
Yourself.
Our Widget is a destination that draws us out of ourselves using the map and compass of Good Decision Making to become who we are.
It's all about the Widget.
It's never about the Widget.
Position.
'What do you think is the main problem with this organisation?'
For three months Liz and I had been trying to diagnose the ailing culture of our new client so that we could fix it. So we asked to meet with one of its top executives.
'People won't make decisions,' he said without pausing to ponder our question.
'Why do you think that they won't?' Liz asked.
'Because they're afraid of the consequences.' His quick responses affirmed that we were asking the right questions and that he had thought about them a lot.
'What are the consequences?' Liz asked.
'There are none,' he said.
Liz and I left the meeting more confused than when we walked in.
It took me another three months to understand the logic of his answer.
Decisions are like a submarine's sonar pings.
A submarine sends out pulses of sound waves that reflect off objects on the surface and beneath the water around it and return to the submarine. The time that it takes to travel back allows the submarine to know its geographic location and depth in the water and the lay of the underwater land above, below, either side and ahead of it. The submarine can adjust its course accordingly.
Each time that we make a decision we send out information that will return new data back to us that will inform us about our world. Like sonar pings. We incorporate that updated information and adjust our understanding of where we are in our job and life accordingly.
In short - we learn.
Each of our decisions also announces something about our identity, views, course and objective. The same act that informs us about our position also declares ourselves to others and therefore exposes us to the risk of criticism, ridicule, error and judgement.
(Another analogy. Certain military aircraft use radar that is so advanced it can tell them the model, not just the location, of another aircraft that is out of sight of the naked eye. But that same radar is what the pilot uses to direct a missile. So while 'painting' another aircraft with the radar can tell the pilot an enormous amount about its identity, it will be detected by the other aircraft's electronics and could provoke the other pilot into fearing that he's about to be fired upon and thus to fire first.)
Our decisions are often what Joseph R. Badaracco called 'Defining Moments' that reveal, test and shape us.
If a submarine pings and doesn't get a response, it is blind. It doesn't know whether it's about to collide with a reef. It will stop, or at least slow down.
If a person makes a decision and there are no consequences - no affirmation, no acknowledgement, no criticism, no echo back - then they are blind. They will either slow down or stop making decisions. They will become passive consumers of second hand information via other people's decisions/pings.
People and organisations need to have good decision making processes that provide us with reliable information about where we are in relation to our professional and personal Widgets.
We also need Leaders who will affirm.
Stories.
Most people's work is disconnected from their Widget.
They go to their office, occupy themselves for eight hours, go home.
They know that they've done a good job because nobody told them that they didn't and they're still getting emails on the All Staff mail list.
Most importantly their boss puts money in their bank each fortnight for them to forward most of it into their mortgage.
Sure, they make things. Emails, reports, meeting agendas, minutes.
They go to quarterly staff meetings and listen to a boss tell them about how the Widget is going with PowerPoint slides in support.
Once a year they sit down with their boss who tells them how they've performed and what courses they need to do because We're A Learning Organisation.
So they go to the professional development seminars with relief at the novelty of being away from their desk and eat mints with the other seven perky strangers on their table as an expert projects PowerPoint slides with dot points about innovation with anecdotes about Fortune 500 companies and other stories to inspire them to be better.
We love stories. They connect us to something bigger.
Good decision making is story telling.
It has a heroic arc that gives us meaning.
It's heroic because it's our conscious act to embark on the journey and accept its possible consequences and take responsibility for them.
It's superior to what most call decision making which is actually an instinctive sneeze-like response to a stimulus.
Our journey begins with the ascent of a hill where we sit at the top and take in the view of the Widget.
Wow. We never realised how close our desk was to it.
Good decision making is a journey that takes us out and back again to our desk and it won't look the same afterwards.
That's what a Learning Organisation is.
'We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.'
- T.S. Eliot 'Little Gidding'.
Assembly.
The Atlantic Magazine had a recent article about how some companies in the United States are bringing their factories back home.
While increasing wages in developing countries and higher transport costs from the factory to market are part of the reason, most are found in Widget Thinking.
The time from when a product came into fashion and then fell out had shortened from seven years to two. It meant companies had to shorten the feedback loop between factory floor and design table.
General Electric is one company reversing the overseas outsourcing trend. It originally had designers in the United States and manufacturers in China. It decided to bring the workers who built washing machines into the same building as the engineers and designers.
Workers on the factory floor identifying any improvements or issues could immediately inform the engineers who could consult with the designers who could modify the Widget. One example was when workers recommended a design change that cut the hours needed to assemble a washing machine from 10 hours to 2.
This 'inherent understanding' (unconscious competence?) of the product had been lost with the outsourcing to cheaper labour in China. GE got it back by closing the gap between assembly line and designer.
Co-located assembly and design also allowed companies to adopt the ‘Lean’ manufacturing techniques popularised by Toyota. Everyone has a say in critiquing and improving the way work gets done, with a focus on eliminating waste. It requires an open, collegial and relentlessly self-critical mind-set among workers and bosses alike –a culture that is hard to create and sustain.
It requires a Leader.
Each worker adds their widget to the Widget moving along the assembly line. It's the job of the manager to make sure that the assembly line is itself assembled so that the work is as easy and efficient as possible. The best way for the manager to achieve this is through an open, collegial and relentlessly self-critical approach.
In the GE example, the dishwasher team created its own assembly line based on its practical experience of assembling dishwashers. The result was that it eliminated 35 percent of labour.
Here's where the bigger SPEAR picture is important to Widget production. The GE workers only shared the information that led to the reduction in labour after management promised them that none would lose their job.
The Leaders and managers had succeeded in creating the Space where the workers felt safe enough to be so innovative that they did put their very jobs at risk.
Every organisation is making something - its Widget. It's probably not literally an assembly line. It is at least made up of people who each makes something that contributes towards the Widget.
Is this process open? Is it collegial? Is it relentlessly self-critical?
Does every worker feel that they have a Leader who has created their Space, defined their Purpose, Equipped them, Affirmed them.?
Then got out of their way?
Rules.
Rules are liberating.
They free our mind to focus its attention on creativity.
It can't be creative and analytical at the same time. They're different processes.
Most organisations try to make people happy. Social clubs, birthday cakes, employees of the month, work-life balance. Yet few spend time with each job applicant and go over the contract, enterprise agreement, policies. The Rules.
People can be unhappy and still do good work. They just need Rules. If I do this, then that will happen.
'People do not have to love each other, or even like each other, to work together effectively. But they do have to trust each other in order to do so. Trust between people is the basic social glue: suspicion and mistrust are the prime enemies of reasonable human relationships.' Requisite Organization.
Rules allow workers to do good work knowing that trust is baked into the Rules.
As Liz says - rules are like old fashioned secretaries - they do the 'non-thinking' tasks to free the expert up to do expert work.
Rules liberate.
They allow us to move from the reactive to the de-liberate.
'De-liberation': a Freeing of multiple possibilities. I can choose.
Rules are the solid, immovable anvil against which we hammer out our Widget and therefore our identities. We fashion ourselves against the boundaries created by our employer.
Widget clarity releases our energy and creativity.
If only to help us realise that we don't want to make that widget any more.
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. '
Boundaries.
A Leader defines the Space in which those who join her will apply themselves towards the Purpose.
A Leader clearly marks out the boundaries - not as an exercise of power to restrain or control those following but as a shorthand way of defining the resources - time, money, laws, staff, decision-making authority - available to them. It removes as many variables as possible so that she can leave them to focus on doing good work.
The space is marked out in the job ad, the employment contract, the duty statement, policies, procedures, budgets. Practical, unambiguous boundary lines around a field of endeavour and creativity and good work.
A good Leader will make the space as large as practicable to allow those within it the freedom to explore and experiment and innovate.
She may have managers who patrol the boundaries on her behalf. (Many 'leadership' positions are actually caretakers of a boundary of the Space carved out by a Leader.)
Some people's response to boundaries is to run as fast as they can to the extremes of the space and pound on the walls. A few will even cross over them as a child-like expression of their independence or dissent from the Leader. Others will probe the boundaries for technical gaps and exploit them, only to retreat back inside and feign surprise and indignation when asked to account by the managers for their actions.
The Leader responds by inviting them to leave her space and create their own.
As she will soon do herself.
The Leader's final act is to Retreat from the Space that she has created for others to fill.
So that she can define a new one.
And so on.
Because that's what Leaders do.
Labels.
I was ranting to Jonathon about how poorly most organisations deal with complaints. I took him through my argument.
A good decision is one that advances us towards where we want to be.
It demands that we remain open to information that may orientate us about where we are in relation to where we want to be.
If we are clear about our Widget.
And authentic in our desire to become who we are.
We should eagerly, actively and greedily seize on any information that helps us to orientate ourselves in relation to our objectives.
One of the biggest obstacles that we have to good decision making is the label that we put on information before we have assessed it.
'Complaint' is the best example.
Call something a 'Complaint' and our ego hears a call to arms. It activates the equivalent of a bank teller security screen. Zip - up go our defences.
We look for reasons to dismiss the complaint, or at least filter out the information.
It's anonymous.
It's not in writing.
It hasn't come through the right channels.
The complainant said that they don't want us to do anything about it.
We're like children searching to legitimise not eating our greens.
Then Jonathon says: 'Imagine if a car pulled up alongside you at the traffic lights, sounded their horn to get your attention, and the passenger rolled down their window and pointed at your rear tyre and then drove off when the lights turned green. Would you ignore their signal because they're anonymous? Would you look away because their information was in the form of gestures and not in writing?
Complaints are just information in an emotional wrapper.
Competition.
The ABC programme Landline had a story on Chinese investment in the Ord River region of Western Australia on the Northern Territory border.
A local sugar farmer said something that was a rare and refreshing example of an ability to think beyond a simplistic and impulsive response to the government supporting the entry of a huge competitor. One would think that he would be wary and resistant to a large foreign company competing with his livelihood.
Yet here's what he said:
'I think it would radically change it in a positive way, and I think often, we all oppose change. It's a scary thing. It can be very hurtful and difficult, but it's a positive thing. It brings out the best in people. We're a very open community, we embrace new people. I'm really looking forward to having some new farmers come in and show us up a bit, you know, 'cause hopefully they're better than us.'
SPEAR.
She summarised it all.
Cadets. Law School. Officers Training School. Basic Staff Course. Masters of Defence Studies. Consulting. Workshops. Seminars. Books. Lots of books. All the PowerPoints, training films, lectures, military exercises, manuals, exams, yelling, drill, marching, chains of command, legislation, tutorials, performance reviews and on the job experience.
She was 12 years old.
I had finished teaching spear throwing to a group of Year 7s who were at New Norcia on a Leadership Camp. They were sitting cross-legged in the shade of the trees at the end of the oval and I was trying to draw leadership lessons from the last hour of throwing Gidgies - the Aboriginal spear - using the Miro. It was impromptu. I was making it up as I went along. I had an inbox full of emails back in my office.
'Did you learn anything today about being Leaders?' I asked them.
A hand went up.
'You're the New Norcia Town Manager and you led the activity today?' the boy said with a child's typical upward inflection.
'Well, yes. And was there anything that I did that you thought was what leaders do?'
A different hand went up.
'You drew a line in the dirt and told us that we weren't to go over the line unless you said that we could?'
'Was that because I was bossy?'
'No. You didn't want one of us to accidentally get speared.'
'That's right. So I explained the boundaries of our activity. Good. Anything else?'
Hand up.
'You put that cardboard box full of straw in front of us and told us it was a pretend kangaroo and that was our target that we had to spear?'
'Good. I gave you something to aim for. Anything else that I did that you think a leader might do?'
'You gave us each a Gidgie and Miro and taught us how to use them?'
'Yes. Anything else?' I reckoned I'd exhausted all the lessons. One last opportunity to squeeze thoughts out of their capped heads.
Hand up. I'm surprised. I nod towards the boy squinting up at me.
'After each throw you told us what we did right and what we did wrong? We kept missing the box - er - kangaroo but we got closer each time?'
I was impressed. 'Good. So I was giving you feedback. Yes. Leaders give feedback in a way that encourages or affirms.'
I reckoned that was about it. I was feeling quite chuffed about how much we'd extracted given I'd done no planning. Most had lost eye contact with me and were tugging at the tufts of dead grass. I glanced at my watch. Five minutes left.
'So does anyone have anything else to add? Any questions about our activity?'
Silence. Then her hand slowly rose from the middle of the group.
'Yes?'
'You got out of the way?' she said. A few giggles.
I started to smile. But didn't. I wondered.
'What do you mean?' I'm wondering if...
'Well, the last thing that you did was that you moved to the side and just let us throw the spears. You waited for us all to finish and didn't say anything. You just watched us. And then you came over and let us know how we'd gone so that we could do it better next time.'
I felt a tingle.
'That's right. I got out of the way. There was nothing more for me to do.' I paused to remember the list of things that they'd told me I'd done. 'I'd shown you the area or space that you had to do the activity in. I shown you what the purpose was - to spear the kangaroo. I gave you all the equipment and taught you how to use it. I gave you feedback after each throw so that you learned how to do it better. And then - I got out of your way and let you get on with it.'
Wow.
I scanned their bored faces. They didn't share my excitement at the significance of that exchange. They were thinking about afternoon tea and then Aboriginal tool making with Lester. But my mind was humming.
And then this.
The same girl's hand rises. 'Yes?'
'Is that why they say that leaders are brave?'
My tingles tingled.
'What do you mean?'
She blinked. Cocked her head slightly. Waved away a fly.
'Well...it must be really hard for a leader to just stand back and let people do their jobs and not keep yelling at them or taking over and doing it themselves. To know that some people might do it wrong and it's the leader who gets blamed. I think it must take lots of bravery to be a leader.'
Then off they trotted up the hill behind their teachers to their biscuits and cordial and more lessons about Leadership.
Space.
Purpose.
Equip.
Affirm.
Retreat.
Participation.
The Philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah said in an interview something that we all know:
People who have been heard, and whose position is understood, tend to be more willing to accept an outcome that they wouldn't have chosen because they feel that they've had a voice, that they've participated in the process.
This is consistent with Step 5 of the Five Step Good Decision Making Process - Hearing.
The 'process' can be a single decision. Or the entire boss-worker relationship.
The job advertisement. 'This is our Widget. If you build Widgets that look like this, we need you to help us build our Widget.'
The interview. 'Have you read the contract of employment that says that if you build your Widget in the way that we describe then we will put money in your bank?'
The informal chat over a coffee. 'What sport do you play?'
The conversation over a copy of the employment agreement. 'Yes, we can add a clause that says that you can leave early on Tuesdays for State representative hockey practice in exchange for those overnight work trips interstate.'
The tour of the potential workplace. 'Here's your desk and your surroundings where you will spend a lot of hours of your life.'
The job is offered and accepted. 'Thank you for choosing to work with us.'
The Entry Interview. 'Why did you choose to work with us and what are you hoping for in this job?'
The three days of induction before touching a computer mouse. 'Here are our Values and let's take a tour of our factory floor so you can see the final Widget coming off the conveyor belt with the bit that we want you to build.'
The ad hoc conversations. 'I heard that the Hockeyroos are training down the road today. Let's have our weekly catch up over a sandwich at the oval.'
And so on.
A year on and the boss raises the potential new position in Singapore.
The boss chooses Geoffrey. Disappointment. Hurt. A sting to the ego. Self doubt.
Reflection. Recalibration.
There's a job in the Rio office. 2016 Olympics host city.
Wrong.
In 2003 in the case of Australian Communication Exchange v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation the seven Justices of the High Court of Australia ruled 4-3 in favour of granting an appeal.
This meant that three of the wisest, most experienced lawyers in the country - including the Chief Justice - who were in the minority and denied the appeal were 'wrong'.
It meant that the Barristers and Solicitors who quoted legal precedents, legislation and fact in support of the respondent before the High court were 'wrong'.
It meant that the three Judges of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia who made the finding that was the subject of the appeal and the barristers and solicitors who appeared in that trial on behalf of the losing party that was overturned by the High Court was each 'wrong'.
It meant that each bureaucrat in the Australian Tax Office who made decisions and internally reviewed and upheld decisions that applied and interpreted legislation, policy and case law that were eventually overturned by the High Court was wrong.
From the first public servant to the judgment in the High Court, dozens of decision makers and their advisers including three of the sharpest legal minds in the land, each with education, experience, expertise and wisdom and hundreds of combined years of interpreting and applying policies and procedures and laws were....'wrong'.
The High Court, Federal Court, Supreme Courts, District and County Courts, Magistrates Courts and miscellaneous other tribunals across the country overturn thousands of decisions of lower decision makers every day. Their 'wrong' legal reasoning, reputation, credibility and intellect will remain pinned up in the public square of the World Wide Web for the world to see as long as there is such a thing.
Law students, solicitors, barristers, text book writers, Queens and Senior Counsel, judges associates, judges and High Court justices will continue to read and study their 'wrong' reasoning and use it to form and strengthen their own arguments based on different facts and sometimes even law.
Next time that you're 'wrong' about something, remember the Chief Justice and his two other High Court of Australia brethren and Australian Communication Exchange v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation.
You're in good company.