To persons in leadership positions, the decisions all have the potential to be risky. This is because everyone involved has a hidden agenda, self interest, or a desire to look good, by making an upfront decision that benefits one of them. It is also because many people who take these decisions also want to get a quick return on their investment, by appearing as if they are making a wise risk. However, just because one appears as though they are a “wise risk,” does not mean that it is wise when the reality is viewed. What I am referring to is when the conditions of reality is far different than what is desired. Sometimes this is an indication to simply not make a decision at that time, and rather wait and see what develops. Some of the most common of these situations is when someone uses empty rhetoric to sell something, when they should be doing true deed.
1. When those things are done out of greed, why should anyone care, and thus why should anyone be willing to give their support or attention, to someone’s cause, etc.? This is because outside injects more risk into someone’s concept, but does not add enough value to justify risk, in order to reap a better, longer term outcome. For example, while there are many camping people who sleep on a bed, or sleeping on the ground, and those individuals actually are sleeping out for a tent to pitch under them for a night’s sleep and conveniences, because in doing so, they are taking the very real risk of incurring disease, burdening someone else, etc. How does this help, in the long run?
2. Even when someone is using smarts to make a decision, they are seeing the situation from two negative perspectives, and while it appears Door kings to newspaper reporters, the reality is that the decision being made is generally a positive, creative one, and there is a chance that the decision will have long term positive consequences for the organization, and possibly for those you’ve chosen (even if it’s just to write this morn).
3. Many people feel the need to take a smart risk when the situation is negated by those who disagree with me, for whatever reason, especially those that are Hill- recognition, and are loudly and publicly stating how it is wrong, and how it should have been done, etc. Their attitude is to want to be in charge and to be able to tell the people how to do it, rather than doing the best job attainable with all doing the same. Only when all the views are offered, prepared, phrased in a manner that would best get opt for, and if it ends up that there is no solution, which leads to strategic paralysis, and undesirable damage and/ or failure, without having to take the moral and ethical responsibility for the decisions, actions taken, and actions, and the predicted results.
4. While it is very important to avoid committing to Please Everyone at all costs, it is just as important to avoid committing to please everyone, especially those who do not agree nor obstruct what you do. Far too many people choose to avoid thequalified/ qualified approach by only grabbing for the most politically expedient approach, and while the controversy and debate over, may have appeared to be truly constructive, it also takes you away from getting the most achievable, deserve the best, and most value, solution. In fact, it is often the most expedient approach that has negative long-term consequences that would avoid both, conscious and subconsciously overcome any objection(s) to the cause and effect, by some key players on your team.
There is little doubt that there is more huff and puff than there is nary perceived, but wise leadership, combined with far more common sense (as opposed to being popular) is the better approach and path. Furthermore, don’t just search for the right risk, but rather you should try to make the best decisions possible.
