I had written about an incident years ago, from a programme where I was not a trainer, but providing outdoor activity support for a programme for CapGeminii conducted by Dr. Dilip Panniker. In that post, I spoke of an incident where Fr. Panniker intervened with the group to drive home the difference between trying and doing, by asking a participant to put his cap on the floor and try to pick it up. Each time he actually picked it up, he used to yell – “No! Don’t pick it up! Try to pick it up” This went on to a ridiculous extent till the group just grumbled “What is the point? The cap will never get picked up” THAT was the point.

The word try, as in attempt is valid to the extent of sharing intentions, but it has no place in the evaluation of a result. Whether something happened or not is the question.

Too many leaders today try (and fail) to keep a feel good factor by acknowledging the efforts made by the team in a space to talk about results. So, for example, instead of looking at what caused the failure, the energy is spent in softening the awareness of that failure to an extent where the team actually starts feeling good that they tried.

Morale is good for a team, but the feel  good factor is highly overrated. For instance, the focus on commending the effort and avoiding the failure results in the group feeling even more directionless. Is it that I just need to try? Then why do all out pep talks insist on delivering? Trainers and organizational consultants further confound the matter (yeah, I do remember I am one) by looking at results or effort seemingly at random, or worse, depending on the stage of the programme in order to send participants back with some confidence in their abilities to deliver. I doubt if many of them are even aware that they do so.

Yet, history, experience and plain logic agree that it is the sting of having a problem that often drives man to find exceptional solutions. By removing the sting from the problem, we keep the problem intact while removing any productivity it may bring. Efficient? No.

Yet, this has given birth to an entire corporate vocabulary (which we rarely hear anywhere else):

• The efforts made by team so and so are indeed praiseworthy (Do you hear the clear announcement that they didn’t deliver?)
• We achieved 80% of our goal (which basically means we didn’t do our job as planned – and the 80% is usually subjective and the client would probably call it 40% from his location on subjectivity)
• We were able to adapt quickly and innovate. If we just had a couple of days/minutes/weeks/months… more…… (point is, it wasn’t done when it was supposed to be)

And so on….

Yet, without identifying failure, you are doomed to taking that same unproductive path time and again, simply because its okay, its not perfect, but its acceptable. Identifying and acknowledging failure is the laser that precision moulds success with each pass.

In usual life, talking over a beer you’d probably hear “Damn, I thought I could do it, but I couldn’t.” “I tried so hard, but it wasn’t enough” “I screwed up”. Is it any wonder that there are far less performance problems in organizing a party at home than at work? Each time you mess up, you admit it, and learn from it and that is that. At work, you do all you can to avoid being seen as the one who failed, so you spew out a whole load of reasons that hide from no one that you simply forgot to book that event manager (or didn’t want to). It can be “because of” anything ranging from the person being unavailable to the parking attendant looking at you the wrong way that morning. The most well constructed reasoning can gain you a lot of sympathy, but isn’t going to make those entertainers appear out of thin air. No matter what you believe, making you feel better is not everyone’s idea of entertainment.

I could go on and on about the whole process of avoidance of admitting failure, but this is the general gist.

Other ways we muddle things up include the classic analysis paralysis, where the options are so many and need so much research, that you are essentially paralysed till some external power gives you a clear winner to decide on – who is really the decision maker here is a matter for another debate.

Analysis is what cuts through all this clutter. It is relatively clear, though the process may vary:

• What needs done?
• What is the information I have?
• How much information is missing, and how terrible is the risk?
• What does my gut say?
• Will I be able to do damage control if something turns up?
• MAKE THE DECISION – Don’t just sit there twiddling your thumbs till running out of time forces you into that decision anyway
• PLAN, EXECUTE, DELIVER <– these three are together, because it is usually your team that will go through these with your directions. Contrary to what most people imagine, this is not a leader’s job – it is why you build competencies in your team.
• ANALYZE – what happened? Was the job done? <=== This is a YES/NO question.
• Look at what worked, what didn’t, institute whatever processes need to be in place and move on in life.

When your sight is clear, moving on will not be an issue. If your instinct is to create an epic to supplement the two great ones we already have in India, its telling you that you’ve cluttered things up, and have missed something vital. Go through above steps with a scalpel, and by the time you reach the bottom again, you should be ready to move on.

The peripherals are seductive. The praise, the criticism, the good intentions, the market conditions, the weather, the contents of your lunch box…. Sure. Many of them are important to the happiness of your team or you. Just don’t confuse them with the task and you should be fine as a leader.