Outwardly, Les was good at fitting in almost anywhere. Already well into his fifties, he had the smarts that one usually has by that time in life. He knew how to do his job and he did it well.
Not readily apparent, however, was a special talent I witnessed while attending a meeting as an observer. About a dozen people, including Les, were involved.
On the table was a proposed course of action that would affect a small but vitally important part of a much larger program of the organization. The group had been handed the responsibility of deciding if that was the best of several possible options. After a few idle comments, the group finally settled down to the challenge they faced.
Early on, I noticed that although Les was a fully credentialed and principal figure, only occasionally did he make any remarks. Even then, they were brief as if his intent was simply to remind everyone of his presence.
As expected, the meeting droned on with most everyone contributing but not necessarily taking a firm stand on much of anything. Eventually, the chair welded together the points and counterpoints into a proposal and called for a vote. Everyone uttered their approval—well, everyone except Les.
It would have been an awkward situation had not one member said with a chuckle followed quickly by a sigh, “Okay, Les, what’s wrong?”
“That’s not going to work,” he said quietly. Not waiting for someone to ask him why he thought that way, he began making a point-by-point analysis of what had just been voted upon—speaking slowly to be sure everyone understood what he was saying.
Yes, he said in his summary, some solid thinking had emerged from all the talk, but the resulting proposal was doomed to failure if it were submitted as written. By then, every face mirrored the look of a student who had just been out-maneuvered by the teacher.
Every point Les made had such merit and his reasoning was so soundly based that the group had no choice but to begin all over again to construct what soon became an almost completely reworded document. When a vote was again called for, everyone answered in the affirmative—including Les.
Afterward, I thought that what I had witnessed must have been a coincidence. I soon learned, however, that it had happened several times before. The more perceptive people were well aware of Les’s strategy of listening carefully to all the information, but waiting until after a consensus had been reached or a vote taken before revealing what he considered to be serious flaws most likely to lead to failure. Specifically, as each idea or point was raised, he was able to anticipate both merits and demerits and what effect they could have on the much larger whole. Obstructionist? Hardly. A master of one-upmanship? No way. Les never played such games. If anyone insisted on a label for Les, “Solid thinking cross-examiner” would have been a good fit.
Regardless of what others thought of him, upper management wisely regarded him as a valuable asset, the person to ask after the right answer had seemingly alluded everyone else.
Sometimes he openly admitted he wasn’t qualified to make a judgement. He also made it clear that like anyone else, he could make an error in judgement. That created an even more positive feeling among others and quickly erased any possibility he was allowing his ego to override logic.
Les’s ability to stand back, even as everyone else was moving forward, left an indelible imprint on my understanding of how things can often be made to work much better.
We live in a world in which everything is moving faster, where we are being urged to accomplish more and in less time. Any organization, no matter its size or mission, shouldn’t attempt to hurry the process of fitting smaller elements into a much larger whole.
That concept is equally valuable when applied to one’s personal life and the myriad of critically important questions that must be answered—should I get married, take that job, buy that car, accept that promotion, move to that city, go on that vacation, retire? Just as the questions never end, neither does the need for closely analyzing each possible answer.
The only logical way one can do that is to take the critically important step of standing well back from the obvious and taking a horizon-to-horizon look at the entirety of their life.
Les did it for the good of the organization. Anyone can do it for the good of themselves.
