Have you ever looked up from your desk and realized that you are, simply, stuck? You just don’t know what to do, how to proceed – even where to go?
If you have tremendous challenges, you don’t seem to have resources to meet them. Worse, if you are overflowing with resources, you can’t think of a sensible way to deploy them.
Perhaps the most frustrating way this happens is the most common one. You have an over-arching objective, but you have expended so many of your resources in pursuing it, and in reducing intermediate obstacles, that you can’t think how to use the remainder to finish the job. Moreover, your competition seems to have the same problem. So all of you are bumbling around seeking a way out.
You search and ponder and puzzle the matter through, but nothing comes to you that doesn’t amount to a prolonged erosion of assets which results in your running out of steam and rolling to a forlorn stop on the field, well short of your objective. It’s a stalemate any way you look at it.
You consider the matter from the other side. As far as you can tell, your competitors are just as stymied as you. But then you begin to develop a sense that they see something you can’t perceive. They have a secret plan, a maneuver that is the key to leveraging their equally scant capabilities into a growing advantage that suddenly looms on the horizon, too late for you to counter.
So, what do you do? Do you continue the deliberate, attrition warfare that brought you to this stage, and that promises to leave you stranded and, perhaps, lost? Or do you concentrate all your energies into a focused lunge to your strategic goal?
In making this determination, what do you use as a guide? How do you reevaluate your priorities? Where do you go to inform your perspective? Do you wait for more information? More direction? Do you take recourse in action to dispel the uncertainty? Or do you just bide your time, alert for the situation to clarify on its own?
And, what is your personal role in all of this – your core contribution?
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of attrition warfare, please stop over to view this recent post on the Carl Icahn Report for an interesting characterization of the “management” vs shareholder battle for control of America’s public companies. The discussion centers around the sale of Anheuser-Busch and the board mechanisms that enabled it – definitely worth a read for those interested in current corporate governance issues.
—
If you have enjoyed this post, please do join us by using the subscription links just below or at the top right of this page. And thanks – we look forward to your being aboard!
—
Technorati Tags: objective, competition, asset, perspective, information, direction, Carl Icahn Report, management, shareholder, America, Anheuser-Busch, corporate, governance, Carl Icahn
Sphere: Related Content
Note:
The first thing I’d want to gauge is the true emotional state of the manager in the situation you describe. If he or she is not in distress at the realization that they’re stumped, we’re in a much different universe from the one in which some people become far too agitated – with or without realizing it – when stumped. Being stumped can be an unnecessarily intense blow to some leaders who manage via persona, or emotional energy. For others, being stumped is simply the accurate description of current circumstances.
As a rule of thumb in business, action is preferred over passivity – although you’ve made the point, Jim, again and again, that acting without really thinking about what you’re doing can be a disaster. A confident manager “thinks out loud” to advisers and colleagues, especially when the situation is unclear, and doesn’t worry that he or she is conveying doubt. Better to convey a clear-eyed view of shared reality.
Most importantly, whether you decide on a “focused lunge,” or to continue the “attrition warfare,” remember what caused you ultimately to decide as you did. If it goes well, great. If it doesn’t, remembering honestly which considerations caused you to decide as you did allows that cliché about “learning from mistakes” to actually have a chance to become true. It’s amazing how seldom that process actually occurs.
Hello Shaun,
Your approaching this from the perspective of an adviser or consultant to the manager concerned – rather than the manager – yields some good insight. It is also a good idea, albeit not always easy to practice, to try to use generally when we’re stumped, or otherwise trying to gauge a situation: try to look at it from the outside, or from a particular sort of professional or expert perspective.
Your observation – “Being stumped can be an unnecessarily intense blow to some leaders who manage via persona, or emotional energy.” – is a great catch. The responses to that shock, or efforts to deny its occurrence, can also be interesting. This is good to see the insight isolated like this – excellent – thanks!
“Thinking out loud” when trying to sort out a situation, I agree, doesn’t so much convey doubt as the resolve to dispel it and the self-confidence to not confuse being responsible for a decision with the (false) necessity of being its source.
You also touch on a great point about always being alert to the possibility that you may be lumbering into a learning opportunity (from a mistake) – rather than just doing a post-mortem amid the rubble of failure, keep your eyes open for evidence (both supporting and conflicting) and learn as you go.
Thanks for joining in on this one – you’ve provided, as you always do, a lot to think about!