Just Get On With It

One thing better managers understand is that they get rewarded for what they do. Not what they plan. The Hungarian Nobel Laureate Albert Szen-Gyorti made this point in one of the greatest--and most hilarious--stories of the 20^th century.

The experience happened during military maneuvers early in the 20^th century. The young lieutenant of a small Hungarian detachment in the Alps sent a reconnaissance unit into the icy wilderness. It began to snow immediately, snowed for 2 days, and the unit did not return. The lieutenant suffered, fearing that he had dispatched his own people to death. But on the third day the unit came back. Where had they been? How had they made their way? Yes, they said, we considered ourselves lost and waited for the end. And then ...

 one of us found a map in his pocket. That calmed us down. We pitched camp, lasted out the snowstorm, and then with the map we discovered our bearings. And here we are. The lieutenant borrowed this remarkable map and had a good look at it. He discovered to his astonishment that it was not a map of the Alps, but a map of the Pyrenees.

Karl Weick raises the intriguing possibility that when you are lost, any old map will do. If you apply that possibility to problem solving or even to strategy—especially when you are confused, any standard solution or any old strategic plan will do. Why is this? They animate and orient people.

Keep noticing cues
The soldiersgot back to the camp because they were active. They started executing. They just got on with it. Furthermore, they had an image, an idea of where they were and where they were going. They kept moving—and they kept noticing cues and that caused them to update their sense of where they were.

Some people are far better “noticers” than others in picking up cues. They’ve learned to watch for them. And then when they observe a cue, they unpack it—with others. Their analysis and reasoning go beyond the directly observable or at least beyond consensual information to form ideas or understandings. Their reasoning may not be correct, but it fits the facts they’ve got. And second, their reasoning is based on incomplete information. They can deal with uncertainty. In short, they don’t get caught up in analysis paralysis. 

Who gets the most out of cues?
Most will be surprised by the answer to this question. But here goes anyway. The people who draw better inferences and make a lot more out of cues tend to have larger vocabularies. And their vocabularies come from widely disparate disciplines. So they have more linguistic tools to embellish and elaborate upon a single cue in their interactions with other people.

They draw better inferences because they take both what they have observed—and they access what others are saying to create still better insights. In other words, inferences and cue interpretation arise best from big vocabularies and cooperative critical inquiry.

In short, you can’t work with something unless you can label it. The more labels (bigger vocabulary of nouns and verbs) a person has, the greater the possibilities for making a lot out of cues. Need an example for that? Here’s a pejorative one. Bob Sutton’s book on The Asshole Theory continues to be a big seller. Why? Because people now have a label for certain bosses and as a result of that label they have a better sense of how to deal successfully with that asshole boss. There are far more positive, constructive and neutral labels, but this one is unforgettable.  

Let me nail this down in Karl Weick’s words: Rich vocabularies matter in a world of action where images of actions rather than the actions themselves are passed from person to person. Rich vocabularies give options for construing the meaning of action and are more likely to reveal the latent opportunities in what otherwise seem like (ordinary actions).