Sometimes there are no good options. An executive looks around and sees three managers who are no more than ordinary. But he has a high profile project. And so he selects the least worst employee for the project. It happens in business, in non-profits, in communities, in churches and in government far more than most want to admit. Why does this happen? And how can it be a good thing?
Before I answer the question, think about this situation reported in The Economist.
The least awful
The country of Nigeria goes to the polls on February 14th to elect their next president. He will face problems that could break the country apart: rampant corruption, a jihadist insurgency...
To put the choices in context, here’s The Economist editor: Nigerians must pick between the incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan, who has proved an utter failure, and the opposition leader, Muhammadu Buhari, a former military dictator with blood on his hands. The candidates stand as symbols of a broken political system that makes all Nigeria’s problems even more intractable.
Jonathan who has run the country with his party since 1999 has had a sorry reign. He’s refused to tackle terrible corruption. When a bank governor reported that $20 billion had been stolen, he was sacked for his reward. Even worse, about 18,000 people have died in political violence in the last few years. The insurgency is far from the Jonathan’s southern heartland and it impacts people more likely to vote for Jonathan’s opposition. So nothing has been done.
The bright spot in Jonathan’s rule has been the oil economy. But the prosperity has not been shared and Nigerians typically die “eight years younger than their poorer neighbors in nearby Ghana.”
The opposition candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, came to power in a military coup. His former rule was “nasty, brutish and mercifully short.” To quote The Economist, he ordered whip-wielding soldiers to ensure that Nigerians formed orderly queues. Instead of letting the currency depreciate in the face of a trade deficit, he tried to fix prices and ban unnecessary imports. He expelled 700,000 migrants in the delusion that this would create jobs for Nigerians. Etcetera and etcetera.
Well, should the former dictator with that record be offered another chance? Suprisingly, perhaps shockingly, many Nigerians think he should. He doesn’t wear wristwatches worth many times the annual salaries of most Nigerians. He’s also a “sandal-wearing ascetic with a record of fighting corruption.”
Most significantly he has repeatedly run for election. And each time when he lost, he stood down, accepting the outcome. And as one from northern Nigeria and a Muslim, he will have more legitimacy among villagers to isolate the insurgents. As a military man he will more likely win the respect of the “demoralized army.”
What to do?
The Economist is relieved not to have to vote in the election. But were they offered a chance to vote, they would—with a heavy heart—choose Buhari. A former dictator, they believe, is better than a failed president. History might even be kind to the “least awful” if he can save Nigeria.
In summary
There are plenty of occasions when our hopes and ideals are simply not possible. Take the executive’s situation as an example: There’s a timeline on the project, the timeline won’t permit the training of a new manager, the lack of funding prohibits the recruitment of a better manager, and the project is fairly complex needing someone with at least basic knowledge. Faced with these limitations he makes what must be considered an astute choice: he selects the least worst and appoints him or her to the project. Often, given the facts of the situation, the choice may over the long run be quite astute.
Successful professionals understand the limitations of reality. In demanding contexts, they realize that no decision is a decision and refuse to punt. Instead, they wisely choose the least worst. And that reality is more prevalent in life than many of us might like to admit.