... And Other Things the Gurus Won't Tell You
Terms that rub a raw spot:
- "Irregardless"
- "Outside the box"
- Labels (Millennial, Gen Z, Gen X, etc.)
and the newest entry:
- "Clarity"
Yes, I know, I use it, too. But good grief, it is everywhere. I now see this as a growing issue because it is used as an end state that, frankly, doesn't exist in the real world. Clarity is not absolute, it exists on a sliding scale.
Even the most confident decisions are often made through the fuzzy lens of uncertainty.
Of course if you're an entrepreneur, founder, CEO, etc. you're likely quite familiar with these fuzzy goggles. The trepidation about what lurks beyond our field of vision lives rent free in our heads 24/7/365.
As your advisor, I can't de-fuzzify every decision you make, but I can shine a little light, show a different angle, expose a blind spot, challenge some assumptions, and relentlessly rally in support of your progress. Turn water into wine? Not so much.
Beyond the 1:1, measuring success by the presence - or absence - of clarity is also problematic.
Having clarity suggests that we're brilliant ... which has simultaneously come to mean that a 'lack of clarity' means we're clueless. Yes/No, Black/White, Hatfields/McCoys are comfortable and defensible. No grey area. No nuance. But nothing like real life.
Clarity is a journey, not a destination. And clarity is seldom permanent.
When I taught technical search and rescue, one of my teaching points for searching for victims in a dark, dusty, collapsed void space was to look for and discern patterns, shapes, and colors since people don't look like people in that environment. Should we dedicate resources to dig out what appears to be an elbow and a blue shirt, or dig out the hole where we see what could be hair and the outline of an ear? Trust me when I tell you that in these situations, "clarity" is nowhere in sight.
If you've been reading my stuff for a while, you've no doubt picked up on my mental model - okay, my soapbox - that 100% is a myth. It's baked into my belief system.
In the boardroom, the C-suite, and other high-stakes boiler rooms, the vigorous pursuit of clarity may have to suffice.
When I see people enthusiastically promising "clarity! clarity! clarity!," I can only assume that 1) they either have better magic pixie dust than I do, or 2) they've never had to grapple with the imperfections of high-stakes, time-sensitive decisions.
Let me offer a simple math problem.
70% clarity is often enough to make a solid decision, but it requires an unpleasant acknowledgement: the remaining 30% of the picture is a blind spot.
So which requires more time and energy?:
Squeezing more clarity out of what you know to move up from 70%?
OR
Reducing the size of the blind spot to lower the 30%?
Obviously, the answer is situationally dependent but the simple breakdown illustrates 3 truths:
- 100% clarity is usually not possible
- Less than 100% means there is an opposing blind spot
- Reducing the blind spot can increase clarity
And that blind spot doesn't care how smart you are or how long you've been in the room.
So here's my pitch: If both clarity and reality are important to you and your work, and if having outside help to reduce blind spots is valuable, we should talk to see if there's a good fit.
