Why Your Best Choice Isn’t Always Your First Answer
“When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” A phrase we’ve all heard throughout our lifetimes. Generally, this is taken to mean that when a situation becomes difficult, strong or determined people take action and work harder to overcome it rather than giving up. Those of us that consider ourselves problem solvers would likely enjoy filing ourselves into this category. Let’s think for a minute, though: the last time the going got tough, what was your kneejerk reaction? Was it a convenient time for a crisis? Did you have a lot of time to sit around and consider all the details and figure out the plan? The “best” plan, or the easiest plan? Many of us will take the shortcut in front of us if it means our problem gets solved faster.
Just because there is a solution, doesn’t mean it’s the solution. Leaders are usually drawn to answers that will solve our problems the fastest because we perceive lesser friction by reducing the timeline. We prioritize time pressure, approval, and conflict avoidance toward the path of least resistance because… well, it’s less resistant. Unfortunately in leadership, the easiest choice often trades short-term comfort for long-term cost.
A few examples of this might be:
- Letting small policy violations slide “just this once”
- Promoting someone because they’re loyal rather than qualified
- Keeping a toxic high-performer because they hit numbers
- Hiring quickly to fill a gap instead of waiting for the right fit
- Making decisions without input because collaboration takes longer
- Ignoring team tension and hoping it resolves itself
- Choosing short-term sales over long-term customer trust
- Avoiding strategic change because “this is how we’ve always done it”
Etc. The list goes on.
Fast and easy feels appealing because it’s easy to tell yourself you’re being efficient and decisive. You’re rewarded in the short term with fewer complaints and quicker results (e.g. I won’t have to work all that overtime if we put this person into this slot 😃). In time, though, that person in that job doesn’t produce the results you wanted because you know they aren’t motivated, or they don’t have the skills, or, or, or. In hindsight, on top of the mountain, we’d all pretty much agree that working that OT was worth it when we have the results behind us. What conversation are you having with yourself a few months down the road when you’re the one in your boss’s office defending that quick hire? Or when it’s MUCH harder to remove the wrong fit from the position than it was to give it to them?
§
Fun anecdote: My business requires two people to operate. With the unexpected departure of someone, it was going to leave gaps. I had a couple of people apply right away. They were both vaguely qualified, although uninspiring candidates. They each needed a job and I needed that spot filled. I set aside that my business is massively detail-oriented (although not altogether difficult) and took a chance on their promises that they could and would do the job well. One candidate turned out to have an information retention rate beyond remedial and more like disappearing ink. The other, despite my lengthy exhortation on the learning curve of the job in the interview, found himself consistently overwhelmed and quit 6 months later anyway. My discomfort of finding a way to cover some shifts while I looked for the next right person allowed me to underestimate how essential follow-through memory and ability to work at pace are. These qualities need to be clearly demonstrated by a candidate to be considered qualified.
§
Slipping standards and conflict avoidance also return with compound interest. In most cases, a conflict delayed is conflict escalated. The amount of work you have to do to reset expectations, re-establish standards, retrain behaviors, resolve misunderstandings and regain trust is almost never less work than you would have done initially – it’s just breadcrumbed over time.
The best choice usually involves the willingness to have uncomfortable conversations, to be misunderstood and/or temporarily unpopular, patience for slower, more durable outcomes, and clarity about values and standards. Why do we let the idea of a potential threat to us now prevent us from a probable threat later? If the odds looked like this, would you still pick the easy choice?
So what’s best?
Easy: Ignore a behavior problem → Best: Address it early and directly
Easy: Say yes to keep the peace → Best: Say no to protect priorities
Easy: Make the decision alone → Best: Invite dissent and perspective
Easy: Hire who’s ready to work → Best: Delegate workload and hire who’s qualified
People envy leaders when the paycheck seems easy but respect leaders when they’re willing to make calls no one else wants to be responsible for. Leadership is a long game, and at a higher level it’s stewardship of resources that likely aren’t yours. Trust, credibility, integrity, and culture are all built over time, but not with time alone. They’re built with intention. Can you be trusted to make the hard (right) decision?
If you’re struggling with a decision on your plate now, ask yourself what 6 months from now will look like if you choose the first solution that comes to mind. Is that truly what you want? If you’re okay with it, is it something you can defend when it doesn’t work out? Honor the power you have to decide by answering honestly.
If you need help framing a conversation, making a final call, or sorting out solutions head over to my Leadership Consulting page to learn more about working together!