Almost 20 years ago, I joined McKinsey & Company, a global management consultancy, where I was a communication specialist. My job was guiding our teams on how to communicate hard recommendations to clients (”lay off 4000 workers”) and helping clients figure out how to do their own communication.
About a month into my job, I was invited by one of the firm’s senior partners to attend a team meeting. Agenda: how do we best communicate to the client that the client should buy the “Acme Company”, but not at a price over “X”.
I worked days and nights on this meeting. Covered the angles. Covered my ass. And, when asked my view, I was ready with long answer about how to do it, replete with “On the one hand, we could say this… on the other hand, we could say this…”
Finishing, I beamed. They glared. Suddenly, I was radioactive.
A kind soul (she now runs a global engineering firm) took me aside and gave me this advice: “You were all in favor of option A, but you presented option B because you thought you needed ‘balance’… and now no one believes you. And you offered no facts to back up either stance. In our culture, facts count. Both sides can’t stand you. The only reason you won’t get fired is because you are so new.”
Tough words.
I later learned to love McKinsey precisely because outspokeness backed by facts was appreciated. I learned to feel free to speak up to senior partners and client CEOs, men and women with enormous business experience, when I felt I was right and had the facts to back me. I learned to say, to people who could fire me with a flick of a finger, “That’s the wrong argument, and here’s why…”. As long as I had a competently constructed “why”, I was safe. When I moved on and became an agency manager, I worked hard to inculate the same ideal.
I bring this up because I read so many of the comments and posts by you students. Many are in the “on the one hand… on the other hand” vein: “John raises an important point… on the other hand, you have to consider Sue’s idea….”
That’s often an acceptable tactic in undergrad courses. “On the one hand, and on the other handâ€? is usually born of trying to understand both sides (or the many sides) of an issue. High school teachers and college professors want to see that you can do this (and rightly so!), which is why you all have written countless “Explain the issues of the Civil Warâ€? or “Compare and contrast X & Yâ€? essays.
That gets you an A in college. It gets you an F in business.
While knowing and understanding the arguments of both sides (or all the sides) is important, decision making is about picking one. In working life, two or three fairly good solutions usually exist for any one problem — the bad solutions sift out early. Most people can tell you the merits of each. Good. But leadership is about picking one and being able to say why.
“On the one hand, and on the other handâ€? says, “I have two opinions, and I am really, really trying to figure out which one you like most.” What it makes me ask is “Does she have an opinion? Does he have an argument? Do I want her running my PR? Do I want her in my agency? And can I learn anything from him, since he looks like he will take any position I take?”
The answers? No, no, no, no and no.
Some companies will fire you for saying what you think. Some will fire you for not saying what you think. Which would you rather work for?
The Marcom Blog is a remarkable chance for some of us lucky “pros” to get a head start working with our future colleagues. But there is an implied contract: We say what we believe… you say what you believe. None of this “on the one hand, on the other hand” that will get you an F after graduation.
Deal?
