Some individuals seek to receive accolades by describing themselves as a perfectionist. This can be a form of “back door bragging,” especially if they disingenuously refer to perfectionism as a curse (e.g., “I can’t help it if I want things to be perfect!”). After all, a person would not want to be identified as the opposite of perfect. Perfectionists explain that their desire to have things just right is the reason they take longer, work harder, or miss deadlines. In addition, they are known to claim they would rather not do a task at all if they cannot do it perfectly. Perfectionists see the world in black and white or dichotomous terms. Being perfectionistic becomes a badge of honor that differentiates them from the rest of the world. However, by requiring perfection of themselves at all times, they become victims of their own irrational thinking that perfection is even possible.

A common but misguided thought in business is that perfection is not only beneficial but critical to success. We have spell-check to make certain our documents are error-free. We are told that “God is in the details.” In sports, the adage is that “practice makes perfect.” Although emphasis on perfection is very important in certain areas, it can be an impediment in others. If you are a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist, there is no argument about wanting a physician or scientist to have a very high degree of precision. This would also be true for areas associated with safety, such as a zero-defect tolerance for problems with automobile airbags. In most professional areas, however, seeking perfection often leads to a diminishing return—the cost in time and money.

Another line of thought that is more relevant to the business professional is captured best by the phrase, “Perfectionism is the enemy of the excellent.” In business, urgency typically does not allow for, or even require, perfect solutions. For example, university studies have found that perfectionistic professors have lower research productivity. Findings showed that a higher level of perfectionism was associated with a lower number of total publications as well as a lower number of first-authored publications.

Psychologically, perfectionism is rooted in insecurity and emanates from a deep-seated fear of failure, which is self-defeating. Some suggest that perfectionism is a form of self-abuse because achieving perfection is an impossible task. In its extreme, perfectionism can be seen in obsessive-compulsive behaviors, including constantly cleaning, checking, and double-checking to make sure everything is in its place. Perfectionists view their professional work as an extension of themselves and do not have clear boundaries between themselves and their career. As a result, they take setbacks and criticism personally, and can have difficulty with authentic self-disclosure on the off-chance they may reveal something akin to a flaw. Perfectionists do not acknowledge that humans are incapable of perfection.

Imagine looking for perfection when there is little or any of it to be found. This explains why perfectionists tend to be pessimistic. Their world is always a glass half-empty. Because of their need for exactness, they do not easily trust or work well with others. They can be critical and judgmental of the work of others. Secretly, they can take pleasure in the failure of others and use it to reinforce their own perfectionism. They can demonstrate excessive control needs, and, as managers, they tend to micromanage others.

Perfectionists epitomize the saying of people who “can’t see the forest for the trees.” The larger context escapes them because they get over-involved in the details. They see the hole in the doughnut, but miss the doughnut altogether. They often procrastinate starting work because of the enormity involved in making their work too exact or meticulous. They do not have internal monitors that keep them from reaching the point of diminishing return in completing their work. They can never settle for “good enough,” because all they can see is what is left undone. Even when they complete a work product, they are dissatisfied. They are constantly “moving the goalposts.” They can think that catastrophic things will occur in the event that they leave something out or make a mistake. In its extreme, perfectionism can be associated with illness, including depression and anorexia, and even suicide.

There is little about forms of perfectionism that is good for the individual or for the business. If you recognize these traits in yourself, here are ways for you to diminish your perfectionistic tendencies (and let yourself enjoy life more).

Join the Human Race

Acknowledge that humans are flawed and the rest of the world seems to live well enough with more lenient standards. Nobody is perfect. Engage in more positive self-talk:

• All I can do is my best.
• People will like me even if I make a mistake.
• People will respect me completing work in a timely manner, rather than taking forever trying to do it perfectly.

This will help you combat the stringent set of internal negative demands you often hear.

Put Things in Perspective

Unless you really are a brain surgeon or rocket scientist, there is little negative consequence for a “good enough” outcome. Before embarking on a task, spend a few minutes thinking about the value of the task and the degree of work actually required. Ask yourself what level of imperfection you can tolerate. Calibrate your work effort to your new, more reasonable standard.

Practice Saying No

When you are requested to do something outside of your work domain, consider turning the work down. Determine what the real consequences are for saying “no.” It will not be as severe as you imagined.

Practice Grace

If you are managing others, become intentional about allowing them to complete work in their own way, without excessive oversight from you. Compliment their work product and you will probably find that they want to please you and take delight in your praise.

Reward Yourself

When you do something that demonstrates that you have reduced your level of perfectionism on a project, engage in something you really enjoy doing, such as being with friends, a nice meal, or some recreational activity. The good feeling of the reward can encourage you to manage your perfectionistic tendencies.

The path to managing perfectionism is not an easy one. It requires practice, patience, and being kind to yourself. The ultimate benefit derived from overcoming perfectionism is that you will have a happier and an even more successful life.

When executives take too long to make important business decisions related to hiring, promoting, or terminating employees, I commonly hear them lament, “I should have done this a long time ago!” This sentiment is especially true when executives deliberate awhile when dealing with employees who have been underperforming or behaving poorly, in spite of the manager’s best efforts to help them change. After mangers decide to let an employee go, it is rarely the case that they look back and think the employee should have been given “one more chance.”

Whether a manager is bringing someone on board or letting them go, there is often regret that the decision was not made sooner. The experience of both relief and regret occurs when executive business decisions are finally made after exhaustive analysis and lengthy deliberation. In both instances, colleagues and employees who have seen executives finally take action say (or think), “It’s about time,” or “What took them so long?”

Why do executives seem to take so long to make decisions that often seem obvious to others? They are overlooking the most basic psychological principle that defines human behavior: The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. People are creatures of habit. The behaviors we demonstrate on a regular basis often originated in childhood and therefore are deeply ingrained in our identity and psyche. As a result, we are typically very predictable, particularly in the interpersonal world of work. Deeply ingrained patterns of behavior are what leaders fail to recognize when working with those closest to them. Such leaders’ relationship with, or investment in, the person or issue distorts their judgment and prevents them from taking action on a decision that seems obvious to everyone else.

In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell discusses another psychological principle called “thin-slicing.” Thin-slicing is the ability to make decisions and inferences based on only scant, but salient, information. This thin-slicing is really pattern recognition, which allows people to see patterns or regularities in data. Results from experiments have determined that judgments made on the basis of thin-slicing can be as accurate, or even more accurate, than those based on more in-depth information. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that we have an internal history of similar situations or interactions to draw on when making quick judgments. Although these judgments may seem almost instantaneous, they are related to our past experiences. When executives “drag their feet” to make personnel decisions, it is often because they are allowing subsequent information about a person or situation to interfere with their ability to use their instincts or pattern recognition to come to a decision. In other words, they doubt themselves and their skills of perception.

Of course, other psychological issues can interfere with a manager’s ability to “pull the trigger” on either hiring or terminating employees, or making difficult decisions about the business. At all levels, managers tend to procrastinate when making difficult decisions or holding people accountable. Whether this stems from such managers being perfectionists, averse to risk, or cowardly, or from a desire to please others and be liked, the end result is always the same: Once a difficult decision has been made, they nearly always feel a sense of relief about having made the decision and an accompanying sense of regret that they did not make the decision sooner.

By adding thin-slicing to our management arsenal, we can become much more effective and timely decision-makers. Thin-slicing enables us to trust our instincts and recognize that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. The less internal data we use, the more likely we are to rationalize our indecisiveness; and the longer we wait to make difficult decisions, the less likely we are to trust our own judgment. By recognizing that our internal observations, intuitions, and emotions are important considerations, we can make decisions more quickly and with greater confidence than when we ignore them.

In summary, when faced with making a difficult business or personnel decision, remember to:

1. Recognize the wisdom of your first impressions about the person or situation.
2. Keep in mind that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
3. Make decisions, or have difficult conversations, sooner rather than later.

As more companies and employees work at a rapid pace and with an increasing sense of urgency, it is more important than ever to match the pace of your decision-making to the pace of your company. Is there a decision you have been delaying or rationalizing? You probably know exactly what to do. Go for it!

One of the country’s preeminent executive coaches, Marshall Goldsmith, wrote a book with a title that says it all: What Got You Here Won’t Get You There. Goldsmith insightfully describes that being in an executive management role is not simply “doing more of the same,” but is really making a step-wise difference in how you behave. Chief among these behavioral changes is moving away from doing things yourself to working through others to magnify your impact. In my work with executives who have successfully made this transition, they make a distinction between delegation as a means of simply getting more work “off of their plates” and delegation as a means of leveraging their particular leadership capabilities through others. This latter means of delegation affords them the mental space they require to think about broader company issues, while also enabling them to be intentional about developing their people. The most successful executives are intentional about simultaneously having a strategic impact regarding succession planning. They know how to increase the influence of their leadership through delegating for development and results. They make a major differentiation between simply redistributing work and using work assignments for growth opportunities. They are intentional about determining who should work on key assignments, who should represent their department on company initiatives, and who is willing to step up as opposed to being content with the status quo. In order to become intentional about successful leadership delegation, there are a couple of key areas to consider:

• Ensuring Quality versus Simply Micro-managing: Executives who have risen in the organization have done so on the basis of their hard work, creativity, and, most importantly, their results. They are consistently competitive with themselves and push themselves to produce high-quality work that also pleases their managers and moves the organization forward. When they move into management ranks, they know they can trust their own work products but do not always trust the work products of others. This need to control is a common remnant of having been rewarded for their work and it creates a natural caution when allowing others to do the work for them. Will the work product be of as high a quality? Will the results be delivered on a timely basis? Will it all get done or will it only be partially completed? This inherent desire to be sure that the work product of their group is equal to what they would have done on their own is a natural, but misguided, tendency. If they do not overcome this tendency, either they will not delegate and end up doing the work themselves, or they will hover over those to whom they have delegated, inadvertently frustrating and undermining their employees. Such managers can create employees who are dependent followers who are unable to think for themselves, or they will experience an exodus of good employees who are more ambitious and creative. They will then wonder why they are left with a team that is only average as opposed to high-performing—a truly self-fulfilling prophecy!
• Empowering versus Benign Neglect: At the other extreme, there are managers who are willing to delegate but unwilling to hold their employees accountable. Recent management theory has encouraged managers to “empower” their employees to work independently on company issues and initiatives. In my work interviewing executives, many are quick to acknowledge that they empower their people, indicating that they trust them. Unfortunately, their interpretation of empowerment often means benign neglect—the manager “throws the work over the fence” and their employees do, or do not do, the work with little or no guidance or oversight. This can also suggest that the manager lacks the discipline to ensure that the work is being completed, preferably in a timely manner and with a high-quality outcome. Employees of managers who are guilty of “empowerment by benign neglect” often complain of lacking direction and experiencing frustration that there is little distinction between good work and mediocre work being done. Employees begin to lose motivation and become subject to poorer productivity and lower morale. The lack of attention to the employees’ work and the lack of differentiation between good and mediocre work are all signs of managers who are too distant from their employees and often reluctant to have difficult conversations to hold employees accountable. Once again, the good and highly motivated employees leave and the mediocre employees stay behind.
• The Leveraged Leader—Delegation as Development: Effective leaders recognize that to delegate effectively they must have a uniform process for all of their employees. Ensuring that the delegated work product will be of high quality, with a satisfactory amount of attention devoted to it, and completed in a timely manner is the sine qua non of delegation. Dr. Gerald Kraines of the Levinson Institute has coined a formula for effective delegation: QQT/R—Quality, Quantity, Timeliness/Resources. For all delegated work, the manager must specify expectations regarding the quality of the work, the amount of work to be completed (e.g., how much analysis is enough) and the expected timeliness of the work product. It is the manager’s responsibility to ensure that the employee has adequate resources to get the work completed. Equally important is that the manager follows up, holds people accountable for their work products and provides rewards, when appropriate. Once these expectations are put in place, managers must have a strong working knowledge of their teams in order to choose wisely to whom they will delegate and, most importantly, why. Delegation can be a tremendous opportunity for employee growth—to stretch an employee, to introduce an employee to a new area of work, or to test the skills of an employee. When managers take a longer-term view of their organizations and are intentional about the development of those on their team, they will be able to multiply their impact in the organization now and in the future. That is the true leverage a manager can have through becoming intentional in delegating work and responsibilities.

Clearly there is a balance between those times when the manager needs to be more involved in order to guarantee that the work is done according to specifications, and those times when the manager can adopt a more laissez-faire attitude. In both cases, the versatile leader will be intentional about the work he or she is delegating, why it is being delegated, to whom it is being delegated, and explicit about expectations (QQT/R). In addition, the leveraged manager will be consistent in holding employees accountable for their work while managing employee development and getting quality results. The ultimate objective is to multiply your impact on the organization through your people. Ask yourself these questions:

1. Do you use delegation as a means to lighten your load or are you intentional about developing your employees through targeted assignments?
2. Are you making the greatest impact in your organization through the development of your people?
3. Are you matching employee needs with employee assignments?
4. Are you applying the correct amount of attention relative to the criticalness of the issue and the capabilities of your employees?
5. Are you seeing unexpected defections of key employees for opportunities elsewhere?
6. Are you seeing more people request positions in your organization than you have openings (a sign that you are a leader who promotes employee development)?
7. Are employees in your organization being sought out to participate in key assignments (a sign that they are being developed)?
8. Are you devoting the time that you have gained through delegating to higher-level issues?

In the vacuum created by the resignation of John Boehner as Speaker of the House, Congressional Republicans have scrambled to find a replacement in a very contentious and divided Republican Party. At a time when the Republican Party’s decision-making is over-influenced by the so-called Freedom Caucus, a group of 38 (out of 435) Representatives who vote together in a unified but radical block, finding someone to both unite and represent the broader interests of the party (and the country) has been a challenge. The first candidate for the Speaker of the House position, Kevin McCarthy (R, CA), dropped out of consideration because he believed that he did not have the support of this group and did not want to risk just “squeaking by” if elected. In attempts to find a person who could represent the interests of the whole party, including this powerful splinter group, Paul Ryan (R, WI) was asked to consider being a candidate for the position.

Ryan’s initial response was that he preferred to remain where he was, as chairman of the powerful House Committee on Ways and Means, and he was not willing to be a candidate for the Speaker position. However, Ryan was asked to reconsider after McCarthy stepped aside. Regardless of your political persuasion, Ryan’s approach to ultimately accepting candidacy is a unique and dynamic view of executive negotiation.

Any time you are the pursued, and not the pursuer, you have greater negotiating power. How you use that power, the parameters of your demands, and the tolerance of the pursuer are the fodder of negotiation. During the negotiation process, there are typically three steps to getting what you want or walking away, as Paul Ryan demonstrated.

Negotiation

Ryan began the negotiation process by not showing any interest in the position. He did not “raise his hand” to embrace the opportunity. In fact, his response to Boehner’s announcement was rather nonchalant. This apparent indifference to seeking the position created a platform for Ryan to be in a stronger negotiating position than if he had sought out the position, as did Kevin McCarthy and Daniel Webster (R, FL). Ryan knew that, once you appear interested, you immediately reduce your ability to negotiate. Anyone who has ever bought a car can relate. Car salesmen know that the very fact that you have taken the energy to show up at the car dealership means you are interested. They have an advantage from the moment you say “hello.” Sociologist Willard Waller coined “The Principle of Least Interest” with reference to who has the power in such interpersonal relationships.

The second, and equally powerful, negotiating tactic used by Ryan was to respectfully decline to be a candidate when party colleagues initially approached him about doing so. This indifference by a seriously viable contender only heightens the intrigue of and interest in him or her. In Ryan’s case, this dynamic continued to strengthen his negotiating position. Finally, when party members kept urging him to be a candidate, he agreed that he would but only under certain circumstances, which was when the real negotiations began!

Compromise

Going into any negotiation, there is usually some understanding that neither party will get everything it wants. Regardless of the specific desired outcomes, there are limits to what you will ultimately get or give away in order to consummate the deal. Of course, there is always the possibility that one or both parties will walk away, after which there is no negotiation. The area between these extremes is where the back-and-forth negotiation takes place—and involves your concession strategy.

In negotiating, the research is clear that the first one to make a move defines the parameters of the negotiation. This is called “setting the anchor” and is based on the work of Galinsky & Mussweiler (1). According to their research, when a negotiation takes place, whoever makes the first offer (the Anchor Point) obtains a better outcome than if he/she had waited to hear what the offer was. The Anchor should be aggressive but rational. Once Ryan determined that the Speaker’s position was one he would consider, he was quick to “set the anchor.” He determined his Target Point—his ideal outcome and aspiration. He also determined his Walk Away Point—the point at which those items critical to him would not being met. The details of the negotiation then began in earnest (2).

Ryan’s Target Point was that the Freedom Caucus would endorse him and that they would roll back a procedure allowing lawmakers to overthrow a sitting Speaker. Ryan knew that he needed to broker a truce between disgruntled conservatives and a GOP desperate for the unity needed to get the House back on track. After eight years of very low approval ratings, he knew that he needed to once again enable his colleagues to be relevant and moving forward. His Walk Away Point was that he would not be in Washington, D.C., on the weekends, as had previous Speakers, but would be spending the weekends in his home state of Wisconsin with his wife and three children. The enormity of the Speaker’s position has required that the Speaker work weekends to represent the party, broker deals, and generally be present in Washington. However, Ryan would not accept the position at the expense of his family. The area between the Target Point and the Walk Away Point was where there was room for concessions and compromise.

Settlement

So how did Ryan fare with his concession strategy? The Freedom Caucus would not endorse him, but they did support his candidacy—a concession that was not given to Boehner. Ryan was then able to soften his position from eliminating the rule on overthrowing the Speaker to simply “changing” the rule. However, no one challenged his Walk Away Point and, for now, Ryan will be going to Wisconsin to see his family on the weekends. Thus, Ryan negotiated successfully the major concessions he was willing to make, while preserving that which was the most important to him—time to be with his family. At this point, it seems as if his candidacy is assured and that he will become the next Speaker of the House.

In summary, we have been able to witness the selection of the next Speaker of the House, a position that is third in line for the presidency! In the process, we have seen how someone at the executive level negotiates, compromises, and finally arrives at an arrangement agreeable to both the “buyer and the seller.” The process for effective negotiation includes:

• Maintaining the right approach in the initial pursuit and not giving up power by appearing too anxious or needy.
• Setting the parameters for negotiation by:
  1. Knowing ahead, and clarifying, your Target Point and your Walk Away Point.
  2. Setting the Anchor Point early
• Leaving room for making concessions and always pushing for your goal without relinquishing what is most important to you.

By having a negotiation strategy in place prior to beginning, your chances for getting what you want are increased dramatically.

---

(1) Adam Galinsky & Thomas Mussweiler. “The Role of Perspective Taking and Negotiator Focus.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001, Vol. 81. No. 4, 657-699

(2) Joe Hernandez. “Negotiation Mastery Cloudbook.” http://www.cloudbookinc.com/joe-hernandez-negotiating