I am convinced that some people have made great careers simply by avoiding negative behavior. Building a reputation based on the medical maxim of First Do No Harm, they are popped into promotions and desirable assignments out of the sole assurance that while they won't be brilliant or memorable, they will not screw up.
And in many circumstances, that is pretty darned good.
The brilliant can be mercurial. Their boldness may carry a lot of risks. They exude the scent of "independent operator." The reliably acceptable performers, on the other hand, aren't as exciting and yet the organization may be in the mood for someone who is boring but consistently competent.
It is often noted that there is a quiet heroism in those who, without fanfare or celebrity, do their job well. What should be acknowledged more frequently is the difficulty of that achievement.
That said, there are times when playing it safe is one of the most dangerous things we can do and when brilliance is needed. Do you turn down Churchill for the prime minister post because he is 65, drinks heavily, smokes cigars, is overweight, was involved in the Gallipoli debacle, and has legions of enemies?
Or do you recognize that at the moment, he is precisely the right person for the job?
No comments:
Post a Comment