Seeing Clearly

We all see the world around us uniquely.

The world around us is unique to us. We make sense of people, activities, positions and events through our own experience, our own hopes and our own fears. Two people can sit in the same meeting, hear the same words, and walk out with two different stories about what just happened.

That is not a flaw. It is how we are built. But it does mean that what we see is never quite the same as what is actually there.

This is why the ability to see things clearly is one of the most important traits that separates good from great.

What gets in the way

The first thing that gets in the way is ego.

Our inner ego wants certain things to be true. That the decision we made was the right one. That the team we chose is capable. That the project we sponsor is on track. So, without meaning to, we notice what confirms these beliefs and look past what doesn’t.

It is important for leaders to get out of their inner ego and fully understand their people, their processes and their project updates.

Each of these three is a place where the gap between what we see and what is real tends to hide.

With people, we often see the person we hired, not the person in front of us today. The strong performer from two years ago may now be stretched, disengaged, or carrying a problem nobody has asked about.

With processes, we see the process as it was documented, not as it is actually run. The workaround. The spreadsheet on the side. The one person who knows how to fix it when it breaks.

With project updates, we see the colour on the report, not what sits underneath it. Green is a summary. It is not the truth. It is someone’s interpretation of the truth.

Interpreting versus interrogating

Seeing clearly is not about interpreting what others say.

Instead, it is about interrogating: finding the gaps, validating the assumptions, and making sense of things.

The difference is simple, but it matters.

Interpreting means taking what we hear and fitting it into what we already believe. Someone tells us something, we decide what it means, and we move on.

Interrogating means asking what sits behind what we hear. Not in a hostile way. We are not questioning the person. We are questioning the information.

Consider a council replacing its payroll system. The project manager reports that data migration is “progressing well.”

The interpreting response is: good, one less thing to worry about.

The interrogating response is a few plain questions. What does “well” mean? How many trial loads have been done? How many records reconcile back to the old system? What is left, and who owns it?

None of this suggests the project manager is wrong or hiding something. They may fully believe what they said. But words compress information. “Progressing well” can mean ninety-five percent reconciled, or it can mean the first load ran without crashing. Interrogating is how we unpack the words and see what is actually there.

Interrogating involves three things.

Finding the gaps. What is not being said? What question has nobody asked yet?

Validating the assumptions. What are we taking as given? This includes their assumptions, and ours. Often the most dangerous assumption in the room is the one the leader brought in.

Making sense of things. Putting the pieces together into a picture we can act on, rather than a story we are comfortable with.

Why this separates good from great

Good leaders work hard with the information they are given.

Great leaders make sure the information is true before they act on it.

Every decision we make is only as good as the picture it is based on. A leader who interprets will make confident decisions on a blurred picture. A leader who interrogates may take a little longer, but they are deciding based on what is real.

Seeing clearly is not a talent some people are born with. It is a discipline. It means setting our ego aside long enough to ask the question we would rather not ask, and to hear the answer we would rather not hear.

Here are some questions to ponder.

When did you last ask a question that changed your understanding of a status update?

Which of your assumptions about your people or your processes have you not tested in the past year?

And when you hear good news, do you interrogate it as carefully as you would bad news?