There is a point in one’s career when it’s important to realize that not every job you can do is one you should do. Knowing this simple fact can save you considerable time and energy and ensure that your efforts contribute to areas that matter most to you and to the organization at large.
But this is sometimes easier said than done. So, what’s the best strategy for staying true to your professional goals and pertinent business objectives?
The first step is to possess a clear understanding of your role and how it fits within the larger organization. If there is request-role alignment, you must collect key engagement details so that you can assess how much to contribute and when to exit:
- Clear Owner - Is there a single accountable owner with authority?
- Scope - What am I being asked to do?
- Team - Who is contributing, and how will they contribute?
- Success Criteria - How will success be measured or assessed?
- Schedule - When does the effort need to conclude?
- Budget - Is there a budget allocated to this effort?
- Artifacts - Can the effort produce a demo in 2 weeks?
This may all seem obvious. However, when you receive requests from the CEO or another executive leader, there aren’t always clear answers to these questions. In these situations, you may be inclined to lead or contribute with a high level of rigour, regardless of the context. This can be a mistake. Let me explain.
As context, keep in mind that senior executives succeed by thinking and operating strategically. In a fluid environment, their robust strategies can be replaced or redirected with little notice, sometimes within weeks.
Thus, you should pay less attention to the narrative and focus instead on incentives and the speed of decision-making. Here are a few questions to reflect upon:
- What efforts are being funded?
- Where are resources being allocated?
- What initiatives/efforts are getting recognized?
- How fast are decisions being made?
For example, if the effort you’re being asked to lead or contribute to lacks funding, contributors are not officially allocated, decision-making is slow (or non-existent), and recognition can be found elsewhere, you’re likely contributing to an engagement that will end prematurely. Because of this, you must scale your participation accordingly.
Remember, not every engagement (regardless of requester) requires a high level of analytic or execution investment.
Another useful approach is to always remember that actions speak louder than words. So, if you remove all spoken or written words, what can you conclude from leadership and contributor behaviour? Is the initiative structural, or conceptual?
For example:
- Are contributors being held accountable?
- Is there a sense of pressure as established deadlines come and go?
- If this effort ended prematurely, what would the real impact be?
- If this effort fails, who loses their job?
The answers to these questions can bring real clarity to a challenging engagement and empower you to establish useful operating boundaries that protect your (and others’) time while still allowing you to contribute in a meaningful, yet limited, fashion.