Shortest distance from A to B is not always the straight line

When we learned mathematics in school, we were taught that the straight line was defined as the shortest distance between two points. As we advanced in our education, things got complicated, and it turned out that the above is valid exclusively for Euclidean geometries, in honor of Euclide of Alexandria, considered one of the great mathematicians of history.

On a flat surface, where there is only length and width, effectively the shortest distance between two points is the straight line that joins them, but, consider a different scenario.

The earth is not flat, it has a spherical shape and, therefore, to draw the straight line between two points, which would be the shortest distance, it would be necessary to cross the sphere which is not possible. If we go from one point to another on the surface of the earth, we will be tracing the geodesic, that is the shortest distance that, in addition, must be contained in the same surface.

We see it very well when traveling by plane. The flights will follow a curved trajectory, following the so-called maximum circle between origin and destination and it is in that circle where the minimum distance is located, the geodesic, which therefore, is not a straight line.

Things get even more complicated with Einstein, but I don't want to get into that subject. We will cover how, sometimes, in the real world, the shortest distance is not the straight line and we will do it by making an analogy with projects and decision making processes in companies.

In big companies, sometimes, specific problems are observed that prevent the correct development and growth of a certain business. To solve it, proposals to do something new, innovative, different, are offered. Probably, that means a significant change in the way the company operates. In that moment, the forces to keep things as they are will appear and what seemed simple, becomes a nightmare.

To move from the current status quo, point A, to the new situation, point B, the shortest path will never be the straight line. Moreover, the straight line will surely be the only path impossible to follow.

A few people will see in the change a threat to their current privileged situation, and with it, a loss of power and influence. The current situation is under control, it is not time to start something new, rejection and fear of change appear and seem to be more important than the strategic objective of the company.

In this way, we will find ourselves in an endless number of meetings, with many attendees of which, more than 50% have an absolute ignorance of the reality that is leading to the slow, but progressive, deterioration of the business. They attend meetings to defend their positions, this is how it works in organizations structured by processes, which I will talk about on another occasion.

Being bad the above, the most terrible thing is not that they do not know anything about the reasons behind the change, the most serious thing is that they have no interest in knowing it. They attend to cover the file and that's it. Hiding behind the supposed complexity of the project, a new guest appears: “the system”. And it turns out that it is “the system” who does not allow the change to be implemented. I never had the opportunity to meet that fictitious employee, “the system”, but certainly he/she is of a great importance.

What seemed simple, is now a huge task. Hence, to move between A and B, we cannot follow a straight line. If they see us coming, they will tear it down. Precisely the straight line is the only path we cannot follow. We will have to go step by step, moving away from the solution that, the consensus indicates, would be the best, modify the initial proposal, accept some of the alternative approaches and thus gain support.

The best path to ensure reaching point B from A

We must identify the true architects of the blockade, their hierarchical position, and seek and win support somewhere else, one by one to isolate the blockade, which will be cornered and in evidence. You have to slowly get closer to B, overcoming obstacles, gradually approaching the ultimate solution.

At a certain time, when point B is close enough, talking to the last blocking voices is convenient and perhaps, necessary. In general, they will be employees high in the organization and at that moment, when change seems inevitable, they will embrace it so they are not isolated. Moreover, they will surely sell it as his/her own initiative, developed by his/her team and that finally can be implemented with his/her support.

A colleague and friend, with more than 25 years of successful work in his company, once told me that he met people who showed him that the shortest path between two points was not the straight line. I have to admit that I totally agree with him. And if he reads this article, will surely remember the comment that serves as inspiration for this article.

Any generalization is always inaccurate and unfair, I don't want to be like that. There are, fortunately, many exceptions, many. There are attendees in these meetings, in the other 50%, who are very interested in the project of change. Either because they know the situation that forces to make it happen or because precisely because they do not know it, they are interested in learning and be part of the change. They will be our bigger allies, they will enrich the discussions as they get to know the detail of the project and they will make great valuable contributions that, when implemented, will substantially improve the original idea..

In short, to go from A to B, forget about the straight line, better short steps, in different directions, avoiding difficulties, gaining support to get closer to the goal until the plan is ready to make the final step. It won't be the shortest way, but the probability of getting to B will be higher.  The best can be the enemy of the good.