​I came across a term I had not heard before this week – propeller head - which is jargon for someone who is exceptionally, perhaps weirdly bright or knowledgeable, especially in some technical field.
 
It is a characteristic of such people that they persevere with their views even though everybody else says they are completely wrong.
 
I had an example in work this week where something did not feel quite right to me in a series of documents that made up a contract proposal. So I checked all the contract documents again and thought I found something material missing. Oh no I was told it is definitely there, look again in so and so file. I checked again starting to doubt my own view. I looked through every part of the agreement again, but a critical document had definitely been omitted.
 
If you do think you are right about something in your professional life it pays to be persistent and pursue your concern even if everyone else involved thinks you are completely wrong. It may not be easy in the face of contrary views, but it pays to be a persistent “propeller head” if necessary and keep going until either you are proved right or it is established empirically that in fact you were wrong.
 
More often than not you will be right.

Albert Einstein, who would surely have been a candidate for the term propeller head had he lived in these digital times, said:
 
It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.
 
Very much the right approach.
 

​Trying to achieve an easy life by taking short cuts in professional work is easy and tempting but ultimately counterproductive and very risky.
 
As a lawyer or commercial adviser, for example, you are asked to review a contract very urgently. You are instructed only to look out for essential “showstopper issues” because there isn’t time to do much negotiation. The contract must be signed in three days’ time or the opportunity will be lost. Ring any bells?
 
So you take a look and the contract seems at first glance generally like dozens of others you have seen with the usual legal terms and conditions followed by twenty or thirty schedules with more detailed content.
 
You might then follow your instructions literally and just focus on the provisions in the front-end terms and conditions you know are likely to be important or cause problems – the duration, warranty, intellectual property and limitation of liability clauses by way of example. The rest you could just glance over and conclude that they seem generally all right.
 
And as for all those hundreds of pages of schedules often with very financial and technical content the eyes glaze over! Surely the specialists who drafted them must have got them right? Anyway, you have been told only to look for critical issues, so they don’t really matter do they?
 
Concentrating on legal terms and conditions known to be potential problem areas may be a start, but it cannot represent a comprehensive review.
 
I have found on a more thorough review of the whole document:
 

• unlimited indemnity commitments hidden in obscure clauses;
• schedules that supplement, contradict and sometimes undermine the terms and conditions;
• at least two sets of conflicting definitions, one called “Interpretation” and one called “a Glossary”;
• the omission of critical terms – like a proper description of the service to be delivered; and
• blank schedules on important topics like service levels “to be negotiated” after contract signature, which as any competent lawyer will tell you is a non-binding “agreement to agree”.

 
This is all a recipe for disaster. It may be tough in the timescale given the client’s expressed wishes BUT it cannot to be right to do anything other than a proper and comprehensive review advising the client of all the key issues, perhaps ranking them in order of importance.
 
Otherwise your client will regret your short cuts later. J. R. R. Tolkein of all people said in The Lord of the Rings: “Short cuts make long delays.” This was in an entirely different context but the sentiment is exactly right.
 

​In one of those more mundane Saturday chores I went to Tesco’s to buy cat food today only to find that they seem to have run out of the relevant brand. That was a real nuisance as anybody who has ever owned a cat will know, they do not take kindly to a change of diet.
 
I was going home and thinking about complaining to my family about my misfortune when I realised that was pointless and the cat would still go hungry. So I worked out how I could go to a different and larger supermarket tomorrow which stocks the right food and not go too far out of my way.
 
It’s so easy to get annoyed or fed up when things don’t go well. A traffic jam on the way to work or a negotiation where the other side decides to change their whole approach to the deal.
 
But getting upset or taking your negotiating team aside and grumbling about how difficult the change of heart makes things does nothing at all to resolve the issue. It’s just wasted energy.
 
James Altucher the American entrepreneur and author said:
 
Complaining is draining. Complaining only takes away energy from today and never solves the problems for tomorrow.
 
It’s far better to work on a solution to whatever the problem is and it may be that an opportunity will arise from the new set of circumstances to turn things to your advantage.
 

​After many years of driving one rather obvious thing I have observed is that it pays to be extra careful and really concentrate at all crossroads and junctions – and indeed if you want to avoid expensive minor scrapes driving around car parks.
 
The reason is also fairly clear – there are more vehicles doing different things in these locations and a much greater chance of a collision than on the open road.
 
It does however occur to me that there is an interesting analogy with working life. If you can identify the times when there is more potential risk (and reward) and recognise and pay more attention to them you will tend to ride these crises and opportunities more effectively and indeed achieve a successful outcome.
 
Crossroads in professional life can be anything from changing jobs to a critical day of negotiation when the structure of the whole deal will be determined. It is then that focus and concentration really pays off.
 
The best tennis players seem to be able to realise what the vital points in a set are and then raise their game on key points, they hit aces or great service returns. Pete Sampras said
 
“The difference of great players is at a certain point in a match they raise their level of play and maintain it. Lesser players play great for a set, but then less.“
 
The same is I suggest true in business. You have to be good all the time, but there are times when you have to be even better and raise your game. Recognising when this is necessary, when you have reached a crossroads on a deal, and then really focusing on the task in hand can really pay dividends.