Better Safe Than Sorry. Think About it—Preferably Three Times.
Erikson illustrates Blue caution through repeated checking of information and completed tasks. These checks can provide reassurance, but may consume time without adding useful evidence.
THE IDEA
“Better Safe Than Sorry. Think About it—Preferably Three Times.”
A good family friend couldn’t leave her house without first checking to see if her keys were really in her handbag, even though placing them there was the last thing she had done before going to the front door.
Back in the 1980s, when I worked as a teller in the bank, I served people who had waited thirty minutes in line for just one single reason: to check that the balance printed on the ATM receipt really was correct. Much anticipation. The same computer. The same balance. But you never know. Best to check. And double-check. If a triple check had been possible, they would have done it.
Where does this need for control come from? Why can’t Blues trust what other people say or just accept the information they hear? Answer: They can, of course. But if they also check themselves, then all the risks will be eliminated, right? But the fact remains that they don’t trust others. Everything has to be confirmed. And recorded, and documented properly.
Remember, we’re talking here about behavior as perceived by others. A Blue checks everything one extra time because it’s possible to check everything one extra time. When everything has been confirmed, then you just have to make a decision.
I have a good friend who uses Excel diligently. But not like the rest of us. This guy has a special method. He writes a formula and inserts all the data. Before he sends any important files to his senior managers, he does a control check of everything using a calculator.
Why does he do that?! If you were to explain this to a Red, he would declare that guy an absolute idiot. Explain it to a Yellow and he would laugh himself to death. Any Blue will understand the whole thing immediately. There is a theoretical possibility that there could be errors in Excel. Even though he has typed the formula himself, something may still go wrong. Better to be on the safe side.
When to use it
Verifying the accuracy of a financial report before submission.
Double-checking travel arrangements to ensure no mistakes.
Confirming instructions with multiple sources before executing a task.
Reviewing a contract multiple times to avoid overlooking terms.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Family friend checking keys
A good family friend couldn’t leave her house without first checking to see if her keys were really in her handbag, even though placing them there was the last thing she had done before going to the front door.
Bank customers checking ATM receipts
Back in the 1980s, when I worked as a teller in the bank, I served people who had waited thirty minutes in line for just one single reason: to check that the balance printed on the ATM receipt really was correct. Much anticipation. The same computer. The same balance. But you never know. Best to check. And double-check. If a triple check had been possible, they would have done it.
Friend double-checking Excel with calculator
I have a good friend who uses Excel diligently. But not like the rest of us. This guy has a special method. He writes a formula and inserts all the data. Before he sends any important files to his senior managers, he does a control check of everything using a calculator.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
When have you double-checked something unnecessarily, and what drove that behavior?
How does the need for control and verification affect your decision-making process?
In what situations can excessive double-checking become counterproductive?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Surrounded By Idiots (Thomas Erikson)