How we see things

"  Be like water making its way through cracks.  Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around it or through it.  If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves.  Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes a bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot.  Now, water can flow or it can crash.  Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee (Founder of the Jeet Kune Do philosophy of life and framework of martial art fight system).    


At the end of the day, it's how we see things that happen to us that matters if we want to become successful.  If we interpret the events in terms of their long-term consequences on the situation and the people concerned then we prove our long-term focus.  But is that always useful?  We then tend to focus on values but not on long-term results.  If I'm translating a business partner's rude behaviour towards the employees and thinking how that's going to affect turnover but he's thinking about how it's apparently reaping higher productivity from his subordinates, then my thinking isn't being productive in terms of the interpersonal relationship with the business partner.  In some cases, such long-term thinking can be useful in terms of how we view a situation.  If, for example, I'm taking decisions based on principles ignoring the larger context, will it be helpful?  For example, the Muslim communities of the Indian sub-continent at first rejected British English education because of the language (once, Arabic was the language of instruction in academia during Islam's Golden Age).  To implement a long-term idea we also need to steadfastly execute the short-term tactical decisions to get to the goal.

What if we don't interpret events and actions not on the basis of results / blaming someone / on the surrounding environment but by how the other person is seeing situation?  In other words, sometimes it helps if we focus on the results instead of the principles with reference to the larger context.  Sometimes it helps if we backtrack and see how the other person is viewing the actions (some people don't like to be sold to, they only like to buy) and give that person a reason to believe in my own opinion.  I think this can be helpful when the situation has a high implicit power distance between me and the other person.

We can also learn to handle a situation by comparing it with another situation.  We can see how we behaved or the successful people behaved in those successful situations and try to integrate the components of success into the unsuccessful situation.

Sometimes we tend to give up totally on a situation / someone's behaviour / our experience and go "..My God !  I can't do ANYTHING about this situation.  I just don't care.  I just want to let go and be happy with it!...".  At least if we imagine a new development has occurred in the situation and think forward we can decide what to do.

If we spend time on how one event is related to the other, it is going to be specially useful in rigid power hierarchy contexts.  What one event or the action of one person means, such as, one colleague suddenly behaving rudely with you, depends on that colleague's formal and informal social network within the company.  Expecting or assuming the other person is ready to negotiate with us is time-saving only when we are good at reading people.

How can we solve problems, be they interpersonal, organisational, personal psychological or physical life issues?  If we start assuming things instead of asking questions about a problem situation, it limits our choices.  For instance, if you automatically assume that a group of your classmates or colleagues are out to get you into trouble professionally because of your negative beliefs about them, at the next critical event you'll conclude that you're reaching a dead end where you get nothing out of your dealings with them.  Even in a losing situation, it is possible to leave with good memories with colleagues with whom future working relationships are likely.  

Questions to be curious are like:  "What am I assuming about the problem in terms of the characteristics of the involved people?"
"What has to be true for this to be a problem?"  So, if we question our assumptions, negative beliefs, there is a chance of finding new ways of solving a problem.  If we question our negative belief about a colleague having malicious intentions, we might uncover a new characteristic of the concerned colleague which can be beneficial to us.  To be more specific, if you question the negative assumptions of you about one of your colleagues about having a tendency to spread negative rumours about your character, you can find out the motives of the colleague and may address it in your future dealings.

If we rely only on feedback (implicit / explicit) instead of questioning our assumptions about the colleague, we spend less time about the why of the problem and more time on the how / mechanical side of the problem.

If you compare the 2 styles above, you'll see that questioning has a long-term focus whilst feedback has a medium-term or short-term focus.  You can use any of the techniques depending on how much time you have in your hands. It's like Muay-thai kicks and close-range boxing. When you're too close to your opponent you can't and don't have the time and space to initiate a traditional Muay-Thai kick !

You can use the following questions to use the feedback technique:

"What are my results / outcomes so far?"
"What feedback will let me know that I have succeeded?"
"What have I learned from them?"

On the contrary, if you spend time on what you have to do / rigid necessities rather than what you can do in a situation, it is not practical.  We can only do that when we have ample resources in our hands (money, parental and spousal support, time) etc.  So, when we're really short on time and need an escape, we can use the possibilities technique.  It doesn't focus on what problems the colleagues are creating, or on why they're doing it, rather on how you can escape.  I like this one, it's excellent, and has a short and compact feel to it ! 

If you are really looking for a long-term solution, it would help to focus on the how of the problem rather than on the why ! (It may take at least 1 months to really get to know the persons involved !) Hahaha !

I've prepared the following table to help us decide which technique can be suitable depending on how much time do you have, whether you want to satisfy others or yourself, which culture would be most suitable for that tool, and whether the tool is for goal-seeking, or fighting, or escaping (like Judo).  

Technique	Definition	Focus (self/society/family)	Time orientation (long-term/medium-term/short-term)	Suitable culture (individualistic/collectivist)	Examples
Curiosity > Assumptions	Instead of assuming about people or situations, we ask questions about the underlying issues or how the problem works.	50% self, 50% external	Usually long or medium-term.  No need to check target against progress made daily.	Suitable for individualistic cultures.  In collectivist culture or organisations with rigid power hierarchy the curiosity would be translated as “trouble-making”.	In a situation when a colleague serially bullies other colleagues, the question is “Is there any reason why he targets only the competent coworkers?” but not the assumption of “He’s just like that, he just bullies whoever gets that position, let it go !”
Feedback > failure	No failure or negative results are accepted as the final.  Feedback is either implicit or explicit.	30% self, 70% external.  We take more time to hear the message others are sending.	Daily check of objective against progress made a must.  Short-term or medium-term time focus, it’s not possible to stay hypervigilent in the long-term.	Both individualistic / collectivist cultures. Seeking feedback from the seniors is a good attitude.	In the same situation as above, the question asked is “What does this mean for me and the culture of the company?  What do I need to do to gain a promotion? How does this affect my journey towards my goal?” but not spending time on the ulterior motive of the bully. (goal-oriented).
Possibilities > Necessities	We focus on what we can get out of a situation (losing) instead of what we should get or have to get (necessity / obligations).	70% self, 30% others.	Short or medium-term.  We certainly don’t want to think what we can get out of a situation in the long-term.	Collectivist.	In the same situation as above, what benefits can I get from the situation while I escape? (survival-oriented rather than goal-oriented).
How > Why	We focus on how a problem has become a problem and been maintained	80% others, 20% self.	Medium-term.	Individualistic.	“How can I solve this problem?  What if I’m being subjected too? What survival tools do I have?”
Outcome > Blame	We focus on where we are, where we want to go, and how can we go there but not on becoming reactive and blaming others.	80%self, 20% others	A useful tool for long-term survival because we’ll be needing the tools then too !	Individualistic.	“How can I find the tools and integrate them in my personality to survive here or to manage a safe exist?” (fight-oriented)

So, for example, if I have very little time and resources in my hand (social network and wealth), I can first use the feedback frame and then shift to the possibilities frame before finding a new job and then use the outcome frame to put up a fight to give myself more time !  It's like first using leg-work of fencing to keep a safe distance from the bully and then shifting to boxing when he comes close and then shifting to judo to escape.