Restarting wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:54 am
BB, I read your post over a dozen times. I was unsure if I understood your intent with this sentence:
"Our job in any relationship is to push past whatever words are spoken, and find out what the answer really should be, regardless of what was said, or thought they meant at the time…"
It seemed aligned with my thinking but I wasn't sure. I finally determined that I agree when including the proviso that "what the answer really should be" is what the other truly believes, not necessarily what you think the answer should be.
Maybe it was the "thought they meant" part that threw me off. Does that mean an immediate reaction without adequate introspection for a true response?
I think we're saying the same thing. Total respect for your viewpoint if we disagree, though.
The nuances are close enough to make it difficult for me to determine if I even agree with myself sometimes. But, I think you brought up an important issue: Should you or should you not overcome someone's sometimes very strong reluctance to something you believe would be good for that person, or even just benefit an unrelated party completely.
In personal interactions, overcoming the other's will through arguments or force must be a judgement call. In some cases, it's our obligation and responsibility to overrule, and in other cases, inappropriate. In most cases though, it is both -- Our responsibility to always do our best to influence, but only sometimes overrule the other person, or sometimes give in and defer to them.
We can identity many instances of imposing your will because that will be beneficial. Sometimes the wisest action is to allow others to "make their own mistakes and reap the pain of those decisions", after being heard. If your an outside consultant, your job is different: You must get your reasoning conveyed to the client, and be OK with whatever that person decides.
Children are born pretty stupid, and good judgement is a skill that is learned and never mastered. I think it's often the obligation of those with more judgement and experience to impose, or apply an extreme amount of influence to convince someone to kill their own determinations and accept yours. Imposing your will is an obligation of a parent, then less so as they mature.
In business, I can assure you that you will almost always have a massive failure, if you don't learn the skill of seeking out these contrary positions. Of course in most instances if we are in charge, it is still our final decision. But, if you don't allow other's judgement to prevail, or at least to thoroughly reconsider precisely if the other's advice was best, you can not, and you will not make wise decisions.
Consider Trumps last days of the NYC trial. I'm sure he'd love to testify right now, and he likely would, if he were solely deciding. Although of course he will make that final decision, he won't (likely) overrule his team's decision. Tactically for the legal team, he's obviously way ahead with little to gain. Trump is impulsive to a definite fault at times, and I'm sure it must "feel or seem right" to testify. If he did, he would look, and from a legal perspective would be a fool. However there might be other political reasons for doing just that, even with the possible damage. That's the rub--His legal team can't easily advise him with that perspective.
Over time, he's learned to defer his own (legal) opinions often enough to prevent the nearly certain resulting damage. There's another side though: His attorneys didn't become great by mastering risk. That's Trump's skill, and few of his legal team has, or ever will be making decisions that result in their own personal risk or reward. If that's not your skill, you won't like playing, and any loss will likely disable you for a time.
Trump or any professional poker risk takers have mastered winning enough of the time, and accepting the inevitable losses without disabling them. Why are only a small group of pro poker players always at the "last table"? It isn't their math skills to accurately calculate the odds. They've mastered risk their own reactions to the results of that risk. (Look up "Poker Bad Beat".)
Seeking out and carefully listening to contrary opinions is a required skill of any business person, without which, you'll quickly go broke. Learning when to take that advice against your own judgment, or to go rogue do what you instinctively think is better, is the skill of a great CEO. Few CEOs are great at not just managing risk, but managing their sanity when the results turn out badly.
Overcoming a "no" or a "yes" through persuasion, coercion, or deferring to their decision is a certain risk. The results of that risk will provide great benefits or loss. Learn how to manage those risks as best you can, for the best outcomes.