Trigger Question #70:
We often defend our decisions and our actions by giving many reasons and explanations. And even excuses.
But here’s the rub. If what you plan to do is clearly important, then you wouldn’t need many reasons, explanations, or excuses. Only one will do. The consequential one. The one that can trigger significant consequences.
The more you try to explain using multiple motivations, the more you will sound as if you are defending your decision. Or worse, that you are still convincing… yourself.
Next time before you decide, and before you act, stop and think. What is your one critical motive? What is the single reason that highlights the crucial consequence of not deciding or not acting?
Once you can clearly articulate the crucial consequence, then go ahead. Decide and act.
But if you don’t have one critical motive, or you have many motives, then it’s best to think again. Because, as I said, the more reasons you have, the more likely you are still defending or convincing, even yourself.
Once you get the hang of this one-critical-motive method, apply it far and wide at work. Should you keep a policy or should you dump it? What is the one critical consequence either way? What are the consequences if you keep or dump a procedure, a physical asset, a problematic project, a troublesome employee?
Next, apply it at home and in other areas of your non-work life. Trust me, it works everywhere.
But if the method doesn’t work for you, then dump it. Because it has failed its own one-critical-motive test. It hasn’t convinced you that using it is consequential.
Welcome to my side of the nonsense divide.
. . .
Quote of the Moment:
“Don’t assume many motives must matter to motivate a meaningful move.” The Chief Nonsense Officer.
. . .