Why so negative? Be more helpful.

     A lot of people say outright or at least intimate about my writing: Why are you so negative? Why not more helpful? My go-to, two-word TL;DR answer (suggesting where they go research the answer: Tuktoyaktuk University…) usually doesn’t land well. So let me elaborate.

     These are two discrete notions. First, why so negative? Second, why not more helpful? Let’s tackle them in that order.

Why so negative?

     I reject the premise, let alone the judgment. Am I negative—or realistic? Maybe both: reality is pretty negative. Either way, my goal is to be insightful. I’m sure there’s math to support it (if not, there should be): insight into negatives provides considerably more value than insight into positives. Practically, the negative risks tend to have more purchase than the positive.

     Besides, I try to be positive. I look for it in negative situations, identify and highlighting the positive potential outcomes in the ambiguity of my world. This despite having found optimism to be ultimately self-defeating: you can’t will a positive outcome—no matter what your favourite spiritualist says. There is no “secret” and “manifesting your destiny” is uncertain, hard work especially in negative circumstances.

     There’s a lot to be said for preparing for the reasonable worst.

1. Reasonable is recognizing a probability and not worst-case catastrophizing.
2. The worst is, however, always a non-zero probability. Recognizing that is merely mature. Dealing with a high-probability worst case as being likely is appropriate. Acknowledging low-probability worst case situations while working toward a positive outcome is sensible. It’s succinctly captured by, “Hope for the best; prepare for the worst.” Surely that’s not negative too.
3. It is emotionally easier to prepare for a lesser outcome and be pleasantly surprised than to talk yourself into an unlikely, positive outcome and be deeply disappointed or worse. (“Negatively” expecting to lose a lotto will have much less impact than “positively” convincing yourself it’s your turn only to—inevitably—lose.)

Why not try to be more helpful?

     Again, I challenge the premise. That said, obviously I’ve not got the hang of it. A practically religious aversion to sycophancy or being in thrall to anyone practically ensures my writing has not landed on a reliable patron-audience. Apparently I come off as a know-it-all, so I’ve learned to not outright tell you what to do. Instead, I provide enough ‘observation’ and pointers for the reader to discover and determine on his/her own. It’s a difficult balance.

     It’s an odd place for a self-aware misanthrope. I give information and assume/hope people will know what to do with it—though I’m now relatively sure they don’t and won’t. But they think they do and get insulted by anything that intimates they don’t. (Maybe this is you.) Even raw data is now political on some scale: left or right, pro/anti-whatever, etc. In that context, ‘help’ does not get a fair hearing. It is either taken close to heart too easily or dismissed thoughtlessly.

     To the extent it matters, I am extensively and broadly schooled, widely read, and (according to many, corroborating independent tests) cognitively strong. (To digress: never mind STEM or MBA, etc.: real value is critical review and application of 5,000 years of civilized thought.) I was taught and subscribe to researching valid, foundational information, analysing it, and drawing conclusions scientifically and otherwise. Over many years, I’ve tested the approach many times in many places for many things. It’s provided a solid base from which to intuitively respond probabilistically to new situations.

     My experience: few responses are universal; most are circumstantial. Context and circumstance count in life’s complexity. There’s a reason coaches and teachers depend on leading the horse to water and then making it think. Helpful, here, is to present the ingredients for a decision and then, maybe, nudge the thought process. “Teach a man to fish…” and all that.

     In large organizations, underlings or staff to a decision-maker rally foundational factors, describe logic, analysis, and conclusion, to make recommendations. Depending on the decision-maker, helpful could include that hard recommendation (among options) or perhaps a presentation of fact/ors and decision considerations. In the former case, the decision-maker says yes/no or picks Door 1, 2, or 3. In the latter, (s)he thinks and creates his/her own option.

     Note how the decision-maker is always nudged toward a choice: sometimes subtly and other times with a shove. The psychology applied is vast and usually blunt: presentation timing, language choice, framing, and so on. In all instances, the decision-maker gets the satisfaction of choosing or creating a choice.

     Let’s return to context. The descriptions above are of an organizational environment when a decision is being made. That situation is explicit and specific to one situation. On the other hand, writing or talking (e.g., at a conference) about such matters as I often do, is typically bereft of such critical context. Organizational details and specifics that could have significant impact on choices and recommendations cannot possibly be known. While those reading/listening ought to know their mileage will always vary because their roads are different, the questions we’re addressing make me wonder, “Do they?”

     The hardest place to be helpful is to a broad audience. The greatest damage comes from generalities not specificities. It’s great to “Ask your doctor if Ozempic is right for you.” It’s less great for a doctor to indiscriminately tell everyone they meet that Ozempic IS right for you.

     Being helpful—in my line of work—can take on three discrete complexions. All are meant to be helpful. But even helpful itself can have many complexions: to lead; to teach, allowing for discovery and hopefully growth; to take on responsibility, removing it from the other’s concern.

     Any public exposition of specific guidance or recommendation where the all-important detail is absent, is ultimately not helpful. It may feel that way, but its frisson is equivalent to a sugar high.

     Generic recommendations to similar situations and other cases, with assessment made based on imputed similarities and likelihoods is somewhat more helpful only insomuch as a model/template and by potentially preempting some analytic work. (BTW: “Trust but verify” is a good position to take in these situations.)

     The most helpful public counsel is one that identifies the problem/challenge, suggests important considerations and their complex (likely dynamic) interworkings, provides any insights, and then recommends not a choice but an approach.

     That’s how I try to help those who must help themselves. As for negative v. positive, I repeat: each where and as appropriate to be realistic. We must play the ball where it lies.

     Institute X is a transformation leadership consultancy and coaching firm. Check out the abundance of pragmatic guidance on its blog and at The Change Playbook.