Its a long winding road, to discovery. Photo credit© Gaganbir
Leadership is being the master of a ship without really owning it.
As a leader, I have often been riddled in dilemma wherein, both the possibilities are unambiguously regrettable. The horns of possibility completely embedded in a choice; especially between that which deems a contextual bearing and the other that offers absolutism. It’s never easy. We have been mentored, taught and completely made to believe that ‘each choice’ plays a cascading effect and if we are lucky the compounded effect will play in the favor of a direction. A true sense of false control!
Think of it!
As a leader, we take decisions by the second and we believe they are played by the fatalistic good understanding we have of the choices that are available at that point of time. We spend time debating, thinking, aligning, procrastinating, data in sighting, risk managing, selling and self believing before an eventual decision is made. If as a leader you have wondered the power that choices can actually bear to decisions then this little article offers an insight to help alleviate the post effects of a decision when it occurs in the horns of possibility. Dilemma at its best.
You see as infallible leaders (a made to believe choice, not decision) we are rigorously groomed to attune our cognitive senses to achieve results through our decisiveness. The better the tuning to a situation, the more is the possibility of getting a result that was planned for.
Ever been part of or directly responsible for an accomplishment that was successful? I am sure you have. But, was there an accompaniment to this; a deep pervading sense that the unraveling of battle plans don’t necessarily bear fruit with the intention for which they were planted? You see if the decision was perfect, then why is there a deep pervading sense? A sense that more could have been done for the better.
Let me run you over the basics of human thinking; our attuned cognitive senses on what really happens when we make a decision.
We sense a situation.
The situation presents us with options.
The options need to be weighed in and prioritised for their impact.
We sense the choices in the possible options.
We take a decision and pick a choice that seems infallible.
In that choice, we sense a decision or decisions.
We take a decision.
We think we took the right decision.
We learn we could be better before the result.
We get the result.
We wonder if there were more choices.
We wonder on the decision?
You see where this is heading. It does not end here. It’s an infallible cycle.
You see we are rigorously taught that decisions have an important relationship to our emotional and rational planes and it is quite proven that they very often feed of them. There has been years of research citing the influence emotions play in taking decisions as much as a rationalist view helps mitigating the risk of choices.
Now here is the problem!!
If our emotions are the catapulting force for taking decisions that are based on choices then how are we ensuring that the play of cognitive biases are not drilling holes into the efficacy of a decision.
Decision making is often a key measured attribute for effective leadership. But, its important to understand that every decision is an outcome of cognitive play; a complex process that combines our emotional response with our rational experiences fed with an over tone of cognitive biases. This complex process does not occur at the decision point but actually starts to pervade when the choices are presenting themselves. However, it misses an understanding of our true nature. A formidable sense of being in-existence.
This is of an important consequence.
Our choices determine the health and quality of our decision.
You see as we mature as leaders (yes there is a maturity curve) combining our learning over the years on what worked and what did not work; we continually assimilate and associate biases that enables protracted decision making. We are taught to often sway towards rationalism as a companion as it is understandable and offers a comprehensive view.
But herein lies the problem.
We are as underfed with an understanding of cognitive biases as much as an allowable availability of understanding and getting a comprehensive view.
This is important because our comprehension is severely limited by the biases that operate creating an incredible influence on a significant portion of our decision making. A large portion of what we perceive as ‘comprehensive’ is actually a ‘rule of thumb’ operation that comes into play in a scenario.
As leaders we are significantly underfed to actually understand the play of cognitive biases. How often, have we sat in large board rooms exercising the option of leadership presence triggering a tsunami of herd mentality; a significant cognitive bias. Let me share a few more tell-tale signs of cognitive bias that we as leaders often experience but do not delve into developing an understanding of:
Only paying attention to news stories that confirm your opinions
Blaming outside factors when things don’t go your way
Attributing other people’s success to luck, but taking personal credit for your own accomplishments
Assuming that everyone else shares your opinions or beliefs
Learning a little about a topic and then assuming you know all there is to know about it
I am hopeful this has struck a chord of poignant reflection. In outside observance, you would find the limiting view we often place ourselves to take decisions that are primarily led to a nature of speed and usually limited in comprehensiveness.
The power of existentialism to counteract and dismiss the play of cognitive biases is profound. By seeking out, it prevents seeking a default within.
Existentialism at its core believes that an individual is always in transition, so that the moment they believe that they know themselves, is the exact moment when they have to start to redefine themselves by examining their being.
The simplicity of the statement provides an uncanny depth to continual improvement extending it beyond the normal realms of an occurrence; compounding it with all the dependencies that actually create the holistic essence of the scenario.
Existence precedes essence.
You see as a leader, we are shackled by the dictates of what a role is meant to be. The perception of it, rationalized experiences and the guided beliefs give it an identity. An identity that demands conformance and is often prescribed as fitment to what is intended to best deliver as a leader.
But, here is the problem. What should ideally have been the guard rails very quickly becomes intrinsic to the path. Our suppository understanding becomes deluded, compromised and blurred with the must have and good to have of what is the perceived general expectation. This completely counteracts the nature of derived existence of being a leader. Our ideals and aspirations are constrained to fit into the “essence” of a role. We are forced to conform in rationality to an essence rather than to an existence.
This means letting go to a lot of aspirational ideals which we have rigorously built over time in our experiences. A side kick reaction to what is called”fitment” to a role.
Its important to understand that every action of ours has a complex lay of biases that are attuned to kick in and modulate our response to any situation. A simple act of reading produces transitory reactions that compounds our belief system to what “we think” we should be doing. This deeply constrained understanding now expects us to perform as leaders.
Jean-Paul Sartre who was a key figure in the examining the philosophy of existentialism and phenomenology was a strong advocate of Existence precedes essence. To Sartre, “existence precedes essence” means that a personality is not built over a previously designed model or a precise purpose, because it is the human being who chooses to engage in such enterprise. To claim that existence precedes essence is to assert that there is no such predetermined essence to be found in humans, and that an individual’s essence is defined by the individual through how that individual creates and lives his or her life. As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: “man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world — and defines himself afterwards”.
This is deeply encouraging to help developing holistic leadership. We need to allow our consciousness to explore risk free and actually mine the art of absurd possibility. Every statement of “abject fitment” needs to be explored within the unshackled confines of absurdity. This requires deep courage as a leader because now we are allowing our individual existence to actually give each fitment a true intent of action, deriving immense strength from our radicalism rather then our biases to fitment.
Absurdity is important because it plays against the spirit of our biases. Our cognitive boundaries are stretched when we driven by a sense of foolishness as it counteracts the reflexive lives of being a rationalist. It stretches our comfort zone, forcing us to enable competency in new found areas enabling leaders to actually develop along the lines of a whole-self rather then a biased self.
As an existential practitioner, I can say that we are most human when we are the fools in our own little minds. As a leader there are conditions that are endemic to fulfillment of a role, but they are severely limited as they are scripted by the essence of “what should be” rather then “what could be”. I, often compare it to an attempt of fitting in the wrong clothing. You know its wrong, but you are in it because its endemic to be seen in it. Allowing our consciousness to break away from this fixed orbit actually allows us to create new paradigms.
If you look back onto the path we have trudged as leaders you would find that the points which we often reminiscence as being successful leaders are exactly the one’s wherein we re-framed our contextual understanding with the color of allowable absurdity. An allowable absurdity deeply endemic to the definition of our existence and not colored with a script of a description.
You see our best choices as leaders are driven when we play the role of an existentialist and realize that whilst, there are parts that are deeply endemic to a decision, there is more in an allowable self propagated absurdity that tarnishes and mutilates our deepest beliefs and allows us to take that single magical decision.
As an aspirational holistic leader we carry an immense responsibility of allowable absurdity wherein our pathway of choices are pervaded with the spirit of this foolishness. This always allows us to expand our decisions to actually play onto the core of our existence as a leader rather than being constrained by the essence of a fitment.
The next time around when you are plagued by the virtuous horns of a dilemma, go stretch the power of being an existentialist and you will realize how empowering and holistic a decision can actually be.
Remember; we are most human when we allow the absurd.
All contents Protected by copyright©
