Lessons from profession: Running from Safety

The term "Running from safety" is the title of a book by Richard Bach -- a pilot turned philosopher.

I've seen the following trends time and again in professional settings. People are terrified of thinking and debating. Considering possibilities is often so disconcerting that they are sought to be avoided altogether. However, doing something -- an actionable -- is considered less terrifying and more safer than thinking. Finally, endorsement by others is considered safest and is often actively sought.

If you ask me though, things ought to be just the opposite of the above.

A pat on the back by someone usually signifies a hidden agenda or a game plan. If someone says, "you are great", it usually means that they want something to be done, that we may not really agree with.

Even if there is no hidden agenda, a personal endorsement by someone usually means that the endorser is more interested in me than the issue at hand. They're watching me, rather than watching the issue. So, if I try something new and fail at it, they are not likely to understand the significance of what I tried to do and failed. They're more likely to pass a judgement on me, saying that I've lost the old charm and talent, etc.

Building our lives based on endorsements by others is extremely unsafe.

The second issue -- doing something -- is less unsafe than seeking acceptance. If you baked good pudding and nobody endorses it because of political dynamics, you can at least eat the pudding yourself. You know you are worthwhile because you can get something done. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, than in others' endorsements.

However, actions have repercussions and we're accountable for our actions. Actions based on half-baked ideas usually create more problems than solutions.

In professional settings, where we are accountable for our actions, it is important to remember the maxim: do it right the first time.

In order to do that though, we need to think. Unfortunately, thinking requires us to consider possibilities that are unpleasant or even horrific. We need to understand that, we don't necessarily need to accept all that we consider in our thought processes. There is this quote by Aristotle (I think): It is the hallmark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it.

Thinking also requires us to be objective -- concentrate on the issue rather than the people involved (something which I've reiterated so many times in my previous posts.) We need to realize that argumentation and debates are collaborative activities and not ego-competition or warfare. The objective of argumentation is to understand an underlying issue -- not to sling mud and clobber one another.

Thought, action, outreach -- in that order -- is the way to be most effective.