I recently horned in chimed in on a conversation where an activity was being discussed in terms of “should we?” or “shouldn’t we?” The potential action being debated could very well lead to some incredibly positive outcomes in this particular organization. It also has the potential of causing a few minor operational hiccups along the way. Not catastrophic operational earthquakes, but rather small tremors after which the earth’s crust would settle right back down. Truly.
Major upside – minimal downside.
Yet, apparently, the discussions around “should we?” or “shouldn’t we?” led folks to decide “let’s just not do anything at all.”
A common occurrence. It’s much easier for humans to find ways to justify their already-held belief so they can say “let’s NOT do this” rather than fully exploring how they can instead adopt the mantra “let’s identify how we CAN do this.” Confirmation bias. I admit to occasionally running headlong into its shiny seductive grasp.
It’s easy, when viewed rationally, to see the downside to thinking this way. People who seek to confirm their beliefs, focus on one solution and ignore other options may end up staying-in-the-same-place. Or making poor decisions. Or not taking action when action is called for.
So, I often wonder, is there ever an upside?