This weeks blog is about the power of optimism, and how we can improve our optimistic thinking. Not in “power of positive thinking” kind of way, but using cognitive thinking techniques developed by modern psychiatry. Optimists tend to excel in life. Optimists do better at work, live longer, have a better quality of life, are happier, fitter, stronger, have more chance of getting elected to public office, and deal better with rejection. The good news is that optimism can be learned.
Why does Optimistic Thinking Matter?
Finding temporary and specific causes for bad events is the stuff of hope. Finding permanent and universal causes is the stuff of despair. Those who fall into the latter category tend to collapse under pressure, both for a long time and across situations. In a work context, optimism can be an incredibly powerful tool for success. It can help you get over your own personal “wall”. Let’s take an obvious example first - imagine you work in cold-calling (eg those financial advisors who phone you up). In this world, say approximately one in ten calls might lead to a face to face meeting, and only one in three of those meetings lead to a sale. Your “wall” is getting the energy to make another call and face another rejection. It would be incredibly easy to give up or lose motivation after repeated rejections. Those whose psychology is geared towards getting over the cold-calling "wall" will be much more successful. Optimism can be a powerful tool in many other contexts. Take writing a difficult memo, for example. It’s easy to put it off, be distracted by the “shallow” (emails, social media etc), have a cup of tea etc, rather than sitting down and getting it done. Think about what your "wall" is, and feel free to share in the comments below.
What is pessimistic thinking?
A pessimist tends to have a negative view (sometimes called an “explanatory style”) of the self, the future and the world. A pessimist sees the causes of bad events as permanent, pervasive and personal, and sees the causes of good events in the opposite way. A minor flaw in an otherwise good piece of work becomes indicative of a much larger problem - evidence of a hopelessly flawed character, for example.
I’ve just finished reading a book called “Learned Optimism” by the famous American psychologist Martin Seligman. Seligman did lots of experiments looking at the concept of learned helplessness. He discovered that the subjects of his experiments who were subjected to discomfort but had no control over stopping it, quickly learned to be helpless in other circumstances. His seminal experiment was one with dogs (it was in the 70s - I don't think it would pass muster nowadays). The dogs were subjected to electric shocks: some had a bar they could push which stopped the shocks; some didn’t. These dogs were then put in another cage with low walls over which they could easily jump, and then subjected to more shocks. The ones who could stop the shocks in the previous cages easily jumped out of the cages. The ones who couldn’t stop the shocks before simply laid down and whimpered.
Interestingly, Seligman’s theory on a fundamental cause of pessimistic thinking (and the mental health disorders associated with it, including depression) is that the modern world is teaching us helplessness. We are bombarded with information about wars, disaster, famine etc: horrible events over which we have no control. This leads to thinking that our actions in life will be futile.
The good news is that pessimistic thinking can be unlearned. Since the theories of cognitive behavioural therapy, originally propagated by Albert Ellis and Aaron Beck, and developed by many others since, we know that how you think about your problems will either relieve or aggravate them. We all feel momentarily helpless when we fail, but how we then think will determine whether this is temporary or more lasting. Those with a more pessimistic explanatory style tend to get bogged down for longer (eg “I didn’t get the job therefore I’m a failure”); those with a more optimistic explanatory style don’t (I didn’t get that job because that I didn’t gel with that interviewer).
How to change the thinking
It’s a matter of ABCDE (the scheme developed by Albert Ellis). When we encounter adversity (A), we react by thinking about it. Our thoughts become beliefs (B). Our beliefs have consequences (C): they affect what we do next, whether we give up, or take action. But we can dispute (D) our beliefs, and energy (E) will ensue.
Adversity: everyone has their own wall at work: the recurrent situation that blocks and discourages you. It could be the cold-calling or the difficult memo noted above; it could be the due diligence phase for a deal; it could be preparing a series of charts for a presentation; it could be trying to motivate an unmotivated employee whom you supervise.
Belief and consequence: encountering adversity always sets off your beliefs, your explanation of what went wrong. When our beliefs are personal, permanent and pervasive (“it’s my fault, it’s always going to be like this, it’s going to affect everything I do”), the consequence is that we give up. For example, our boss criticises a memo we write. We could think, “I’m a useless writer - I’ll never improve”. Or we could think, more optimistically: “I know how I can get help; I should have proof-read it; it was only this memo which was poor; my boss was in a terrible mood; there was too much time pressure on me”.
Disputing your beliefs: our pessimistic reflexive explanations for adversity are often not rooted in reality (“I’m useless” etc). But because they emanate from ourselves, we tend to believe them. Instead, we should learn to dispute them. So for the cold caller who thinks, “I’m useless” and wants to give up when someone hangs up on them, the disputation could be, “maybe he was in the middle of something; I can’t control what he does: I can only do my best; he didn’t listen, that’s his loss”. The energisation is that the cold-caller is ready to go again.
Here is another example of A B C D E, this time in respect of management:
Adversity - my team can’t seem to do what I ask them. They make so many mistakes.
Belief - why can’t I motivate them? It’s all my fault - I’m a useless manager.
Consequence - I feel angry and annoyed at my team and bad about myself.
Disputation - I have several new team members and it takes time to integrate them and for them to learn new skills. If I keep motivating them, they’ll learn. I know I’m a good manager
Energisation - I can discuss the situation with them openly. I’m less nervous about my job.
To dispute your irrational thinking, consider (a) the evidence (eg is there evidence to support the conclusion that I’m a bad manager), (b) are there alternatives, (c) the implications (even if the worst is true, is it that bad), and (d) the usefulness of considering it now (for example, if you want to ruminate, schedule a specific time to do so).
Conclusion
We all have our “walls” in our jobs and our daily lives. Irrespective of your inherent explanatory style (whether you are naturally pessimistic, or profoundly optimistic), we all feel momentarily helpless on occasion. When that happens, try using the techniques noted above to dispute your pessimistic thinking. It may help you get over your “walls” and be more successful, whether in business or more widely.
Comments