I was in the bus today on my way home after lunch. I was reflecting upon myself again, this time on the social and private side of this person I regard as me. While the private person knows the path he attempts to pursue, the social person inevitably brings the private person on detours, much to the frustration of the former.
The social person is by default willing to share his space with anyone who wishes to hang around. He has an accommodating disposition towards propositions by others, often to an err. Harmony is prized by the social person. He refrains from judgement until all facets of a proposal are revealed to him, then and even then a negative judgement might not be passed even if such is the only option available. In the event whereby sufficient facts are gathered and a negative judgement is passed to end a particular pursuit, due to the flaky nature of this social person, the judgement will not be sticky. It thus means given time another might be once again be able to persuade that social person to that same pursuit.
To the private person, this is a horrid waste of time. The pursuit of the path is of utmost importance. Progress in any direction other than in the direction of the path is considered a detour.The private person is by default unwilling to get distracted by any other forms of pursuit other than those that falls inline with his path. Any attempts to detract the private person from his path instills annoyance.
The social and private side of this person is thus at constant conflict with one another. In my opinion, to make significant progress, it is important to resolve this internal conflict of mine. In fact, I had unknowingly encountered the answer already during my extensive readings and discussions with people around me. Ironically though, the answer only became apparent after I defined the problem as it is.
The answer came in many forms:
I encountered the answer when reading this book on team building by one of Robert Kiyosaki’s advisors two months ago.
“A team is a group with a mission, to keep the group together under times of stress, the group must first have a set core values deeply ingrained in them. Only then will the group be able to function as a team in times of good as well as in times of stress. The function of a team is to complete a mission, the function of the team is not to please everyone within or without the group.
Not everyone can fit into the team you are trying to build. Only those who understood and are willing to accept the core values of the organization can be allowed entry into the team.”
Last Sunday, I discussed with my brother on these detours I constantly faced during my operations. I further shared the difficulties I had dishing out the rejections while not messing up the relationships I have already built up. His response
“Does your organization have a set of core principles?
The founder of my company established a clear set of guidelines when he first setup his operations in Germany. When functioning as a member in the organization, a person might on occasions encounter dilemmas which he will have a hard time coming to a decision. That is when this guideline becomes useful.
Take what happened last month when our company went over to Beijing to meet up with the prospects. Sticking to the guidelines, we had to disqualify the prospect. This is due to the fact that she is not the end user. She was attempting to setup an agency to reap commission. Our guideline is was to never engage with agencies. We came to this conclusion in spite of the impressive level of entertainment we received from her and the customers she was trying to introduce during our time there.
Suppose your organization do not have a set of core principles? What then will your decision making process be based upon? Gut feeling? How then could you ensure your gut feeling produce the same decision outcome each and every time you encounter a problem of a similar nature? How then can you ensure the quality of your decisions as well as the subsequent output based upon your decisions?
Back to the question of dishing out rejections. When a rejection is based on something that is personal a.k.a a gut feeling, the other party can and will always attempt to find something to counter that rejection. To stubbornly persist on this rejection would to cause harm to the relationship.
When a rejection is based on an impersonal principle, the other party can have no way to counter that rejection. A rejection based on a principle will not offend. “
From Warren Buffet’s biography which I read last month.
“If I am to condone your request to lend you money to tide you through your debts, then I will need to do the same for each and every subsequent person that comes after you. I will also need to do the same for each and every person that came before you. So the answer to your request is no.”
From Mr Lee Kwan Yew’s memoirs which I read the past few days.
“I am a pragmatic and practical person… I am not out to impress anybody, what matters is that Singapore prospers… I am consistent, persistent and determined.”
Drawn from the lessons taught by four people each of whom have built something significant – the “rich dad” company, Bosch, Berkshire Hathaway, Singapore, it is evident that core values are what they really are – “core“ values. A principle is an axiom. An organization expressed in metaphysical terms is an equation. All equations are built upon fundamental axioms. In the event whereby an axiom is in contradiction, the equation which is built upon it cannot be consistent.
In layman terms…
In a numerical field of 10, 1+1 will always be 2. The numerical field of 10 is the axiom.
So in essence, so long as I remain part of the team within my organization, all decisions henceforth will be based on this organization’s values and guiding philosophy