by James Brooke
Be aware of facts and stories, too. Our minds constantly look for interpretation and meaning. It is natural to make sense of what happens to us by weaving it into some sort of story. It may be natural but it is not always helpful.
The facts are what happened; the story is what we make it mean. It seems that too often our minds conflate the two. If you’re rejected at an interview, the two most common types of story that one creates are stories about ‘me’ and stories about ‘the world or people around me’. The former is along the lines that this proves that I am not cut out for this. I should never have tried it. Stories about the world construct a view that – because I got rejected – the world is, or people in general are, capricious, mean and unfair.
If an actor has had a particularly harsh knock-back, they often sit down to separate out the facts and the story, before the story takes hold and starts to contaminate other possible outcomes for that person. Nicholas says it is the same with business people. Taking the drama out of the situation, looking at it as dispassionately as possible, and sifting out the facts from the stories, impressions and interpretations of events, is very important when it comes to moving on from a bad experience and learning from it, while maintaining a positive outlook. Instead be practical and try to get some perspective. If necessary, think numbers – in this case, how many people were going for that audition? What realistically were the chances? How many people were up for the post? Was it simply not your turn this time around?
Joe put this into practice. As a 28-year-old solicitor, he had long been viewed as a high flyer. ‘I basically walked into my first job at a City firm and was immediately involved in a hostile takeover bid,’ he says. ‘We won the case and I was singled out for my work. From then on, I was the golden boy on the fast lane to becoming a partner.’
But that didn’t happen when he was led to believe it would, and when he was told that he would have to wait at least two years Joe felt bitterly disappointed. ‘I was devastated. It was a terrible thing to hear – I felt that I’d had my hopes raised and dashed.’
Looking at the story objectively and stepping aside from his dramatic language, Joe began to explore why he hadn’t been made a partner. ‘I had a chat with a lawyer who worked at another firm, who was just a few years older than me. We realised that, actually, I was still lacking some essential experience needed in a partner – and, statistically, I was far too young. I realised that my goal was still attainable, I just needed to keep working at it. I also realised that I had felt so upset partly because I’d been concerned about what other people in the firm would think about me not yet becoming a partner, after all. I had to remember that their opinions really don’t matter.’
Summary
It’s natural to look for interpretation and meaning – but it isn’t always helpful
The facts are what happened – but the story is what we make them mean
Bulletproof people are clear not to confuse fiction with fact
Don’t make ‘no’ mean more than it does
For those clustered around the middle of the bell curve of talent, like most of us, there will be some factors of success that can be identified or changed, and there will be some that are random, and down to chance. If we assume that, in the long run, chance is reasonably constant, simple tenacity in the face of rejection becomes a major predictor of success.
Nicholas believes that the most successful people are those who understand the nature of probability. ‘Sure, review, learn and make changes, but understand that there is a major chance element to success. You cannot change this, but tenacity can hugely improve the odds of success in the longer term.’
This presents a problem, because, for most of us, the idea of randomness being a substantive element of success or failure runs counter to our intuition. There is a wealth of research supporting the idea that our minds do not readily grasp the nature of probability or randomness. We have a tendency to look for explanations to attribute to happenings that are in reality far more random. As Taleb puts it in Fooled by Randomness, ‘Lucky fools do not bear the slightest suspicion that they are lucky fools.’23
To an extent the flipside is also true. Our minds start to weave a story to make sense of each rejection or setback, even though it may be down to chance factors outside of our control. We have a tendency to make each rejection mean more than it does.
Nicholas tells the story of an architectural practice that invited him in to help with the presentation of their competitive pitches. He was told that their existing clients loved their great creative work; they came back for more, and enthusiastically recommended them to others, but when it came to competitive pitches they were abject failures, and they wanted to know what they were doing wrong. Nicholas worked with them on presentation skills, messages, personal impact and so forth, but what was really interesting was getting them to question their story that they never win pitches. When they analysed the facts, their success ratio was not far outside what you would expect. They had experienced a fruitless sequence, but not one outside of the normal range. When they could identify clear explanations for decisions around specific pitches, these were largely outside of their control. Two weeks later, Nicholas received an excited phone call to say that they had just won the tender for the refurbishment of a major public building.
Look at the statistics, or simply bear in mind the chances of you getting a job or winning a pitch; in other words, taking an objective view of the balance of probabilities will help you to be objective and realistic about a rejection. It will also help you to put it into context.
Summary
We tend to apply our own logic to happenings that are, in reality, pretty random
Tenacity in the face of rejection is a major predictor of success
Bulletproof people don’t make a rejection mean more than it does – they maintain their objectivity
Specific case or universal truth? Making assumptions is dangerous
Let’s return to our ancestor, the cave dweller. In a simple but more life-threatening environment, it is safer and more efficient to formulate rules about the way things are: rocks hide nasty animals, water can drown, and so forth. If people at one settlement tried to rob this ancestor, it increases the odds of his survival to carry that assumption when passing the next settlement.
We tend to apply the same sort of rule formulation today. If we met a Martian and she was three foot tall, we would assume that all Martians are short. If somebody cheats us, we are likely to add a rule to our repertoire along the lines of ‘people cheat’. When Bob – the salesman we mentioned earlier who had lost his confidence – found himself in conflict with a number of colleagues at work, he took the view that ‘the workplace is hostile’. But for Bob, unlike our ancestor, the calculus has changed; the potential gain from setting aside the assumption is greater than the survival benefits of sticking with it.
A similar process of universalising applies along the dimension of time. We often make the mistake of mixing up the temporary with the permanent. If we are going through a stressful patch at work, we are inclined to make it mean that work is stressful.
If you are going through a tough time, the chances are it is being exacerbated by another form of thinking disorder. Our minds tend to look for patterns and, having made assumptions about patterns, these then shape the way we feel. If we are going through a difficult time, our reserves are usually being drained far more than necessary by the thought that this is the way things are going to be from now on.
If your assumptions tend to incorporate the notions of ‘everyone’, ‘no one’, ‘always’ or ‘never’, you are probably universalising. When something undesirable happens – perhaps a prospective client slams the door in your face – the pessimistic person tends to make the assumption that this is a foretaste of an ongoing pattern. His mind says, ‘Well, that shows that that’s the way it’s going to be. Clients slam doors in faces. It’s time to get out of this game.’ The optimist, however, is more likely
to attribute the incident to the particulars of a given situation. ‘Perhaps the timing wasn’t right for that client. Perhaps that client had just had her budgets cut.’
Optimists tend to be more successful. It is not just an intuitive hunch on our part: the evidence bears this out. Research among sales forces repeatedly shows that people with an optimistic outlook sell consistently more. One study among an insurance sales force estimated that those with measurably optimistic outlooks sell 35 per cent more than the norm for the population as a whole.24
You can also apply the temporary-versus-permanence test. You can ask, ‘Is this really the way things are going to be, or can I expect things to change before too long?’ If you are still unsure, examine the evidence. Death and divorce are pretty permanent; what you are going through now probably isn’t. Keep reminding yourself of this.
A useful way to think of optimism is in terms of the three attributions. When something happens, is it:
a) Universal or particular to the situation?
b) As a result of a permanent situation or a temporary situation?
c) Down to me or down to factors outside my control?
Become aware of how you are seeing things. What underlying assumptions do you tend to make, which affect the way you see things? (Of course, just because they are assumptions does not mean that they are necessarily wrong, but they are nonetheless just assumptions.) Ask yourself what evidence there is for and against your assumptions. What alternative explanations could there be? To what extent are you carrying your experiences from one situation into another?
It does happen, but it does not always happen. This is the situation now, but it is not the situation always.
Case Study 5.4
Lucas was quietly confident about winning the big contract from National Consolidated – after all, it was surely time he had some luck. When he got the message asking him to return the buyer’s call at National Consolidated, he felt optimistic, but the buyer calmly told him that they wouldn’t be going ahead with him.
What thoughts typically go through Lucas’s mind: maybe my firm’s products just aren’t good enough; maybe nobody’s buying; the market’s in unstoppable decline; maybe I am not cut out for this job after all?
Bulletproof Lucas sees the situation as temporary. It happened now, but that does not mean that it will keep happening. It is specific. It does not mean that it is part of a pattern. And maybe it was not down to Lucas at all. National Consolidated might have just had their budgets cut.
Summary
Remember to check your underlying assumptions
We often mistake the temporary for the permanent – which is it?
We often universalise: ‘everyone’; ‘no one’; ‘always’; ‘never’. Is our statement actually true?
Optimists tend to be more successful than pessimists
Bulletproof people choose the most helpful ways to see situations
Bulletproof people regularly train their minds to habitually think in these more helpful ways
Apply the ‘down-to-me’ versus ‘not-down-to-me’ test
People who are more inclined to attribute the outcome that they get to factors about themselves are what psychologists term ‘internal’. And, of course, the flipside is that people who tend to attribute things to factors in the external word are ‘external’.
You may think that people who are internal are more likely to be proactive, and when they get setbacks they do something about it – hence, they are more successful. This is true, but only up to a point.
Pessimists are likely to attribute lack of success to elements about themselves that are not likely to change – and, of course, pessimists tend to fare less well during tough times.
Indeed, because most of us have a fairly self-centred view of the world, we are likely to over-attribute the outcomes that we get to things that we said or did. If a prospective customer says no, or we are rejected at an interview, we are inclined to assume that we got things wrong.
Because pessimists attribute setbacks to things that are ‘stable’ – in other words not likely to change soon – they are less resilient. Factors that are ‘stable’ and ‘down-to-me’, for example, might be: ‘I am not a very good salesman’; ‘I don’t come over well in interviews’; ‘My communication skills aren’t up to the mark.’
What about people who attribute their successes to themselves, but then attribute their failures to external factors outside of their sphere of influence? And indeed there are many individuals who demonstrate this tendency. Surely these deluded, self-justifying characters will get their comeuppance.
Not so; in fact, it is almost the contrary. Research that tracked the relative success of medical students found that the most successful did precisely that. It seems that when it comes to performance, being optimistic about your own talents and rejecting pessimistic scenarios about your failures really does trump an honest assessment. It may be a case of ‘to thine own self be true – but only up to a point’.
But, of course, that misses crucial factors: whether the internal factors are stable or not; and whether you can influence them. If you didn’t make the sale because you did not research the client enough, or you didn’t get the job because you didn’t get a good night’s sleep before the interview, these are things that you can do something about.
Apply the ‘down-to-me’ versus ‘not-down-to-me’ test when you next experience a setback. If you are attributing the setback to yourself, question this assumption. What other explanations could exist? What evidence is there for these alternative explanations?
For the aspects that are down to you, decide what specific steps you can most readily take to improve the probability of success.
Summary
Bulletproof people ask the ‘down-to-me’ versus ‘not-down-to-me’ question when they experience a setback in order to help them understand what has really happened
Bulletproof people focus on elements that are changeable and that they can improve
You can want something without needing it desperately
Think about when you need something. You need that sale to come in. You need to win that assignment. You need to be selected at that interview. How do you feel? Relaxed? Comfortable? In a position of power? Probably not, and you probably don’t come across to others in this way either. When we need something, our mind is focused on the gap or the deficit: the cost of failure. Bulletproof people use techniques to train their minds to reduce the extent to which they need something, but sustain the extent to which they want it.
Here’s a thought experiment: a star soccer player is about to step up and take a penalty to win his country the World Cup. As he steps back to take the run-up, a voice whispers in his ear: ‘Miss this and, for the rest of your life, this is all you will be remembered for. It is all that your name will be associated with. Your children’s name, even … everyone watching at home and everyone in the stadium will hate your guts because you will have robbed them of that moment of exquisite joy that they are so longing for.’
No shortage of motivation here, then. But has the voice increased the probability of success or diminished it? What coach would think that such a message would enhance performance? At this point, our soccer player is dominated by ‘fear-of-loss motivation’: the unthinkable will happen if I don’t succeed. Many of us load this sort of motivation on ourselves throughout our lives. Fear-of-loss motivation increases anxiety, which increases thought distortion. There is a saying: a desperate salesman is a dead salesman.
Fear of loss takes over because loss-aversion is a far greater driver in humans than the potential joy of gain. Indeed, psychologists and economists estimate that the emotional impact of losing something is twice as great as that of gaining something. I am sure that you can sense the inner cave dweller at work here. It could be that in our ancestor’s more hostile environment placing the priority on avoiding loss was a better survival strategy, but we do not need to be hidebound by our inner cave dweller’s
rules.
Of course, you can’t tell your mind not to think about something, but there are several useful things you can do instead. For example, a useful technique here would be for our penalty-taker to focus his attention on striking the perfect penalty, as opposed to the benefits that will flow to him if the penalty is successful.
Sports psychologists recognise that athletes who appear to be more motivated by getting their technique right because of the inner sense of satisfaction (‘intrinsic motivation’) tend to be more resilient than athletes who are chiefly motivated by rewards that flow from the outside world such as cups, money and recognition (‘extrinsic motivation’). The former tend to bounce back better.
Dr Costas Karageorghis is a Reader in Sports Psychology and Deputy Head for Research at Brunel University and co-author of Inside Sport Psychology (Human Kinetics, 2011) He draws attention to the difference between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation as a factor that influences the extent to which athletes demonstrate resilience by bouncing back. Extrinsic motivation comes from external factors: the stick or the carrot; the rewards of punishments that come from the outside world, whereas intrinsic motivation comes from within and relates more to our sense of meaning, self-worth, satisfaction and the extent to which goals fit with our personal values.
‘Athletes or business people who only have extrinsic motivators struggle to cope with failures or losses, while athletes with largely intrinsic motivation tend to be more resilient. (The highest performers combine intrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation.)’, says Dr Karageorghis.
People who are driven primarily by a need or wish to win respect from others, or approval from parents, or to get their hands on the new BMW, or to wear designer brands, or all of the above (and, let’s face it, we all are to some degree), tend to be less resilient in the face of setbacks.