Be Bulletproof

by James Brooke

  Attitudes towards the person who caused the upset were then measured via a questionnaire. The evidence was overwhelming. Feelings of anger, resentment and desire for revenge had subsided dramatically among the group who were focused on benefit finding.

  Summary

  ‘Benefit finding’ is the bulletproof person’s silver lining, which brings insight, new opportunities, etc., following a non-physical assault

  When you are going through a tough time, practise ‘benefit finding’: imagine you are standing in the future, then imagine you are listing the benefits that arose from the situation – perhaps new insight and learning, increased confidence as you learnt to cope or perhaps the incident caused you to do something that you would not otherwise have done, which opened up a new opportunity

  CHAPTER 7

  TURNING AROUND FAILURES AND SETBACKS

  MISTAKES AND SETBACKS are the snakes in the game of Snakes and Ladders of working life. Here again, the initial temptation might be to let our instincts run riot, but taking some time and being mindful is a much more effective way to start climbing up those ladders again.

  Case Study 7.1

  Malcolm was the first person in his family to go to university and he was proud of his degree in accountancy, as was his family. ‘My mum must have about 98 photos of me in my cap and gown with my degree,’ he said, laughing, as we sat on the balcony of the flat which he shared with his partner and their daughter.

  Malcolm, 38, had risen to become one of the heads of finance in a large engineering and infrastructure company. He was well respected and well liked throughout the organisation, and his bosses clearly had him marked out for promotion. Then, one day, it all changed.

  ‘We were all in the annual budget meeting – the other heads of finance and the CFO,’ he told us. ‘I’d been promoted just over a year earlier and so I now had to take charge of a much bigger chunk of the budget than ever before – in fact the largest part of the whole of the firm’s expenditure.’

  It was a daunting prospect but Malcolm felt that he was up to it. He’d worked hard with his team over the previous few weeks to check the numbers, to make sure that every column added up and that every element of income and expenditure had been taken into account.

  But suddenly in the meeting with the other senior finance people those numbers didn’t make sense. Sitting around the table with coffee cups and a mass of papers in front of them, his colleagues were working their way through the spreadsheets that Malcolm had given them – and they were beginning to look increasingly confused.

  ‘The CFO asked about some figures that he said didn’t look right at all. Then a colleague sitting next to me, who I’ve always regarded as a bit of a rival, asked, “Aren’t some of these figures last year’s?” Suddenly the whole thing made sense, and I thought I was going to be sick.’

  His laptop had crashed a few weeks earlier, taking with it figures he’d been working on. As a result, he’d had to upload a whole raft of figures again. Highly meticulous as always, he’d spent a frustrating day checking various files and spreadsheets and replacing some with newer versions while simply copying others from the server and deleting more.

  ‘I thought that I’d got everything back up to date,’ he said. ‘The problem is that my team was all new and so they’d never have known which figures dated from last year and which were current.’

  The upshot? Vital funds on which the forecasts had been planned and future budgets set simply weren’t there.

  ‘It was a complete and utter disaster for the whole of the organisation,’ said Malcolm. ‘As I drove home that night, I kept replaying the meeting over and over in my head and telling myself that thousands of people were going to suffer because of my cock-up.’

  He was convinced that he’d be sacked. He’d never get a job in finance again. The voice in Malcolm’s head was familiar to many of us. It kept telling him that he’d let all of his colleagues down badly. What’s more, he’d been found out. The boy who’d got to university against all the odds had ideas above his station. He was an impostor; he wasn’t actually as good at his job as he’d pretended to be and now he’d been discovered.

  Decontaminate your mistakes

  We have discussed ways in which you can bulletproof yourself against the setbacks and assaults of the workplace, but what about when our undoing is of our own making? When that voice in our heads tells us we don’t deserve to be bulletproof, this time the assault is not from the outside in: it’s the gremlin in our personality that will ‘always’ expose us for the untrustworthy impostor that we are.

  The issue is not that we fail to learn from mistakes and failure, it’s that, nestled deep in our brains, we have a ruthless teacher to remind ourselves. The problem is that it is a teacher that lacks compassion, subtlety and flexibility. These are attributes that we need to learn for ourselves.

  Mistakes, like defeats, result in a drop in testosterone and an increase in cortisol. There is a sound adaptive explanation for this physiology. After a mistake, it makes sense to withdraw from the fray. Observe a sports star who makes an unforced error. In the following moments, the sense of hapless nervousness and uncertainty is almost palpable. A crucial difference between us and sports stars is that, for the sports star, the effect is typically temporary. Through sports psychology, they learn to realign their mindset. For many of us in the workplace, we are not so lucky. The mistake can be the start of a domino effect.36

  Mistakes and setbacks are contagious. Once one happens, it tends to contaminate the next thing you do. Top-performing sports stars learn to decontaminate mistakes and setbacks.

  Dr Tim Rees, from Exeter University, has researched into and published widely in the area of recoverability from failure. Tim recognises that an athlete who has suffered a setback will be prone to the same type of thinking errors that tend to affect all of us when things go wrong. Tim encourages athletes to ‘be their own sports psychologists’. Taking time to be aware of your thinking is the first step in retraining your thoughts so that they work better for you.

  ‘Very negative thinking can emerge,’ Dr Rees explains. ‘We suffer a performance failure and then start thinking, “It’s all out of my control, it will happen again, it always happens to me.’” Rees recognises that the first step in reversing the cycle is simple awareness: ‘Stop and ask yourself, “Why am I having these thoughts?’” Once we are aware, we can start to challenge our thinking distortions and replace them with thoughts that are more helpful.’

  Top performers decontaminate failure and stop it spreading by separating the facts of what happened in a clear, non-emotive way from the story or interpretation of what happened. It is a habit that anyone who wants to be bulletproof can pick up and learn.

  Because our minds like consistency and they naturally want to form things into coherent stories, when we make a mistake and suffer the consequences we start to see it as the part of a pattern or ‘story’. We often feel so devastated after a mistake because somehow the mistake feels like a part of our life-story. And, of course, we fear that story determines our future. ‘You see,’ our minds are telling us, ‘things always work out this way for me.’

  When we make a mistake, particularly a big one, we are inclined to see it as being in some way about us – in some way attributable to characteristics about ourselves. And when we view mistakes in this way, we are far less inclined to make a speedy recovery from them.

  As script consultant Christopher Vogler describes it, you’re now in the cave, a low point in the ‘script’ of your life (see here). Either way, as we know, you will get out of it and you will benefit from it as a result.

  So, writing down what happened, being aware of what is emotion and personal impression on the one hand, and what is hard fact on the other, will help. It’s a useful next step to follow the factual description with: ‘As a result, I am feeling …’ Then give a name to your emotion or blend of emotions. In addition, of course, build in those useful, realistic modifying phrases s
uch as, ‘At this time …’, or ‘Right now …’, because this is a temporary state of affairs.

  Summary

  Reframe and describe the incident, taking the toxic, negative emotions out of it

  Note your emotions alongside the facts

  Be honest and don’t try to exculpate yourself or shirk your responsibility

  De-catastrophise

  Let’s return to Jane from chapter two. Sitting at her desk on Monday morning, she switched on her computer and discovered an email from a client rejecting her proposal. Now imagine, Jane starts to dwell on things. After all, thinks Jane, this won’t be the last proposal to be rejected, and it will no doubt happen again. In fact, it will probably happen to all her proposals. Soon her employer will need to take action and let her go. Then who will take her on, knowing she was let go from her previous job? With her new-found penury, her family life will break up. Friends will desert her, she concludes, as they don’t want to be associated with such a failure. Unable to make the mortgage payments, she fears that she will be out on the streets … and so it goes on.

  We have exaggerated Jane’s scenario a little, but we know that this thinking trap, known as catastrophising, is a common one. Remember our inner cave dweller is innately anxious and pessimistic. In our ancestor’s world it made sense to plan for the worst. Our minds weigh up the potential negative consequences of the situation; this presents a new negative scenario. What would be the potential negative consequences of this more negative scenario…?, and so our thinking spirals into ever greater potential catastrophe. The tendency to catastrophise is another reason why incidents often hurt us far more than they should.

  Bulletproof Jane recognises this catastrophising for what it is. She is capable of stepping back from these thoughts. Sure, the worst-case scenario is not impossible, thinks Jane, but what realistically is the probability? What is the most likely case scenario based on the evidence? Recognising that dwelling on how bad things could get is really not helpful, Jane chooses to focus her attention on the things that she can directly influence to make the best-case scenario more probable.

  By looking objectively at his situation with some external help, Malcolm can see that he’s catastrophising. In other words, suffering as he is from shock, self-doubt and even anger that he’s betrayed his own very high standards, he can begin to see that he’s making the situation sound worse than it really is. Malcolm should ask himself, ‘Have I just set unrelentingly high standards for myself?’

  Here is a useful grading technique to use when in this situation: ask yourself, ‘On a scale of zero to 100, how bad is it?’ The answer will often be something like: ‘90 per cent bad.’ Then put other people’s mistakes in there. Inevitably this ‘90 per cent’ will need to be revised downwards as you make comparisons. It might end up at just 40 per cent.

  Standing back and looking at the facts, rather than his feelings about them, Malcolm began to realise that an error on the budgets was bad news, but it wasn’t a disaster. He also understood that neither were his predictions of the disastrous knock-on effects of his mistake. These were the worst-case scenario and, therefore, not impossible, he realised, but what realistically was the probability of them happening?

  ‘It was horrible at the time,’ he said, ‘but looking back I also became more self-aware. I realised that I’d actually often set myself unrealistically high standards. Why did I think that I was the one person in the world who would never make a mistake, for instance? It also dawned on me how much I’ve been doing to make my mum and my family proud. I should be thinking about how I feel, not them. Deep down, on some level, I felt like I’d let my mum down and that she’d be disappointed.’

  Humans have a tendency to catastrophise: to become fixated on the worst-case scenario. Become aware of this unhelpful line of thinking. Abandon your crystal ball; far better to simply let the future unfold. It will almost certainly not be as bad as you fear and you will almost certainly be able to cope. And the good news is that these are not just idle platitudes, but are backed up by hard research. Daniel Gilbert, Harvard Professor of Psychology, has discovered that people tend to significantly underestimate their ability to cope with, or tolerate, changes in circumstances that they fear. The old adage, ‘Cheer up, it can’t be that bad,’ has some scientific backing.37

  Summary

  Catastrophising is a common thinking trap that makes incidents hurt us more than they should

  Bulletproof people step back from catastrophising, objectively weigh their scenarios and identify what is credibly optimistic

  From ‘all-or-nothing’ to ‘both-and’ thinking

  Case Study 7.2

  Javier finally won a place on the graduate fast-track programme of a major corporation. Determined to make the most of the opportunity, he vowed to himself that he would be an exemplary leader and manager in the organisation. At the start of this new opportunity, he wrote down his goals and his commitments to himself, and made a point of revisiting these lists at the end of each day, and challenging himself as to whether he had lived up to them. This worked for Javier. He proved himself to be competent and focused. He was respected by the team he managed, and increasingly caught the eye of senior leadership.

  One morning, Javier slept through his alarm. He arrived late for his team meeting – not disastrously late, but nonetheless, in Javier’s view, too late. High-calibre managers don’t act like this, he told himself. Javier felt that he had let himself down. He angrily ripped up his list of goals and commitments, and asked himself whom he was kidding.

  A small incident had knocked Javier off track because of his all-or-nothing thinking: if it’s true of me this morning, over this incident, it’s true of me as a person across my career. Your New Year’s resolution is to go to the gym every evening, or to always eat healthily; you miss an evening, or eat a doughnut, and you abandon your goals altogether. Successful people do not make mistakes, so when you make a mistake you conclude that you are unlikely to be successful.

  Bulletproof Javier will be frank with himself. It’s still not acceptable to be late for a team meeting, and this is not the standard that he requires of himself, but he will reason that even the best make the occasional slip-up. It is possible to be both great at what you do and sometimes make a mistake. His negative feelings will subside and he will be re-focused again.

  ‘Both-and’ thinking is the converse of ‘all-or-nothing’ thinking. Become aware of where you may be applying ‘both-and’ thinking. Where are you extrapolating a rule from one incident to cover something universal? What are you making this incident or event mean about you, your future or the world? When you sense that you may be slipping into ‘all-or-nothing’ thinking, apply ‘both-and’ thinking. Ask yourself is it possible for both x and y to be true at the same time? What evidence would you cite in favour of the idea that the ‘both-and’ explanation may be valid?

  Summary

  Bulletproof people know when they are applying ‘all-or-nothing’ thinking – and review their approach

  Bulletproof people don’t extrapolate rules from one incident to cover all situations

  Bulletproof people ask themselves, ‘Can both this and that be true at the same time?’

  Describe in factual and neutral terms

  Something happens to you and it is preying on your mind. It may be something that you have done. You don’t want to let it bother you so much, but you can’t seem to shake it.

  Imagine the ‘wiser-you’ could describe the incident that is on your mind, in terms that are as factual and neutral as possible. We call this an FaN description. Factual, as in just the elements that could be indisputably verified, and neutral, as in what a dispassionate observer would see.

  The FaN description is a remarkably useful exercise. You may not find it always immediately easy to put things into entirely factual and neutral terms; the key is to avoid any adjectives or descriptors that suggest you are making any sort of judgement on the issue.

  To give
an example, perhaps we could make a small digression. Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus undertook a now-famous experiment in the 1970s, which illustrated how the words used about an incident can alter the reality that we observe. Participants in the experiment were asked to observe footage of two cars colliding. They were then asked to estimate the speed of one of the cars. Here’s the twist: participants in one group were asked to estimate the speed of car A when it ‘smashed into’ car B; participants in the control group were simply asked to estimate the speed when it ‘collided with’. The outcome? Those in the group where the phrase ‘smashed into’ was used estimated the speed at roughly 30% higher than the estimate for the control. ‘Smashed’ carries a judgement.

  Become aware of how you describe incidents to yourself. If you are using terms like I messed up or I screwed up, or he humiliated me, or she ignored me, you are building your own interpretation of what happened into the incident.

  For example, something happens. The way you think about what happened governs your feelings and the way you feel physically for some time afterwards: I messed up again and totally failed to upload the right figures. Now I’m responsible for screwing up the whole project. The committee really ripped into me about it and everyone thinks I’m useless.

  The ‘wiser-you’ would ask you to describe accurately what happened but simply focus on the facts, taking emotion and interpretation out of it: In error, I uploaded some incorrect figures. This error is likely to cause a delay in the project. The committee expressed some strong feeling about this. This is true and accurate, but the heat and toxicity have been removed. Looking at it this way, your thinking is clearer and you are better placed to plan something constructive to do about the situation.