Season’s Greetings!

I hope that this time of year finds you in a comfortable place. I know that this time of year can be just as full of pain as it can be full of joy… 

If you would like, I seriously offer an ear (or eyes) to vent to. Additionally, maybe you’re stoked this time of year; I’d love to hear about what’s got you excited right now!

Thanks for stopping by to read my writing once again.

In this post, I’d like to continue from last month’s idea about philosophy. While last month was a bit more general – despite the fairly specific example – I’d like to publicly ponder on a potential philosophy of my approach to work relationships. That is to say that I have not decided to adopt this concept as my own philosophy yet; it might not be worthwhile to adopt.

This also implies that my idea might be bad (not in the good vs evil sense, but quality-wise), but we’ll see soon enough.

In writing out the thoughts behind the development of this philosophy, it is my hope that you will consider some part of your own way of living and examine it to make positive changes, however big or small.

Let’s get into it, shall we?

Philosophy, Part 2

I’ll start with the idea I have.

My social and professional behavior should emphasize desired end states.

Thinking back to Part 1, there are two important actions to take when examining a philosophy:

1 – Try to Understand

2 – Critically Evaluate

Trying to (Get You to) Understand

Since I am presenting the idea, it becomes my job to try to explain so that you understand my idea.

So what does this idea mean?

To me, the idea is best illustrated through a few examples.

First Example: 

The point I want to emphasize here is that a new relationship should be treated as an established one.

There will be people in teams in the organizations I work in, and while getting to know them is important for the development of teams to facilitate high performance, that initial behavior should reflect the expected ‘final state’ of a professional relationship.

Therefore, when someone enters a new organization, they should recognize that everyone on the team has at least one unified purpose for being there. Presumably, that’s executing the mission (oh yeah, this is from an Air Force officer’s perspective!). Simply based on this unified purpose, anyone should be able to silently preface every communication they have with “To facilitate executing the mission…”

To facilitate executing the mission…

…I need training in…

…I need your help to understand…

…I need to help you understand…

…I need to help you manage…

Rank should not be an obstacle:

…I need your help to convince/ facilitate…

…I need your expertise to complete…

…we should discuss ideas about…

Second Example:

Same point as the first example, but instead of a professional context, it’s more personal.

As life goes on and we choose to enter social environments (specifically thinking about hobbies), the strangers we run into will become more and more familiar over time. These particular strangers are potential friends, and once identified as possible friends, they should be enthusiastically engaged as such.

With as little a connection as a mutual enjoyment of some activity – my past experience was Super Smash Brothers Melee – any of us can form an end-state concept of friendship to facilitate a friendship.

On my Smash Bros experience: Knowing that these were likely people I would encounter over and over again, it made sense to engage them as the likely friends we would be: what started as an initial interaction became two or three-times weekly meetups in my local area. For my inner state region, we saw monthly tournaments. For the greater state-wide region, there was regular electronic discussion to include topics beyond the game.

Point of clarity: I’m not suggesting that an exhaustively intimate friendship should result from this idea, but I am suggesting that there is little need to hesitate or hold back friendly behavior.

Third Example:

New point. This is why vision statements exist.

When working on a plan or project, we generally begin with the end in mind. Imagine making a plan without an end. If you can do it, please explain to me how you did.

If we want to host a party, we set an end state and build into that.

How many people are we inviting?

What kind of food will there be?

Are children welcome?

What times will we start and end?

Where will we host it?

The desire to host comes before the decision to host, but once you know what you want, it thereafter becomes a matter of design.

Specific to this philosophical concept, constraints and limitations are applied after initial desires and interests are recognized. We want to get as much bang as possible for our buck, but we want to make sure that we think out the bang as much as possible before letting our box shrink down our realistic bang.

So, in a professional context: this idea should help avoid accidentally limiting ourselves while developing a desired plan or product. We may not know our limits when developing something, but as long as we know what our desired end state is, we do not have to let that ignorance stop our immediate progress or planning.

In a more personal context, the result of the idea hardly changes: it should help avoid accidentally limiting ourselves while developing a desired plan or product relationship(s). You could perhaps say that this philosophy looks at shyness and asks “what’s the point of shyness?”

Summary of Explanation:

So, maybe these examples are not great, but I hope the overall idea is conveyed:

Taking the time to develop relationships is important, but treating relationships as if they’ve already been well-established (particularly in contexts where some longevity may be expected) helps facilitate a conducive attitude. 

Taking the time to develop a plan is important, but completing the plan in spite of imperfect information makes it easier to consume new information for the end purpose than if you simply wait for the information.

Critically Evaluating

Now, what’s good and not so good about this idea?

I think my thoughts boil down to two points, overall:

1 – This facilitates intensely positive/ motivated behavior.

2 – Intensity can freak people out.

I think my examples pushed the intensity already. If anything, I imagine that most people reading this either rapidly accepted the intense positivity or quickly homed in negatively on the idea. I begrudgingly recognize that as a reasonable response.

The reason that this is likely negatively viewed is, as stated, intensity can be alarming.

There is absolutely a valid concern for such intensity. When someone appears to be friendly when a relationship has not in fact been established, it can be perceived as ingenuine or manipulative.

If you approach a relationship with end state emphasis, you might unintentionally message a disinterest in that developmental phase of relationship-building:

Good intention: “We’re here to do a job well…”

Concerning sentiment: “… and since I expect you to share my view on our unified purpose…”

Messaging: “…I’m putting trust in you to carry out this part of your duty (regardless of your actual competency).”

Take-away: “This guy has no grounding in reality.”

Even if the intent is agreeably good and the sentiment in the middle is shared by the newcomer, there is something to say about the way we as humans/ social creatures approach beginning things.

Romantic relationships are pretty good general examples of that idea as an argument against this potential philosophy.

Your first date partner gifting you an engagement ring is an extremely different situation compared to your partner of two years gifting you an engagement ring. From a technical standpoint, either partner has just as much potential to be an excellent partner, but the latter partner has so much more context for you to judge their intentions and the likelihood of your comfort with them.

That said, I do not think it is fair to ignore the positivity that the idea generates. This prompts the question “Is there a way to align the positivity and intensity while managing the messaging?” It seems to me that it should be doable – but this is not part of the critical evaluation.

That said, I’m not sure where else to poke at the idea from a pros and cons standpoint. Any other critical commentary I currently have in mind would simply dive into nuances or depth of what has already been covered.

The last thought I have to share, though, is that communication is an important part of making this work as-is, but I can see this being a difficult discussion to initiate or maintain. I imagine just approaching someone the second time you’ve met them and going “Hey, I know this might be kind of intense, but here are my thoughts about potentially developing a relationship with you. Are you down?” I’ve enjoyed the results of trying this once in my life, but even that was after having been acquainted with someone for over a year; not on the second interaction.

That last bit said, if anyone has any ideas, comments, criticisms, nuances, etc., I’d be happy to hear and consider them!

But, now that I’ve explained to help someone external try to understand and provided a little bit of critical evaluation, as the holder of this idea, I should make reasonable adjustments to this philosophy so I can best utilize/ execute it.

Intentional Improvement

Maybe the philosophy as stated does not conjure all of that intensity or even any of the positivity that has been explained.

My social and professional behavior should emphasize desired end states.

Even if I understand what this means, if I wanted to share it because I believe it’s useful and inspires/encourages positive behaviors in others, it could be clearer.

I’ve self-identified that there are some potential weaknesses that need shoring up, though clarifying that problem so I properly solve it is important.

That brings me to a couple of tasks that I need to address before pursuing a determination of whether I want to adopt this philosophy or not.

1. Clearly define the problem(s) resulting from intimidating intensity.
2. Solve the problem(s) of intimidating intensity.
3. Clarify and simplify the philosophical statement.

Currently, I do not intend to cover my execution of these tasks in the 72 AW serial posts, but I may create a post out of cycle to address the resolution of that process.

Closing Thoughts

I’m curious if this post has prompted any thoughts in your mind.

First: What logical jumps did I make that you were not able to follow? My explanations are only so good if they can be followed, but I need help from you to have awareness that I’m leaving you in the fog.

Second: What do you think? 

What do you think you understand from my explanation?

What criticisms or comments do you have on this philosophy?

What changes or adjustments would you make if you thought this was a good starting point?

Is there a topic you would like me to look into and possibly post about?

A bite of news, which applies specifically to Air Force (military and civilian) readers:

On the note of a non-serial post, I also have a sub-series planned to cover some thoughts from my time at Squadron Officer School! I attended Class22A in November and December and rather enjoyed the majority of my time. I will go ahead and say that I won’t spoil anything about the experientials from our time there, but I’m open to any questions you might have about SOS. Just be prepared for me to tell you that I won’t answer certain questions!

Finally, I wish you all the best this holiday season.

I recognize that this time of year is not pure sweets, gifts, and fireworks for everybody.

Be kind to yourself, be kind to others, and despite the last two years of evidence, let’s try to make 2022 at least a stable year for ourselves and our neighbors.

Thank you so much for your time. 

I hope you’ll allow me to capture your attention again next month!