Being right versus being effective

I wish more folks would put attention on the latter. I believe it is what effects real change. Perhaps it’s my bias, since I am an educator. Unfortunately I see more of the former than the latter. I think some balance would be helpful. (1/n)

From what I have seen, especially on SM, when folks double down on their “rightness”, it is often compelled by pain, trauma, frustration, ego, etc. It often manifests as “tunnel vision”, which is not always bad, but isn’t the only way to operate. (2/n)
This mode often results in an endless back-and-forth where nobody really changes how they think about things. Maybe some onlookers pick up some information but it’s kind of a throw spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks approach. (3/n)
OTOH, being effective is no less concerned with conveying what a person believes is right, but functions v differently. To be effective, one must read the room, meet people where they are, be skillful, responsive, strategic, empathic, holistic, patient, nimble, nuanced...(4/n)
...listen, respond, move with awareness, consider information they might not have had before, etc. In other words, being effective calls upon our higher qualities, ones that expand us and the space that we hold and occupy. (5/n)
When I say “effective”, I don’t mean “got the other person to shut up” or whatever metric folks use to gauge “winning” the argument. By effective, I mean, successfully teach or convey information or a perspective that the other person/people are now at least considering. (6/n)
It’s also the difference between lecturing and teaching. (And talks versus interactive discussions)

Of course this depends upon the other people being open to listening. In some cases that’s never gonna happen. It’s futile to try to be effective. Or maybe even to engage.
(7/n)
But in other situations, that’s part of the skill. How to convey information that makes people curious and open to hearing something they didn’t know before? How to get people to listen to something that might be unsettling because it disrupts what they thought they knew? (8/n)
I’m not saying I’m an expert in this by any means! Only that it frames my intentions when I communicate. In my experience, it’s a lot easier to slip into being right and a lot more difficult to take stock of what’s happening and be effective. (9/n)
It also very much has to do with my inner state. When I do my sadhana, when I have high prana and am grounded and centered, I am much better at being present and being effective. (10/n)
I think of prana like turgor pressure; it’s the water running thru the stem that makes a flower stand tall and be noticed🌷.

Else it droops and wilts; still a flower but not as inspiring 🥀. Maybe it’s a time for the flower to rest.

Just an offering for reflection. 🙏🏽
(11/11)

More from All

You May Also Like

I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.


I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.

In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.

So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.

Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.