Thinking From The Point Of Outcome
There is already enough written about the importance of following the process and not worrying about the outcome. I have written about it too. But I often find myself wondering how one decides the best approach when the goal is a specific outcome in life.
These outcomes vary by context. Attracting women. Getting a better job. Fixing your marriage. Or winning a negotiation.
For goals like these, one cannot simply say, “focus on the process and ignore the outcome.” The outcome is the point in this context. In the broader context of life, focusing on the process may indeed be more effective. There is no contradiction here.
When dealing with outcome-specific goals, we need to stop obsessing over techniques that supposedly move us closer to the goal. A more prudent approach is to think from the perspective of the outcome itself.
Take the example of getting a better job. The standard approach is to figure out ways to attract the attention of a recruiter. Now reverse engineer this. If you were in their place, what kind of candidate would you prefer? What kind of action would capture your attention without irritating you?
Are you that person? If not, how do you become that person? How do you become someone people actually want on their team? Most people are so good at executing their work that they never become anything more than someone who can perform within an existing system.
But companies often need people who can build systems. That requires creative thinking and a great deal of conflict management. The core function of leadership is conflict management. Every leader understands their objective in a company: to increase revenue. Their real job, then, is to deliver that revenue while keeping conflict under control.
So how does one become effective at handling conflict? Most conflict arises because two people are rigid about their point of view, and neither wants to back down. From organisations to personal relationships, a point of view slowly turns into the truth for those holding it. When there are competing points of view, there are effectively multiple versions of truth, and that only intensifies conflict.
But the moment you flip the script and ask, “What is the desired outcome here?” and “What can I do to arrive at that outcome?”, you not only uncover the source of the conflict but also discover creative ways to resolve it.
Dealing with people is always a negotiation, whether in dating or in a professional setting. Where there are people, there are incentives. Where there are multiple incentives, conflict is inevitable.
This is why you must begin with an ideal outcome in mind. Then reverse engineer it to identify the obstacles standing in the way. How many variables are within your control? If you control what is controllable, what is the best resolution you can realistically reach?
That resolution becomes your middle ground, your Nash equilibrium. The middle ground is not the best possible outcome for both parties. That is statistically impossible. It is the outcome where neither side feels like a loser, while remaining reasonably close to the ideal outcome.
If this sounds overly idealistic or simplistic, pay close attention to geopolitics. It is entirely about finding the middle ground, the Nash equilibrium. And the only way to find that middle ground is to be clear about your most ideal outcome.
A leader who cannot avoid conflict should not be trusted, because it signals either an inability to negotiate effectively or a lack of concern altogether.
History remembers leaders who merely keep the boat afloat as competent, and we pat them on the back figuratively. But the leader who knows how to build systems is the one who is truly revered.
This approach has worked for thousands of years of human history. It applies to modern geopolitics. Why would it not apply to organisations?
Once you understand that all relationships are negotiations, you can never unsee it. And you cannot negotiate effectively unless you are clear about the ideal outcome.