Past/Present: Push/Pull

In every moment we are being pushed by the past or pulled by a future. But the past is always available and keeps us comfortable. Yet, breakthroughs depend on our connection to the future.

 

Have you ever noticed just how readily at-hand the past is? Whether a grievance or fond memory, they never stray very far.

Unlike the past, the future is tenuous. A compelling vision and a plan to fulfill it is magical at first.  But just a minute or a month after creation, it is elusive.

Yet our connection to the future is our path to transcendence. Whatever you are out to create—whether within your startup, for your team, or in your own habits, you need a strong and resilient connection to the future. But it is slippery.

There’s a deep irony in this. Most human suffering comes from our relentless connection to the past. That includes every grievance, scar, trauma, grudge and limiting belief. They sustain their grip on us only because of our intrinsic link to those past moments. Who among us wouldn’t like to “un-remember” some portion of the past?

 

Emotions and Motivation

A friend of mine was duped in a business deal. He’s angry and planning to sue. For him, it’s a matter of both money and principle. And those easily justify the cost of litigation.

In a very different scenario, a client was demoralized by his efforts to land his first consulting client. He felt progress had been too slow.

These two episodes seem entirely dissimilar. But they both represent long-term efforts. Yet they evoke very different experiences. The duped business partner is driven. That drive will likely increase even if he loses the lawsuit.

But the would-be consultant is unmotivated. He is questioning everything — looking for a justification to change course or quit.

Both individuals face a decision of whether to continue in their effort. But the way that they weigh the options—continue or quit—is colored by different forces.

Interestingly, each scenario has a “correct” answer based on logic and probability.

But neither individual will use logic to decide.

In Organizations

In business, we have various metrics to track progress toward a goal. But they measure activity (or interim outcomes). We use those as proxies for progress, assuming that with enough activity, we are progressing toward the critical goal –likely, revenue.

You could say that metrics are measures of our belief in the likelihood of success—not of actual success.

 

Founder vs Rep

 

When there is lots of activity, a founder will see it as demonstrating the likelihood of future success.

But the lead-chasing sales rep sees futility. He questions the product and himself.

Both have the same information. Why do they respond so differently?

Struggling to Change

It’s easy to see this with New Year resolutions. You start out amped to run a marathon, write a book, or launch a business.

Just 3 months later, you can only run 5 miles. Or you’ve written hundreds of pages but there is no book. Or, you haven’t made a sale or found a client.

Motivation and stamina flag. By February, 80% of people have already failed at their resolutions.

It’s easy find a culprit or a justification to quit. It was a stupid idea. My coach is no good. I wasn’t cut out for this.

But no strategy, coach or approach can short circuit the reality that progress takes time. Yet knowing that seems useless in the moment of repetition and no reward.

We can graph the loss of motivation and focus.

Self-Improvement Motivation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Chart 1, the likelihood of success has increased much more than has the apparent progress.

That’s how it is for the sales rep who is pitching non-stop without a single closed deal. None of that feels like progress.

That’s what makes this a cognitive booby trap.

Whenever we do something meaningful, the incremental changes are tiny. But they are geometrically related to how much greater the chance of success.

If you are relentlessly building a brand, generating leads, having sales calls and nurturing prospects, your likelihood of closing a deal increases.

But even as those odds rise, discouragement descends and reduces your determination. It’s hard to continue in the face of no results —even if you know logically that persistence works.

The Inverse

My friend with the suspect investment deal was intent on suing his partner.

From a purely logical standpoint it made sense for him to sue. But what if he loses?

Will my friend appeal? How many times? At what legal fee?

Unlike the demoralized sales rep—he will be doubly motivated. But of course, as every amateur behavioral economist will tell you, that attitude comes from the sunk cost fallacy.

The more he invests, the less he stands to gain. Appeals can drag on for years—and are not final determinants of outcomes—AND will cost more money. I don’t think that would reduce his motivation.

That chart might look like this.

Litigation Motivation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What’s interesting about these two scenarios and charts is that motivation is completely unrelated to the probability of success. 

Normal Explanations

If we are not being driven by the odds of success, what is creating such contradictory responses?

Why is the sales rep (who is bound to close a deal soon) so much less motivated than my friend, who will certainly still end up with net losses?

There are lots of heuristics we can use to explain the decision-making. Psychology, cognitive bias, habit formation—even religion. They are all apt. But they don’t explain this specific contrast. They just explain bad decisions in general.

Temporality

As I thought about these two stories, I kept thinking about the subtext. What was preoccupying each person.

When we are trying to achieve a goal in the future—whether building a startup or learning Spanish, the progress is slow and choppy. The ONLY thing that keeps people going is the clarity of the goal. [click to tweet]

Think about the energized founder. He is as aware as the sales rep that there have been no sales. But the future vision is so real for him that he sees it as a near-manifestation of himself.

The lack of results doesn’t reduce his drive or enthusiasm. Instead, it is a puzzle to solve.

For the founder, that vision is a yardstick to assess the present –NOT the other way around. If reality is not moving fast enough, he will interrogate the strategy or the rep’s performance –not the project itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that’s not true for the depressed sales rep. The vision was shared with him a few times, and he is in favor of it. But he doesn’t identify with it. It’s simply a far-off goal.

Even though his likelihood of success is rising, experience tells him he’s wasting his time. Like all of us, he has strong memories of failed efforts.  That’s more accessible to him than the vision of the future.

When a goal recedes into the background, or becomes less clear, we are left with the tedious present—and it’s insufficient.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But then we have the inverse case.

When we are trying to get “justice” or avenge a wrong, our motivation increases.

Look at the green line in the Litigant chart. It is going down. The probability of success has dropped.

Again, we’re attuned to our present experience and the scar from the past, not to the probabilities. We lost the battle—onward to win the war!

An Ontological Concern

In one sense, the observations here are trivial. There are plenty of heuristics to overcome various cognitive traps. In fact, coincidentally, I started reading Tune In by Nuala Walsh just as I finished the first draft of this essay. It’s a catalogue of decision-making traps. She includes time as one of those traps.

But the book added nothing, because she uses the lens of psychology rather than ontology.

From my standpoint, the psychological blind spots are easier to address. They have clear definitions and heuristics to avert them (I’ll give you one in the PS).

But the bigger problem is addressing how we locate ourselves temporally —in every pivotal moment.

We have so much more of the past available to us than we do of the future.

The past is omnipresent. Individuals, organizations, and even nations are gripped by their grievances and victories. Ananke steps into the frame and we are informed by what has already been —not by what could be. 

 

 

We must consciously choose to notice which when is informing our experience. It determines our mood and motivation—our very being.

That’s as true for our beleaguered sales rep as it is for the Israelis fighting against Hamas.

The strongest tip I can provide is just that. Take your temporal temperature.

Temporal Thermometer

Staying attuned to our temporal orientation takes rigor and consistency. In any moment that we lose our grip on the unprecedented future vision, the past swoops in. It is as powerful as a rushing river.

As you cut through that river in a canoe, the water instantly fills your slice. But if you were to lay stilts in the seabed and build a house, the river would continue to circle around those stilts—leaving your house dry.

A clear vision of the future with the integrity of a well-built house can hold back the incursion of the past.

All new possibilities depend on our willingness to remain focused on the future rather than being swept away —and into bad decisions—by the past.

 

PS: The tip I promised. We all know that consistency builds skill and delivers results. But, for the sales rep who is losing faith —or the gym-goer who is losing hope—that seems like a myth.

Jerry Seinfeld short-circuits all that psycho-sabotage. Every day he writes a joke. He ticks a box on a spreadsheet. And his motto to himself is don’t break the chain

This simple motto is a blanket rule. Nothing—no justification—transcends the rule. It’s a dam against the rushing river.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Earlier Posts