Most of us have noticed that we are often capable of offering sound advice and even wise suggestions to others, but incapable of following our own advice. That in itself is no revelation, as it is easier to identify a problem and offer suggestions without emotional involvement and without personal stake. Therefore, I wonder, why we do not simply consciously try to take our emotions out of a situation and pretend that we do not have any personal stake. Wouldn’t that lead to better decision-making for us all?
The truth is that we subconsciously believe that having a huge personal stake makes us better decision-makers, as we would then try to be most responsible. We strongly believe without even realizing it that we make the best decisions when we are most emotionally vested. So we keep ignoring others’ advice, because they do not care enough, or they do not know enough, etc.
In reality, I have come to realize that many of us make the best decisions when we are vested and involved, but not overwhelmingly responsible. Like many other things in life, if one can strike the perfect balance of just enough care, it will be ideal. That explains why big parenting mistakes often were made because the parents cared too much and did not allow the kids any room to grow, freedom to explore, or chance to fail. As a new mother, I have noticed that I care way too much about every little thing regarding Winston that I run the risk of overprotecting him. And I am perhaps not exactly an outlier in new mothers! The take-home message, I suppose, is for us new mothers to relax more, trust more and care less, as that might be ultimately what is best for the kids. In other words, I wish that the community should teach the new mothers to care less as opposed to point out everything that one should or should not do.
On the other hand, the bankers should be made to care more about the money they are playing with, as it is not their money after all. After Robert Rubin published his memoir, “In an Uncertain World”, I would frequently tell friends how I admire his life-long philosophy, “if an action carries a tiny probability of failure but I absolutely cannot afford this failure, then regardless of the potential upside and the high probability of success, I will not take this risk. If an action carries a significant degree of risk but I can afford the failure even if the worst happens and the potential upside is very big, then I will be willing to take the risk.” I thought that he was so wise.
But he did not follow his own advice when he directed CitiGroup down a path of recklessness. Did he care too little, or too much?
No comments:
Post a Comment