Current e-Journal

Catalytic Thinking Exercise:
What’s the Worst that Could Happen?

Last week, we were involved in three separate discussions with people trying to make tough decisions.

• “My board members are asking for email addresses at the organization, to facilitate their engagement activities. Should we do that?”
• “My co-facilitator has an emergency and can’t be at a retreat we were going to facilitate together. Should I go it alone or find a new partner?”
•  “Our organization still has our DEI statement on our website, but some of us are afraid that could hurt us. Should we remove it?”

In all these cases, the folks involved had considered the pros and cons / risks and benefits, but they were still stuck. And we instantly knew why. That’s because rather than leading us to reason and wisdom, asking about risks and benefits / pros and cons actually just reinforces our fears.

Here’s what that looks like in practice.

On the “pros” side, your list takes up many flip chart pages. On the “cons” side, there are just a few thoughts. For example…

• The pros of keeping DEI on the website might include a long list of reasons the organization feels DEI is important.
•  The cons might just be a single line noting the fear of reprisal by a government that holds DEI in contempt.

Yet despite that long list of pros, they defer to the cons – the things they are afraid of.

The reason is rooted in the mechanics of our brains. The cognitive area of our brains is the home of our wisdom, reason, and creativity. Then there is the reflexive, reactive area of the brain, which has only one function: to keep us safe. There is no language in this area, nor virtually any ability for creative, rational thought.

When we feel uncertain or afraid about anything at all, the reflexive brain reacts in a split-second. In the time it takes the cognitive area to analyze the situation, the reflexive area has already made its decision. According to psychologist Dan Goleman, that reactive function “can hijack the rest of the brain. It is designed to be a hair trigger. In other words, better safe than sorry.”

And because the brain’s reflexive mode has no capacity for language, it is nearly impossible to reason with it. That’s why one “con” can negate a dozen “pros.”

What, then, can we do to ensure our decisions are rooted in wisdom and reason, even (especially) when we’re afraid?

Try this:
If conversations between the two parts of the brain are relatively unproductive, let’s stop asking them to talk to each other! Instead, we can consider both the risks and rewards in a way that works with our brains’ mechanics.

That will mean asking each area of the brain its own set of questions, in language each area understands.

For the rational, creative part of the brain, these questions will help you compare aspirations to aspirations:

• • What would doing this thing make possible?
  • What would not doing this thing make possible?

This keeps the conversation in the realm of wisdom and reason. The rational side of the brain can then easily make the comparison, without the fear center screaming, “Yeah, but what about…”. You can then analyze which set of answers resonates most. Which are the most exciting? Which seem most likely to bring the results you want?

For example…

• • What would leaving DEI on the website make possible? Perhaps aligning actions with values, or letting folks know that the organization is welcoming, or advancing the cause of inclusion and equity in your community.
  •  On the other side, what would removing DEI from the website make possible? That list might focus on peace of mind re: funding and other fears.

Now you can determine which of these positive outcomes matters most to you: Living your values, or your peace of mind?

For the reflexive part of the brain, these questions will help you compare fears to fears:

• • What’s the worst that could happen if we do this thing?
  • What’s the worst that could happen if we do not do this thing?

Again, this keeps the conversation in the area of the brain where fears rule. That reflexive, survival brain can then easily compare: Which “worst things” scare us the most? Which could we live with?

• • Perhaps keeping DEI on the website might lead to a loss of funding or an attack on the organization’s tax exemption.
  •  And perhaps the worst that could happen by taking DEI off the website would be a failure to stand up for what matters to the organization and the community you serve.

Now you can discuss which of those “worsts” is worse: A loss of funding, or failing to live into your values?

This approach is the only way that your aspirational ideas have a fighting chance against your fears. By comparing aspirations to aspirations, you are providing a safe space to discuss possibilities.

It is also the only way to be clear about which threats are actually the most threatening. By comparing fears to fears, you are making the invisible visible, so that you can deal with issues head on. Is there a way around that fearful issue? Is there a way to manage it? Is that scary thing even likely?

By making both sets of assumptions explicit, your decisions will be far more effective. Most importantly, you will be giving your aspirations a fighting chance. That is why these questions are a big part of the Catalytic Thinking framework.