I recently gave a presentation to a group of high ranking corporate executives, which included a man who had had one too many gulps from the fountain of Republicanism.
He did not stand alone on any topic; there were more than enough disagreements and alternative viewpoints to go around, on subjects ranging from the state of the military to the ethics of political decisions to the efficacy of current environmental policy. The politics of the room were surprisingly diverse. But unlike the others, including those who shared his ideas, he was not a participant in the discussion. When he engaged, he was all transmition, and no reception. If anyone tried to engage with him in dialog, he shut the process down. He offered direct challenges and lists of incontrovertible facts to a group of men and women who were savvy enough not to need to bully one another to make their points, and smart enough to know that there are no such things as incontrovertible facts. He appeared to be the only one blind to his own biases.
Our conversation began to revolve around the environment, and listening to his bombastic responses to innocent questions, I had to wonder: does it really matter if we accept at face value Al Gore’s assertions in An Inconvenient Truth? Would a factual inconsistency here or there change Al’s conclusion that depleting a finite resource to fuel the economy, and especially a resource controlled by foreign interests, is an unsustainable long-term plan? (See Jared Diamond’s book Collapse for a description of societies that engage in just that folly.) Why would this man get so hot under the collar if someone else based their thinking on Al’s assessment of the Antarcitic ice sheets? The conclusion doesn’t change!
Listening to him talk, I was reminded of the church scene from High Noon–which I had just shown to a different group of executives with whom I had facilitated a discussion of leadership and ethics–in which Gary Cooper’s townsmen debate pointless aspects of a situation that demands action. He sounded like the man in church who lamented that the town had been paying good money for deputies, so he was going to refuse to help Cain fight against Frank Miller because the money spent should have been enough to avoid the current problem.
As if money spent changed the current danger!
By the end of our session, I could see that most everyone had tuned this man out. That was a shame: he was a bright, educated man whose opinions on a number of issues made sense. Unfortunately, by wrapping his facts in a cloak of intense personal interest, he made it so that everyone else began to question his motives. By attaching his ego to his statements, he made it impossible for others to know if he truly belived what he was saying or if was just trying to save face.
I see this kind of behavior all the time in business, and especially in my social life. We see it every day on TV: even news channels pass of ego-based drivel as news. My questions to anyone who wants to check how much of their ego is tied up in their opinions and politics is: “Is it possible for someone who is decent, smart, and ethical to reach a different conclusion than you based on the same information? Is it possible for that same decent, smart, and ethical person to look at the same situation as you and interpret it differently? And if so, then why are you fighting so hard… if there is another decent, intelligent, and ethical alternative, then why is it so important for you to be right?”
If you want to be angry at the world and have friends who keep their distance, speak from the ego. If you want to be successful, get over yourself.
Jason Seiden is Co-founder and CEO of Ajax Social Media, a training company that shows professionals how use social media to work more effectively.
I'm the CEO of Ajax Social Media. We're helping 1 million people shine by making their online stories better. 