Embracing the “I Don’t Know”: How Admitting Blind Spots Helps you Get Better
One of the keys to success is to never stop learning. One of the most certain roads to failure is to think you have it all figured out. And yet we have a culture of false confidence, bravado, fake assuredness, and feelings of failure when we don’t have all the answers. Admitting to others we don’t have all the answers (or maybe don’t even know all the questions to ask) positions us into the realm of vulnerability. It is unfortunate that being vulnerable in this regard in our society is so often seen as weakness instead of strength.
Whenever possible we should continue to do our due diligence to research answers, analyze the possibilities of adaptation to circumstance, and replicate practices, procedures and programs when there is an evidence base to support it.
But take a step back and ask yourself: How did those people ever get to a place where they created this (thing, knowledge, solution, etc.) because of the same/similar problem or circumstance?
They got there from embracing the “I Don’t Know”.
“I Don’t Know” stimulates discussion of possibilities.
“I Don’t Know” inspires involvement.
“I Don’t Know” gets people out of thinking they know everything.
“I Don’t Know” is the fuel for continuous improvement.
“I Don’t Know” creates new solutions that become part of the library of potential answers to others when they don’t know.
If you/your organization/your community never says, “I Don’t Know” you are essentially stating you have complete expertise…that you have all the answers. Sometimes it will be possible to find the answer you are looking for elsewhere and truly replicate it with meaning where you are. In other instances the journey that starts with “I Don’t Know” leads down a road of innovation to find or create the answer that never previously existed.
Create a culture where people are encouraged to admit when they don’t know things; when they are seeking answers to situations or problems for which no answer is immediately known. Don’t shame people for having the absence of information. Embrace the possibility of finding the information required or creating a solution where one did not previously exist.
Learning to Let Go of Envy
That guy is always on the news talking about his program.
Why does the funder always take people to look at their program?
I wish I had their donor pool.
Why were they selected for pro bono technical assistance?
I think our community deserves some national attention for all of our great ideas compared to some of the other places I always hear about.
Envy. I hear it. I see it. I have been subject to it. I have felt it. I am learning more about it and thought I would use this blog to share some thoughts on it that one of my mentors recently shared with me, and which I found very helpful:
1. Don’t deny when you are feeling envious
Envy is fueled by our emotions, rationalized by the context that we find ourselves in. If we deny that we are feeling envious we are more likely to become disconnected from the things we are passionate about, or worse, become hostile towards those that we are envious of.
2. Consider the big picture
Perhaps you have felt envious only to later learn that the person or program that you held up on a pedestal was secretly dealing with its own struggles, fears, irrational thoughts, insecurity, or even envy of others? What we are envious of is often just part of the complete package, and when taken out of context, can even dehumanize the others involved, seeing those that we are envious of as objects, not people with feelings.
3. Take time to acknowledge your own talents, strengths and accomplishments without being conceited or boastful
To be clear, being self-aware and self-appreciating is not intended to be an exercise in inflated ego. When we take time to acknowledge our own talents, strengths and accomplishments we are more likely to understand and appreciate how we are making contributions too. And when we can’t see it in ourselves, one of the things that I feel important about in teams (as some of you have experienced in my trainings) is how and when to acknowledge the contributions of others.
4. Figure out how what you are feeling envious about can actually make you better
Envy can make us aware of things in our life that are attainable to us as well if we seize opportunities, apply ourselves and gain the experience. Envious that someone is the Executive Director of a program? Gather mentors that are EDs, find work experience that can help prepare you, and actually apply for ED jobs when they become available. Envious that someone seems to be the “go to” person for the media on matters that are important to you? Cultivate contacts in the media and put out your own media availability and press releases. And I could go on.
There is much that can be learned about envy and our emotional responses to the situation that cause us to feel the emotion. Turning those natural feelings into a strength and opportunity for growth is an important lesson.
Why We Need to Think and Act Like a System if We Want to End Homelessness, Improve Housing Options or Solve Any Other Major Social Issue
“Systems-thinking” isn’t just the flavor du jour. It isn’t a fancy way of talking about organizations working cooperatively or in partnership with one another. It is critical for addressing complexity inherent in human service systems given the diversity of service recipients, service organizations, and context(s) in which both the recipients and organizations function.
Many types of human service delivery try to figure out how to get the right person/family to the right type of service at the right time. That is a great thing. But in order to really tackle that issue, we have to accept three things:
The experience of each individual/family is complex that lead them to seeking or needing service. We can neither control nor predict all of the influences on the individual/family nor the response the individual/family has to each influence.
Organizing services and benefits is complicated across multiple entities. Without a “brain” function to provide influence organizations do not self-regulate and manage particularly well and are more likely to be self-centered than end-user centered. Let me put this another way…without a “mission control” function a person/family would likely need to go to or call multiple organizations to find the one that best meets their needs rather than having a central place to get that information. Throughout this process the organization is more likely to try to determine if the person/family is a good fit for their program rather than trying to determine of all the programs that exist within a particular geographic area which one is the best one based upon assessed needs.
When there is an evidence-base (rather than luck or just what “feels right”) in human service delivery, the intervention side of things is actually quite simple. If person x presents with a certain condition and intervention y is provided then it is reasonable to expect z. Now “simple” doesn’t mean it is easy. Goodness knows there are no shortage of individuals and families that seeking services that exhibit a range of emotional reactions and behaviors as a result of a plethora of reasons in their life. But, separating the interpersonal interaction from the work that will achieve the most likely positive outcome is functionally different in how we go about delivering services to people.
Human service delivery is too dynamic to come to a complete standstill. Nor is the human condition such that people stop seeking/needing services for any period of time as a collective mass. Services don’t stop and people don’t stop wanting service at the same time that changes may be desired to the service delivery system.
Getting nerdy here, but Critically Systemic Discourse is valuable as we think about the collection of agents and organizations and actors therein. One of my students, Fleurie, recently reminded me of this in her Plan of Study. She notes “all systems maps and models are inherently incomplete”.
Communities don’t need a perfect system for trying to ensure that a person or family gets the best possible results from the organization best designed to meet their needs. The system will always be in somewhat of a state of flux, hopefully moving towards true continuous improvement. However, while the system will always be in motion, that doesn’t mean steps can’t be taken to improve the system as a whole while it is moving. Some advice in that regard:
Make sure the tool that assesses people’s needs is grounded in evidence and is oriented to getting the right person/family to the organization best designed to meet their needs.
Examine your assets across organizations in the community. You cannot fund the same services in the same organizations year after year and actually have a responsive system. Needs will change. So too should the service offerings and organizations delivering the services.
The most compelling proof of where and how the system needs to be moving comes not from the organizations but from the end users of services as well as those that tried to have service needs met but could not within the current array of service offerings. Unfortunately, policy makers are more likely to ask service providers about service gaps rather than speaking directly to those that do not have needs fully met within the current service offerings.
If you are serious about improving the human condition, you likely need an agent whose sole job is to move, coordinate, evaluate and challenge the system as a whole. Impartial and not tied to the funding of any particular program, this person is not beholden to existing solely for the sake of existing. As my business partner and the Founder of OrgCode, John Whitesell is quick to point out (I’m paraphrasing what he would say much more eloquently), “Never underestimate an organization’s desire for self-preservation.
I’m Not at my Best – I Need Home for a Rest
You’ll have to excuse me
I’m not at my best
I’ve been gone for a month
I’ve been drunk since I left
These so called vacations
Will soon be my death
I’m so sick from the drink
I need home for a rest
There is a certain crowd who would have read the above lines and immediately recognized them as lyrics to one of the greatest Spirit of the West songs to party to.
It’s the sentiment of the song that I love – needing home for a rest after indulging beyond what might be considered a healthy consumption threshold.
As far as I’m concerned any person can choose to drink or not drink. That is their business, not mine. As I have argued previously, sobriety is not a precondition for housing success.
This doesn’t mean there won’t be some people that may choose to have sober living. I support that choice for people as well. I have many dear friends and professional colleagues that have found sobriety in their lives because it made sense to them.
It also doesn’t mean that drinking doesn’t come with consequences. It does. For some people, the consequences are quite severe. But I will not judge because of an addiction.
There remains no shortage of homeless programs out there where the consumption of alcohol or other drugs after a period of sobriety will result in immediate exit from the program – even eviction in most instances. Seems to me that people that are in housing (some types of supportive housing, rental assistance programs, and/or transitional housing programs) are being punished with homelessness for the return of using a substance they previously admitted to being powerless over.
Odd that service providers that support sobriety, many of whom have personally gone to great lengths to make amendments where it was appropriate to do so and would not cause harm to the other person, go on to harm others with homelessness.
Odd that service providers that support sobriety, many of who have personally had relapses in their own journey to sobriety so harshly react to others that also relapsed. Guess if you aren’t sober forever after rehab then you are a bad example to others trying to achieve sobriety. Rehab is for quitters – not re-joiners, I guess.
Odd that service providers that support sobriety, many of whom have personally achieved sobriety but have no other professional training consider themselves experts in addictions and worthy to make such assessments of others. I’ve had my appendix out. I can empathize with other people that may need to have their appendix out. That doesn’t mean you want me taking out your appendix. I’m also missing my gall bladder, broken a hip, and had a couple knee surgeries. Again I’m thinking you don’t want me performing surgery on you because while I have experienced those things, I’m not an expert in any of them. There’s a place for peer supports, but with the caveat that they perform functions related directly to their experience and are trained in how to do so.
Odd that service providers that support sobriety, most of whom enjoy the stability of housing themselves would be willing to take away one of the key factors that supports a reduction in substance use or even stopping altogether. Peer reviewed, published studies like this one and thisone and program research like this one have clearly shown homeless persons are more likely to decrease or stop using if they have a home, and it saves money when use of other services is decreased.
If I am so sick from the drink, I want home for a rest. Not others to judge me. Not others to make me homeless again. But maybe that’s because I am passionate about ending homelessness, and not pretending that homeless and housing programs are really substance use treatment programs.
Be Awesome to Each Other
“Be awesome to each other, as I have been awesome to you.”
I’m paraphrasing – and I am no theologian or scripture scholar – but I think that is essentially the message in the 13th Chapter of the Book of John. It was a new commandment given by the most famous homeless guy of all time to the people that looked up to him and hung out with him.
I find it fascinating that there are so many Christians out there that can worship a homeless fellow on Sunday, and forget all other homeless people come Monday. I find it even more fascinating that some of those same Christians run “faith based” service organizations. But let’s be clear, they operate their ideological-interpretation-towards-Christianity-based-service organizations.
I am not anti-Christian. I am the same guy who used to be a Christian chaplain in a mental health facility. I have a rather large crucifix tattooed on one of my arms, and not for aesthetic reasons.
Perhaps you’ve heard about how God helps those that help themselves. I have heard this phrase from many Christian service organizations and Christian leaders in community discussions about homelessness. Can you please show me where that phrase exists in Christian scripture? Oh wait. It doesn’t.
Jesus, it is said, multiplied loaves and fishes so that all would have enough to meet their needs. I checked again. There is no mention of the bread or sea critters going only to those that repented, publicly declared love to him, were baptized, showed a bank statement demonstrating need, or were without fault.
There are teachings about caring for others. One of my faves is the Good Samaritan. The dude he helps out is of a different culture and faith. The Samaritan helps out anyways. The priest and Levite that passed by the Jewish man that had been beaten and robbed do not. The Samaritan doesn’t ask the hurt guy in obvious need to convert. The Samaritan gets the guy a room at the inn (that means, made sure he didn’t have to sleep outside). Took care of his wounds. Provided some aftercare. And he didn’t say, as far as I know, “Hey look now, guy…you have a maximum stay of 7 days and then after that you are on your own and can’t possibly need assistance from me or anyone else at any point in the future.” In fact he told the innkeeper, as the story goes, that if there is more expense incurred, he would pay for it.
The Teacher, so goes stuff written in the Book, also had the habit of hanging out with sex workers, adulterers and people with some badass ailments like leprosy. Provides lessons to others about this group too, eh? “Let those without sin cast the first stone” shut some shmarmy “judgy-judgersons” up pretty fast, didn’t it? “Don’t judge others unless you want to be judged” is another paraphrased goodie.
Got another doozie for you – love your neighbor as yourself.
Not “love your housed neighbor”.
Not “love only those folks that you think may not negatively influence your property values”.
Not “love your neighbor if they are Christian or profess a strong desire to be one”.
Not “if you are housed and the other person is not they can’t be considered a neighbor, so don’t worry about it”.
Not “love your sober neighbor”.
Not “love only those that have never had conflict with the law”.
Not “if your neighbor happens to be nuts then seriously pity them, but keep them homeless because you would only be setting them up for failure if you thought about putting a roof over their head like you’ve got”.
I’ll stop there with lovely love examples.
And yet there are some Christian missions that continue to reinforce a deserving and undeserving poor. There are some places that make you pray for your supper. Other joints make you meet with the chaplain or enroll in bible study if you are there for more than two days. Last month I was at a shelter that required everyone staying there to start the day with group prayer and devotion with the Chaplain (and they get government funding to help operate the shelter). Many Christian service organizations demand sobriety, even though there seems to be evidence that Jesus either drank (well, turned it into his blood, I guess) and/or supported others in drinking (“Wedding of Cana for a thousand please Alex”). I’ve even seen an entire city of Christian shelter providers that require people wanting to stay there have a criminal background check and prove they have no offences in order to spend the night there. The bible talks about visiting people in prison. I guess it forgot the part where people get out of prison sometimes and still want visitors. There are places that think the person has to be rehabilitated into a good Christian before they can be considered for housing. There are other Christian services I have encountered that think it is appropriate for a person to undertake community services to pay back the “debt” of having received goods or services before they can be considered for shelter.
Thankfully not all Christian organizations share those practices. But there are so many that do that it really makes me shake my head. I have to think better service can be offered that meets people where they are at in the way that Christ does so many times in the gospel.
Be awesome to each other. I have this feeling being awesome to others means housing them no matter what, but that’s just my interpretation of things. Be awesome to each other also means cutting out the judgment and the evangelization and getting onto the business of serving others based upon their needs, not your beliefs.
Otherwise, God grant me the serenity not to lose my shit.
Amen.
Why People Don’t Believe the Facts
A few months back I lamented on my Facebook page that I was frustrated that I could have a room full of people and walk through the data and evidence supporting a Housing First approach, and people would still debate it. One of my pals, Marcella Maguire, commented that it was because of ideology. That got me thinking and researching why and how people’s beliefs influence what they see as truth…or how and when truth can influence people’s beliefs.
Then a couple weeks back I was doing another training and one attendee was quite adamant that just because something was published in a peer reviewed journal or had data to support it didn’t make it correct. I was dumbfounded by the statement. But it also inspired me to keep thinking and researching because if we are going to go about ensuring there is adequate affordable housing, effective social policy for marginalized populations, sufficient social welfare, put an end to homelessness – or any of the other pursuits that I am passionately invested in – then we have to better understand why some people don’t believe the facts.
One of the reasons people don’t believe the facts when presented to them or go to great lengths to try and persuade others that the data is faulty or not from reliable sources is because of something called “motivated reasoning”. It turns out our emotional responses and ability to reason is intertwined. We are hard-wired to have an emotional response to information quicker than our conscious thoughts. If people are presented with information that supports our pre-existing worldview or thoughts on a subject, we accept it with open arms. If people are presented with information that challenges how we already feel about something, it is our natural human instinct to see the information as a threat. When we are threatened, as a species, we apply our fight or flight response. So, we either ignore the information or we attack the sources/reliability of the information.
Another reason people don’t believe facts are directly related to how data is used in the modern age. A lot of facts are misinterpreted or select pieces of information are taken completely out of context and used in a manner to support an argument that they were never intended or designed to do. This is done entirely to support a point of view, not to be scientific at all. Put into the mix that loaded questions can be used in polling and surveying to simply prove an existing point of view or reject another point of view, and you realize quite quickly that we have become accustomed to “facts” being used in this way. Let me give you an example…if I asked 100 people if they would like to pay less in taxes, I would guess that most people would say yes. If it is not explained that there are budget deficits, service cuts that people depend upon, crumbling infrastructure, etc. that are all paid for by taxes then they are not really taking the full picture into account. On top of that, it has been well proven in psychology that scientific evidence is prone to misinterpretation and selective reading.
In this day and age, producing facts, figures and pretty graphs is quite popular. But seldom are the methods of the data capture shared. As a result, people can create information that simply supports their point of view. Take for example the Pepsi Challenge. First of all, it isn’t a double-blind study. Pepsi always wins – well, of the data that Pepsi shares with us. Ever heard a radio or TV advertisement where someone took the Pepsi Challenge and actually chose Coke? Surely there is at least one person out there that has taken the test that chose Coke.
Then there is the matter of terminology. As I have gone to lengths to talk about elsewhere, you can have a practice that is supported by evidence like Housing First. But if the phrase is misused to talk about activities that actually are not aligned with the practices that the data supports you can have people that reject the fact that Housing First works. Why? Because they have seen a version of something that was called “Housing First” that really wasn’t “Housing First” and therefore the data presented doesn’t align with their experience.
Yet another reason why people ignore or debate facts is because they do not believe the messenger. Even when instructed to be unbiased in listening to information, people form part of their impression on the credibility of the information based upon who is delivering it. The very notion of an “expert” is polarizing depending on whether the listener can relate to the messenger’s experience, expertise, education, and even morality. The observable attributes of the messenger can also have an impact. For example, non-white people trying to convince others that Obama is not Muslim has been proven to be more persuasive that white people doing the same thing.
I thought for quite some time that if I just bombarded people with the facts that they would get “it”. Truth is, however, that with some folks the more they are overloaded with empirical, unbiased evidence – even published, peer reviewed findings – the more tenaciously they hold onto their worldview and reject the information. For some it is as if the acceptance of new information can rattle their entire belief system and identity. Perhaps it is a slippery slope…if a person accepts that facts point to an opposite conclusion of what they have held true in one matter of their life, what about other parts of their life that they also thought to be true that may not be?
What does this all mean?
For sure, Marcella was right. My inability to get through to some groups using facts was because of the ideological stance of the receivers of the information.
But it also means that I need to do a better job or explaining to people why and how certain conclusions are reached on the information, pointing out how biases may have been present in the methods or the use of terms being incorrectly.
And it also means that I need to carefully consider my role and obligations as a messenger. Better considering my audience may allow me to better relate to their morality or worldview or appreciation of different types of expertise or experience. That in and of itself may make what I want to share more credible. It may even mean (gulp) that wearing something other than a t-shirt and jeans is appropriate for certain recipients of my message.