Category: Leadership

When Is Confrontation Preferable?

Confrontation can be awkward for some. In some cases, however, it just might be the preferable course of action. But which cases?

Some people are just naturally non-confrontational. Perhaps it is how they were raised, or maybe it’s just a personality trait. Whatever the reason, there is some subset of the populace that doesn’t feel comfortable confronting others. Even if they deserve it.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are aggressive people for whom confrontation is not an issue. As a default, they might challenge just about anyone they meet, for the slightest — or even no — reason.

Chances are, you lie somewhere between these two extremes. And yet, the issue of deciding when to challenge and when to defer is one that each one of us — no matter where we fall on the confrontation spectrum — faces regularly.

So how can we decide? Which circumstances are right for getting in someone’s face, even if it is uncomfortable to do so? When is it better to back down? And how might you overcome your natural inclination when you decide you should, whether it be to be more or less confrontational than is natural?

Related questions: Avoidance or confrontation? How do you stand up to a bully? How can we build confidence? What gives a person value?

What Do You Do When Your Personal Values Conflict With Societal Values?

Choosing the values that mean something to you is an important part of establishing a personal identity. But what happens if your values conflict with society’s?

Deciding what matters to you and what values you want to live by is something that we all must do at some point. If you value, for example, curiosity and discovery, your life may be very different than if you value financial independence.

Determining your values is not an easy task, and they may very well change over time. As you age, what is important to you might evolve, and your values will also change as a result.

The same is true for a society. What a community thinks is important and what gets collective attention and resources can vary, sometimes quite drastically. This might be influenced by a wide set of variables, including prominent individuals, technological change, international events, pop culture, and so on.

For example, in the early 1950s, space exploration was not a high priority for most. Then the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, kicking off the space race. President Kennedy then challenged our ambition, saying, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills.”

Values changed, and that dictated where our time, money, and energy was spent.

Given that both individuals and societies can have values and priorities, what happens when those two inevitably come into conflict?

The last ten or fifteen years have seen drastic changes to public values, which in turn has alienated or isolated people who disagreed with those changes. Is there a productive, healthy way to deal with that? How can an individual be true to what they believe in if all around them is the opposite?

Related questions: What are your values? How do you demonstrate your values? What is important? What makes a community?

Unrestrained Capitalism Or Social Democracy?

Which do you think makes for a better society: capitalism with as few restraints on it as possible, or a form of social democracy with protections for the masses?

Share why if you wish.

Unrestrained Capitalism Or Social Democracy?
Results

What Is The Proper Level Of Engagement In National Politics?

National politics happens to get the major headlines, from the president to Congress to the Supreme Court. Should they?

Who gets elected president is a big deal. The presidential race, including primaries, debates, and a lengthy campaign season, is covered extensively by national and local media. And yet, individual voters have almost no influence on the president.

The situation is similar in Congress. A resident of a state can call their senator or congressperson, but even if that call is successful, the politician is just one of a large group.

It would seem that a person would be much more likely to make a difference at the state or local level than they would at the national one. In a town environment, one resident is a much larger percentage of the constituency. As a result, they wield much more influence. In addition, the issues at the local level often have a more direct impact on someone’s day-to-day life.

And yet, it is at the national level that most of the attention is directed. Many major media outlets have someone – or even a team – dedicated to covering the president. You may well know members of Congress, even those that don’t represent your district or state.

Overall, how much should we pay attention to events and people that are beyond our control? How important is it to follow what transpires over which you have little input? Is that being an “informed citizen” or are you spending your attention on something that doesn’t deserve it?

What is the proper level of engagement in national politics?

Related questions: Politics: local or national? What deserves your attention? Are you politically active? What is important?

What Are The Advantages Of Saying ‘I Don’t Know’?

Many people don’t like to admit that they don’t know something. However, there are advantages to saying the words ‘I don’t know’. What are they?

Knowing things is very useful. In fact, much of our society has been built around people knowing things. Engineers build bridges because they understand how materials behave. We have remarkably accurate warnings regarding extreme weather events because meteorologists understand how weather patterns evolve. And so on.

If knowing things is powerful, then the obvious corollary is that not knowing things displays weakness. Or so it might seem.

Indeed, we often behave as though that were the case. People often go through life projecting an air of certainty that, at times, might make it difficult to disagree or argue with them.

Naturally, this is a problem if they don’t actually know what they claim to know. That can be potentially embarrassing for them, or problematic or even dangerous for those around them.

So there is a time and a place for revealing your ignorance. After all, you only are ignorant until you learn, and learning often starts with the phrase ‘I don’t know’.

There are some things that are essentially unknowable. We can predict the future, but those predictions are just as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. Events happen all the time that catch experts off guard. Some examples include stock market crashes, sports upsets, medical diagnoses, and surprising political elections.

If you know something, it is important to state clearly that you are in possession of the facts. However, it can be just as important that when you don’t know, you say so just as clearly.

Can you think of benefits of saying ‘I don’t know’?

Related questions: When was the last time you said ‘I don’t know’? Know or don’t know? How do you deal with uncertainty?