When Do We Change?

We change our mind & behavior
When we come to have the freedom of choice
We didn’t previously perceive to have had.

Jean valjean stole,
Because he felt like he didn’t have a choice.
Once he did,
He changed.

When we tell others what not to do,
It can threaten what freedom of choice they perceive to have.
This is why our well-intended admonishments are often rejected.

Even when we tell others what to do,
We often stop at presenting options, not choices.
Options that fail to elicit the feeling of freedom.
Thus, this, too, are often rejected.

What master realizers of empathy do, is
Elicit feelings of freedom
In others and ourselves.

When this happens,
With no intention to change,
Change happens
As a byproduct.

Wanting Others to Listen

As much as salespeople would like to sell,
Customers have no obligation to buy.

In that sense,
When we want something from others—
Even if we merely want them to listen to us—
One could say that we’re (momentarily) in sales and
They are our customers.

If so, let us notice how we sell,
When we want our children to clean their room,
When we want our employees to do a better job,
When we want our clients or patients to implement our strategy.

Ever walk into a dealership
Only to walk out,
Because you didn’t like the way they sell—
Even if you loved the car?

Unless our customers are unwilling or
Unable to say “No,” to us,
If we sell a particular way,
It is only natural that they won’t buy.

Forty One

On Sunday, I turned 41.

I’ve been told that in “Korean age” I’m 42.

There’s something interesting about reflecting on what happened in the past after I have had a 10+year distance from it.

In my 20s, I listened to a lot of computer scientists’ inspiring lectures. They were world-famous, which gave their words that much more weight. In hindsight, it would have been one thing to learn of their views and to appreciate them for what they were (i.e. views) while quite another to be persuaded by them. For better or for worse, I leaned toward the latter.

In hindsight, there were a few critical reasons why their views had such a big impact on me.

  1. The vision they portrayed were of a revolutionary caliber with a moral framing of “saving the world.”I have a need to rebel against authority and the status quo. Their vision fulfilled that need. I could not refuse being part of the rebellion—especially if it was framed as a way to save the world.
  2. Their views also made me feel understood and accepted.Having lived my whole life as a third culture kid, I’d been looking for this feeling from mother/father figures for a long time. When I didn’t get it from my parents, I was ecstatic to get it elsewhere, even if it were from total strangers.
  3. Finally, I was under the impression that someone had the answer to life.I considered life to be a problem to be solved, and thought that if I can only find that person who has the solution to life, I’d have figured it all out. It just so happened that these computer scientists sounded so confident that I couldn’t help but assume they knew the solution to this problem called life.

All throughout my 20s, my tendency to hyper-empathize with these influential figures grew larger. As a result, I now understand my 20s as a phase of living their lives not mine. It wouldn’t be until I turn 30 that I realize how easy it is to confuse living someone else’s life with living our own.

Then at the age of 29, I received a challenge. A bewildering challenge at that. One that made no sense. An artist I met at a computer science conference challenged me to go to art school. It seemed like a crazy and irrational idea. Especially because I thought so little of art at the time. I was a man of science, engineering, and design science. Art, I thought, was fluffy, useless, bullshit. In fact, you may have noticed that I put the word “science” next to the word “design” a la Buckminster Fuller, as if to imply that the word design alone was somehow not good enough. “Why would a man of science, engineering, and design science stoop so low as to study art?” was the kind of thought I had back then. (Arrogant much?)

It took me over a year since receiving this challenge of conducting my own, *ahem* scientific, experiments and to gradually build the trust & respect necessary to empathize with artists. When I finally did, it also became clear that this was a challenge I could not refuse. I had to answer the challenge. Why? Because I realized that not answering the challenge meant continuing to live someone else’s life.

Living someone else’s life of rebellion didn’t give me a sense of comfort, but it did give me a sense of safety and that ever-so-desirable feeling that what I’m doing was “important work” that “mattered.” Yet, for better or for worse, I was no longer interested in safety or mattering. I was now interested in being honest with myself in ways I had never been. I was willing to break myself wide open to find out what the hell was inside me instead of continuing to chase after something outside of me because an influential figure had persuaded me into thinking that it was the right thing to do.

For better or for worse, that’s precisely what art and my 30s offered me. It forced me to face my deepest & darkest fears. It crushed every little belief and assumption I had developed over the years. It shook me to my core and took me places I’m both horrified and grateful to have been.

To be clear, I do not recommend this to anyone. I’ll spare you the details for now as I’m not quite ready to write about them just yet. Maybe give me another 10 years.

Above all, I say all this to set myself up to say “thank you” to all those who have stuck by my side throughout my 30s. That’s it really. Because it is through your grace that I’m still alive today both psychologically and physically. I will never forget that.

You know who you are.

May you stay beautiful, always.

with warmth and curiosity,

slim
August 19th 2018

photo credit to Sue Langford

Hyper-Empathizing with Our Companies

When we, as parents,
hyper-empathize with our children,
the children’s lives
feel like our own.

Similarly,
When we, as founders,
hyper-empathize with our companies,
the companies’ lives
feel like our own.

So much so
that we’re willing to sacrifice our health
to keep them alive.

Sacrificing our health
to keep our company alive
can produce behaviors critical
to the well-being of our company
In its early stages of development.

But as our company develops
—as do our children—
some of our “sacrificial” behaviors
born out of care
can also stifle its development,
not to mention fuel our frustration,
resentment,
and disappointment,
as we can’t help but take everything personally,
when we hyper-empathize.

When Autonomy Overwhelms

“You can be whatever you want to be,”
We told our children.

Except…

If I can be whatever I want,
I may feel like being something mundane isn’t good enough.

If I have infinite options,
I may feel overwhelmed by the complexity of decision making.

If I’m even uncertain as to what I want to be,
I may doubt whether I can amount to anything at all.

The same happens in our workplace.

When we, as leaders, give autonomy to our people.
Unless they can tame
The ambiguity,
Uncertainty,
and Complexity they perceive,
They can get stuck in shame, overwhelm, and doubt.

Join our next workshop.
Let us learn
To help our team get unstuck.

May we let autonomy be a gift,
Not a burden.

Being Empathic vs Being Nice

Let us not confuse being nice with being empathic.

Being nice aims to conform our behaviors
to static images defined by social norms.
Being empathic aims to custom design behaviors
to fit the specifics of self and other in interaction.

Being nice judges
what behaviors are absolutely good or right.
Being empathic (re)discovers
what behaviors are good or right for which context
of self and other in interaction.

When people respond negatively to our being nice,
we may feel appalled,
maybe even resentful of how ungrateful they seem.
When people respond negatively to our being empathic,
we may feel curious,
maybe even eager to learn how to design new behaviors.
Behaviors better fit for the context of self and other in interaction.

Love vs Relationship

Love is a force that can hold the space between “self” and “other.”
Relationship is the quality of space between “self” and “other.”

Being in love with an “other,”
and having a good relationship with them
are two different issues.

Whether the “other” is people, work, things, etc…

  1. You can be in love with them,
    and not have such a wonderful relationship.
  2. You can have a wonderful relationship with them,
    and not be in love.

Creative Empathy

A common inner conflict revolves around these two thoughts:

  1. I’m being treated unfairly.
  2. I’m not good enough to be treated fairly.

It may seem like these two thoughts cannot be thought by the same person.
Yet they are often thought by the same person at the same time.
That’s why it is an inner conflict.

Our inner conflict often takes the form of a paradox.
When laid out logically, paradoxes will not make sense.

By connecting what may seem like contradictory perspectives through empathy,
we can give birth to what we call creativity.

It is through such act of creation,
that paradoxes dissolve itself,
leaving behind a sense of clarity and understanding.

Growth on our own terms

We appreciate growth
when we grow on our timeline
in the direction we want to grow.

If we force others’ growth
to satisfy our own need for contribution,
no matter how good our intentions,
it’ll likely be unappreciated.

In fact,
others may even rebel
and do exactly the opposite of what we wish.

What a waste of time and effort, no?

The Irony of Diversity & Inclusion Workshops

I was recently invited to run a workshop on Diversity & Inclusion.
I was surprised by the feedback.

The feedback emphasized how much people appreciated feeling safe enough to vulnerably express themselves.

I believe Diversity & Inclusion is about empathy.
If a workshop is run with empathy,
safety is a natural byproduct.
I took that for granted.

I’ve since learned that many Diversity & Inclusion workshops don’t make people feel safe.
In fact, it shames people for “lacking empathy,”
then tries to force them to “fix” their unconscious biases.

That shocked me.

Thanks to Craig Cmehill for recommending me to run this workshop.
Thanks to Janice Levenhagen-Seeley for inviting me.
This experience has opened my eyes in ways I didn’t expect.