We benefit when we understand what is and isn’t mutually exclusive.
We can often see much of the world as mutually exclusive: either something is one way or it isn’t. But we do this despite knowing full well that the world is not black and white. Indeed, there are infinite shades of gray, or nuance. While it may be easier to see the world in binary terms, doing so can be detrimental. Thinking spectrally and probabilistically can help combat the effects of binary thinking, but just how wide reaching can illusions of mutual exclusivity be?
Business
We recently read Good Company, by Arthur Blank, cofounder of The Home Depot and owner of AMB Group, which holds various businesses such as the Atlanta Falcons and Atlanta United FC. In the book, he writes:
Businesses can and should do great things. They can be part of the solution, not the problem. In fact, because corporations wield so much power and influence in our society, they have an unmatched opportunity to do good, for the people who work in them and for the communities in which they do business. I’m not just talking about adding a few benefits and engaging in a little philanthropy on the side; I’m suggesting that doing good becomes an integral part of business activities. When we leverage our business interest for the greater good of our people’s lives and our community’s well-being while at the same time increasing profit, business and philanthropy become inseparable.
I think of it as lifting both sides of the barbell. You can’t lift, squat, and overhead press a great weight from just one side, either from under the plates of capitalism or from under the plates of social responsibility. You have to get your entire body centered under that bar to propel it skyward, balancing the reality of the need for profitability with the challenges facing communities, our nation, and the world.
This passage Arthur wrote may sound like the work of fiction to some, and with the behavior of some corporate actors, it is no wonder. The business news is filled to the brim with the nefarious acts of greedy executives or the effects of poorly incentivized employees. Some recent examples include the Wells Fargo accounts scandal, widespread data gathering by technology companies, and emissions scandals by automobile companies. You don’t have to go back that far in time to find much more egregious transgressions. These examples of poor stewards paired with significant structural issues like a growing wealth gap and environmental destruction have deteriorated the perception many have of capitalism in America and other places in the world.
However, we need to remember that the news is a map for what is actually happening, not the territory. Everyday businesses of all sizes are doing wonderful things to help those with whom they interact. But that is the point. We can easily see instances where something isn’t working and say that the whole system needs to be abandoned or replaced, without taking into consideration instances where it is working. There is a lot of gray and blindly scrapping the good with the bad can sometimes be the worst option.
Below, we expanded upon an example from Good Company. It illustrates just how much people and profits can be simultaneous goals: they support and build off each other to provide long term strength.
Understanding that the ability to prioritize money, people, and the environment simultaneously is not mutually exclusive allows us to view endeavors from a new vantage point. From this view, we can see and plan further. We can align incentives. Instead of being a burden, it becomes the competitive advantage. It becomes your brand, your character.
Tony Hsieh understood this as CEO of Zappos, Inc. In his book Delivering Happiness: A Path to Profits, Passion, and Purpose, he describes how important it is to build a lifelong relationship with each customer, even if many interactions yielded no sale. He highlights an example of just this in his book.
I’m reminded of a time when I was in Santa Monica, California, a few years ago at a Skechers sales conference. After a long night of bar-hopping, a small group of us headed up to someone’s hotel room to order some food. My friend from Skechers tried to order a pepperoni pizza from the room-service menu, but was disappointed to learn that the hotel we were staying at did not deliver hot food after 11:00 PM. We had missed the deadline by several hours. In our inebriated state, a few of us cajoled her into calling Zappos to try to order a pizza. She took us up on our dare, turned on the speakerphone, and explained to the (very) patient Zappos rep that she was staying in a Santa Monica hotel and really craving a pepperoni pizza, that room service was no longer delivering hot food, and that she wanted to know if there was anything Zappos could do to help. The Zappos rep was initially a bit confused by the request, but she quickly recovered and put us on hold. She returned two minutes later, listing the five closest places in the Santa Monica area that were still open and delivering pizzas at that time.
Business leaders who get this concept accumulate incredible goodwill that, while intangible, is neither recorded on the balance sheet nor amortized. This form of goodwill is inherent with the brand of the business and is something that those who interact with the company come to expect. That’s why they do business with that company. It is the company’s competitive advantage. Arthur Blank had accumulated enough goodwill from his time building The Home Depot and was thus afforded an opportunity to be a steward to Atlanta by acquiring the Atlanta Falcons. Fictitious character (although rumored to be based on a combination of real people) Bobby Axelrod from the Showtime drama Billions was not afforded that same opportunity in New York due to his lack of character. Although the reference is (purposely) fictitious, the principle still applies.
Ultimately, a company that is not constantly working to improve will not survive in the long term. Reevaluating that which we unconsciously think are mutually exclusive and brainstorming ways in which they can be combined and leveraged is one way to stay ahead of the competition.
Society
The drawbacks of mutual exclusivity are not confined to business. Sweeping societal issues can often seem at odds with each other too, with sides entrenched within their own camp and unwilling to cooperate with the other side. In this instance, mutual exclusivity fuels tribalism. A highly relevant example is supporting the racial justice movement and supporting the police. Some people see these two issues at odds with each other with one losing while the other wins. This is the wrong way to think about it. Even if one side did prevail over the other, it would be short lived and full of malice. Instead, finding common ground so both are improved results in a stronger solution that can move us forward together as a society. They aren’t mutually exclusive; both can benefit.
Another current societal movement is feminism. Some people (the number seems to have thankfully dropped) think that this is the battle of the sexes. Men versus women, where there is a winner and a loser. Again, wrong way to think about this; they are not mutually exclusive. Both can win, especially when it comes to the family unit (e.g. education and financial considerations) or the economy (the economy is a summation of its parts and improving the professional opportunity for 50% of the population would have a marked impact).
Or another wrinkle of misperception within the feminism movement is that some people think that being a feminist means that one cannot be a homemaker, secretary, flight attendant, personal assistant, or some other commonly female profession that may or may not be paid. They are perceived as incongruent and mutually exclusive. To combat this issue, we should start with the definition: what is feminism? What is a feminist? Once we understand that feminism is the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of both the sexes and a feminist is an advocate for those rights, then we can understand that a woman having the autonomy to make the decision of what profession she goes into without undue limiting influences that aren’t prevalent in male counterparts is what matters, not the actual profession with which she chooses.
The last example we will present is the misperception of mutual exclusivity between being a person of science and being spiritual. Indeed, many have argued that science proves there is no God, yet there are scientists around the globe who believe in some form of higher power. One of the most profound scientists in modern history actually addresses this in one of his books.
Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.
Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Personal
How many potentially satisfying relationships have we missed out on because of viewing someone as only one way? How many years have been spent enduring a job that we don’t like? Both of these are important questions when pondering the reach of perceptions of mutual exclusivity.
We are social creatures, and as such, quality connections with others is vitally important to our lives. Tony Hsieh defined his success by both the quantity and depth of relationships he had in his life. Jonathan Haidt posits in his book The Happiness Hypothesis that happiness doesn’t come from within so much as it does from between others. Following that notion, it would make sense that we should seek to optimize the number and depth of the relationships in our lives. When we unnecessarily discard opportunities to connect with others based on misperceptions of personal qualities that person has, we ultimately lose. That isn’t to say that we should be friends with everyone. But just because someone doesn’t think like you doesn’t mean you cannot have a wonderful friendship. People are highly complex, dynamic beings who are influenced by genetics and their environment to varying degrees every day. One negative quality you believe them to have and your ability to be friends with them is not necessarily mutually exclusive. If we give others the benefit of the doubt, our lives might be that much richer.
After all, what can a first impression tell us about someone we’ve just met for a minute in the lobby of a hotel? For that matter, what can a first impression tell us about anyone? Why, no more than a chord can tell us about Beethoven, or a brushstroke about Botticelli. By their very nature, human beings are so capricious, so complex, so delightfully contradictory, that they deserve not only our consideration, but our reconsideration—and our unwavering determination to withhold our opinion until we have engaged with them in every possible setting at every possible hour.
Amor Towles, A Gentleman in Moscow
Conclusion
There are times when things are mutually exclusive. For example, turning left and turning right. We can turn left and then turn right, or we can turn right and then left. We can even turn so far left that it would be the same as turning right. But we cannot turn both left and right at the same time. Another example is flipping a coin. We can flip heads or tails, not both on a single flip. As simple as those examples are, they are important to keep us in the gray. Not everything is mutually exclusive, but not everything is not mutually exclusive. It is that which we falsely believe to be mutually exclusive is where the opportunity lies to improve our thinking.
It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
Mark Twain
In the end, it may be easier to view many aspects of life as mutually exclusive. But when we do this, we are unwittingly blocking off entire other realms of possibilities from which we and others can benefit. If we can change our black and white thinking to seeing and accepting the gray in life, think about how much we can change for the better.
Where the head goes, the body follows. Perception precedes action. Right action follows the right perspective.
Ryan Holiday, The Obstacle is the Way
