While it’s generally good to be action-oriented (as my friend, Robert Ringer calls it, having a “bias toward action”) very seldom is it good to rush into things. While being decisive is often productive, rarely is it beneficial to act without thinking something through.

Before doing a major procedure, a good doctor will suggest her patient obtain a second opinion. Before receiving a major procedure, a good patient will insist upon obtaining a second opinion.

There is wisdom in taking that attitude into many areas of our lives. A friend recently wrote:

“I am learning that I need to be careful because in my attempts to add value I sometimes trip over things. I guess that is the downside of being a person of action!”

I can relate. My inclination is to get an idea and just run with it. Over the years, a certain solution has proven to be very beneficial. If I have any question about it, I first run the idea past someone I trust.

There are several people I do this with. And, some of them do the same with me, often using me as a similar-type sounding board.

Unless something is so vital that it MUST be done without forethought (and those times are rare), then discussing it with someone first allows you to be even more assured that your decision is the correct one. And, there’s no downside. If it’s good, you go with it; if it’s not, you make adjustments or squash it altogether.

Please don’t confuse this with “paralysis by analysis”, where you think something over to the point that it never gets done. Nor should this be confused with “perfectionism”. Both can stifle action and production.

I’m simply suggesting that, like a fired bullet, once something is written, said or done, it can’t be taken back. So, if the choice to get a second opinion is available, it probably couldn’t hurt to seek it out.

Have you found this to be true? What other ways have you found to ensure your decision is the right one?

When someone makes a point, do you look for where you agree? Or, are you neutral; actively considering all sides? Or, do you default to disagreement?

A thought to consider: if you immediately look for points of disagreement and — even more so — if you feel compelled to voice that disagreement, there are two very important probable results to consider first:

1. The chances of missing the actual point are far greater.
2. You are going to lose potential or current friends, and your level (or potential level) of influence will decrease.

You might notice that last point is just the opposite of “Winning Friends and Influencing People.” And that’s no surprise.

I expect that those whose personal default setting is on “disagree and comment” are possibly thinking, “Bob, are you saying we should always agree with everyone?” My answer, of course, is “absolutely not!”

Another reflexive thought might be, “Bob, I’d rather people disagree with me so that I can learn from them rather than their simply mindlessly agreeing with me.”

So would I. And…mindless agreement isn’t at all what I am suggesting.

Opposing points of view are typically welcome by people. They help everyone learn and grow. However, I believe it is incumbent upon the responder to be sure they have first logically and critically thought through the issue.

While browsing posts on Facebook, Twitter, and other blogs, I far too often see readers’ comments that are so off point, I wonder:

• Did they actually read the post in its entirety? And,
• Are they just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?

Personally, I cannot even imagine commenting without first thinking about it long and hard. I realize not everyone feels the same way. However, I think it is a worthwhile guiding principle for those of us who comment on other’s posts.

May I make a suggestion: listen/read as neutrally as possible or, even better, for where you agree. If you simply don’t, first (oh, so important) FIRST reason out logically and dispassionately why, how and where you disagree. Then — and only then — decide if it will be productive for all involved to communicate your opposing view.

Wanna’ be right or want the right results? Sometimes both are possible and sometimes not.

One aspect of wisdom is knowing the difference.

Of course, you are welcome to disagree.

Last post looked at one aspect of being criticized by others. While we can learn from everyone, there are some from whom we will pay more attention than from others. Here’s another form of critique and correction we hear less about, but doing this pays huge dividends.

Self-correction is a key strategy of one who leads, sells and lives successfully. It also tends to be a trait of one who is of high character.

Does this conflict with the fact that those of high character tend to stand very firm on their guiding principles? Not one bit.

As Zig Ziglar says, “Be firm on principle but flexible on method.”

There is also no natural dichotomy on being principle-based and admitting one is wrong. Successful people are not only open to hearing about their mistakes via both solicited and unsolicited feedback, but find ways to provide themselves with needed feedback?

But, aren’t we simply “too close to the situation” to see things objectively?

Indeed, that’s a challenge. And, it can be overcome through the use of reverse visualization, or instant-replay.

You may recall a post suggesting we can prepare for potential interpersonal conflicts by simulating them first in our mind. This is much the same way an astronaut simulates future missions? This so that – when eventually in-flight – they have already experienced the situation. 100 percent effective? No, but pretty close.

Now, let’s do just the opposite. How did you handle that difficult interpersonal situation? Or, the objections during your one-on-one sales presentation? Or, the challenging question from the committee-member during your group presentation? Were you able to make the person feel comfortable by being tactful and kind, while still effectively and persuasively communicating your point? Or, did you kind of fumble that one?

Not sure? Then do what they do in football (U.S.); go to the replay. See if it was a fumble or if you handled it cleanly? Did you have both feet in-bounds when you made the catch? Or did your big toe hit the chalk?

Check it out; study it; dissect it. The trick is to do so with as much honestly and as little emotion as possible; focusing on not letting your ego take over. Yes, it can be difficult. Make that…very difficult. And, it’s well worth it.

The next step is to take your findings to your coach or mentor, or whomever you trust to provide you with the helpful and honest feedback you need. Even better is if they were actually there, but it’s not totally necessary.

Final step: Once you’ve determined that you did handle the situation improperly, and if the context is such that you can offer an apology, do so. It goes without saying to not make any excuses; simply apologize.

Actually, there is one final step after that: regardless of whether an actionable item such as an apology was feasible, make the decision to learn from your mistake and – hopefully – not repeat it. If you’re like I am, you most likely will repeat it until you have the lesson learned. Then again, that’s part of what being human is all about.

Fortunately, we can always go back to the replay.

Back in college, I was heavily involved in school politics. Whether in college or the “real world”, anyone in public is subject to opinions that are not always complimentary. In those days, I was prone to taking this type of criticism personally. Very personally!

I’d often complain to my friends, Bruce and Joe about this “unfair treatment.”

At the time, Bruce was President of the college’s Student Government Association and Joe was Senate Chair. One thing I really admired about them both was that they didn’t seem to mind criticism that would come their way. I found that quite fascinating, because it surely bothered me!

Whenever I’d moan about it, Joe used to simply say, “Bob, consider the source!”

In other words, before getting upset, determine how much weight you should even give this person’s opinion.

Actually, considering the source of the criticism is a good idea at both ends of the spectrum. When receiving disturbing feedback, if the source has said similar things that were nonsensical or baseless, we can pretty much “chalk it up” to a pattern and not pay it a whole lot of attention. (Unless, of course, he or she has a valid point.)

On the other hand, if you know the source to be rational and clear-thinking, and if you’ve previously agreed with some of their other thoughts, now it might be productive to “consider the source” differently. Perhaps their critique should be given thoughtful attention. Not that you have to agree, but a look from their viewpoint might turn out to be very helpful.

Even if you were to take someone’s criticism seriously, you still do not need to take it personally. Those are two different concepts. Either way, this is an excellent opportunity for practice. First, practice determining whether the criticism is worth taking seriously. If it is, act accordingly and be prepared to make changes. Secondly, you can practice not taking it personally, regardless of the first part.

Either way…consider the source!

How do you do in that regard?

I remember the jolt I received even though it was so many years ago. I was reading Dale Carnegie’s timeless classic, How to Win Friends and Influence People for the very first time and he told a story on himself.

In summary, while at a banquet, Mr. Carnegie corrected a statement made by another guest about something trivial. Dale’s friend, sitting next to him, over-rode his correction, stating that the person was actually correct.

Later, when Dale asked his friend — whom he was certain knew better — why he did that, he received an admonishment. Paraphrased, it was, “why prove to someone that they are wrong? Why not let him save face?”

It jolted me because I often did that very same thing. It was as though I couldn’t resist pointing out someone’s error, even something harmless and trivial. (Thereby, of course, highlighting my superior knowledge.) And, while no good was accomplished, it embarrassed the other person (often in front of others) and caused resentment towards me.

Now, you might be thinking, “But, Bob, is it right to not correct when you know something is factually incorrect?” And, my response would be that it depends upon the context of the situation. For example: is it important enough that it needs to be corrected? Is there a benefit to doing it? Would it be more helpful or harmful to do so? Will it shame the person or be well received?

Example: Someone says, “Yes, that Ted Williams was the best. Last guy to hit .406. Way back in 1940.”

The truth is that it was in 1941. My suggestion is that — whether to correct the person or not depends upon the above questions. If it’s a discussion between two friends, of course, correct. If not, and/or it would embarrass them publicly, don’t. Should you tell them later? It depends? Probably no harm in doing so. You could even use one of the lead-in phrases such as, “I might be wrong about this”…and then continue with, “I’m thinking it might have been in ’41.”

What will happen is that — if he or she really cares enough to know the truth — they will check.

Yes, this is a very minor example. Yet, how often have you seen people correct others publicly as described above, doing more harm than good? Ever? Have you ever done that? Has someone ever done that to you? How did you feel about it…and, about them?

Again, each situation is different. But, when in doubt, best that if you’re going to be right, that it not be at someone else’s expense.