Player Inactive
Sometimes we let things be, we don’t act on them as we believe that things will solve by themselves. But do we really understand the payoffs of Inaction? When is it okay not to act?
Alexander the great met a naked ascetic on the bank of Indus. Alexander asked him, “What are you doing?” The ascetic replied, “Experiencing nothingness. What about you?” Alexander declared, “I am conquering the world.”. They both laughed, as they thought the other was a fool.
This story floated up from the depths of my memory, while I was discussing life choices over dinner with some friends. This story - though originally shared in the context of Western and Eastern philosophies – portrayed the two extremes of action and inaction.
Inaction as a Choice
When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be- The Beatles
Sometimes we let things be, we don’t act on them as we believe that things will solve by themselves. But then, do we really understand the payoffs of Inaction? When is it okay not to act? How do we convince ourselves it is okay to shirk?
Squid Game is undoubtedly a paradise for Game theory – perfectly modelled with payoffs. The best part how they also addressed one aspect that we all possibly miss out in everyday scenarios – Inaction. Inaction also had its place in the Squid Game world with a very simple payoff: death.
As Mr. 218 (yes, I’m lazy) pushed a guy to death to win the game, our dear protagonist argued with him, taking the high ground.
I have a problem with that. They were there only to win the money, and they would have to kill the other to win for sure. Just because he didn’t physically push the guy to death doesn’t make him a better person. Inaction would not have led to any lesser outcome. Waiting for someone else to act, by no means makes us lesser involved in the act. Inaction is a choice, with consequences.
But the antagonist is certainly wrong (duh). Just that, our dear hero got arguing on the wrong point. He could have rather argued about fairness – depriving the other of a fair chance to play. That, my friends, was the fundamental change in perspective - the sense of what is my scope of control and what is not.
Let us understand this through the Control-Impact matrix. Control-Impact matrix is basically to help you categorise your solutions basis how much of it is in your control vs what is the impact it will have on your problem (any stoics here today?). While the tool is fairly intuitive, let us see how our antagonist and protagonist’s view differed on the Y-axis. The antagonist believed it is in his purview and jurisdiction to act, while our protagonist believed that it was not up them to act.
Note: Basis readers’ sky-high appreciation of my sketching skills, I endeavored to make the above graphic. If you don’t get the sarcasm, you can check out my sketching skills here.
Basically, we choose to believe that inaction is okay and in fact the better thing to do if our perceived control on the activity is low i.e. it is not in my hands/purview. Which is primarily why accountability needs to be very clearly established when working with your team for any task. Otherwise be ready for some innocuous shirking. Just reinforcing the idea that if it is everyone’s responsibility, then it is no one’s.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
“Do you know what is common between someone who has no money and someone who has too much money? Living is no fun for them” - Oh ill nam
Sorry for the spoiler, but the old man did it all for some fun. He wanted entertainment in life. Entertainment that he got from fuelling aspirations - because he had none of his own. Inaction would have certainly saved some lives here. But in our own lives, is inaction good or bad?
Tim Ferris, in his best-seller The 4-hour Work Week, makes an interesting case, encouraging inaction. He states that he saw that things worked out in his business even if he didn’t get involved - thing solved themselves. He advocates the 80/20 Pareto principle very strongly (Pareto was an Italian scientists who noticed that in his garden 80% of the healthy pea pods came from just 20% of pea plants). Tim says he focused on only the top 20% of the customers who made up for nearly 80% of the profits. Focus only on the important problems which have the highest impact (Refer: Control-Impact matrix above). Sounds logical?
There is fundamental flaw: The hygiene factors. There are some basic hygiene factors on which spending more time will not give you much of an impact, but their absence can hurt. The comments in your code will not make the program work better, but their absence may sometimes render your code unusable. Hence, in our world, we cannot rely only on the high impact tasks. We need the tortoises as much as we need the hares.
Summing it up with a profound statement made by the VP of one of India’s top FMCG:
Even if we don’t act on anything, things will find their natural course and happen anyways. But role you play in making it happen or not happen is what matters. Inaction should be a conscious decision, not something that just happened.