You’re selfish.
That’s okay. So am I.
And here’s the secret: everyone is. You may not agree, but understanding and accepting that fact is the key to success in anything.
Everyone operates in their own self-interest. Always. Companies, too.
Whatever we do, we do for a good reason. Even if cloaked in bad behavior, we do what we do because—at some level—it does something good for us. Perhaps it makes us feel better. Perhaps it moves us forward. Perhaps it holds someone else back (thus moving us forward by default). No matter the situation, no matter the scale, scope, or location, each of us will do what (we think) serves us best.
The trick is figuring out what that is—for ourselves and those we work with and for. But it’s worth it.
If we figure out self-interest, we figure out everything.
Companies are easy: a company will always do what it (thinks it) needs to do to succeed—or stay—in business. That means companies don’t care about you as an individual…unless it helps them succeed. They don’t care about the environment…unless it helps them stay in business (or is their business). And so on.
With companies, the hard part is figuring out what drives how they stay in business, which is driven by the people who run the company.
But people are harder to figure out. You can look at Maslow’s hierarchy to figure out where someone might be at any given point, but most of us in day-to-day work life aren’t worrying about how to stay alive. What drives each of us at work is a complex blend of what drives us as people: how we define ourselves, our beliefs, our values, our goals, AND to what extent our professional selves define our personal ones.
To accurately assess someone else’s self-interest, we have to understand our own.
Why?
Self-interest is self-defined.
“Dechenes Nancy,” in a comment on my post about beliefs last week was on to something. She said:
You…have to look at what [your] beliefs lead you to expect. “I believe in fair play” doesn’t cause conflict, but when I expect others to play fair, that’s when sparks may fly.
We want people to play by our rules, and get miffed when they don’t. In other words, we assume that our self-interest is the same that drives others (a little thing I call genre bias) OR, if we’ve deduced that someone else’s self-interest isn’t the same as ours, we often sit in judgment of it, and spend all our time trying to change their motivations (rather than figuring out how to play to their self-interest to get things done).
I’ve had bosses ruled by anxiety and insecurity, coworkers ruled by power and vanity, staff ruled by self-doubt and self-importance. No matter the self-interest, I’ve had to figure out a way to get things done with and for them. So I come up with “rules,” little sayings that sum up their self-interest, that I repeat whenever I’m trying to figure out how best to handle a situation.
While the names have been changed to protect the innocent, here are some of them:
- Marie must always look good.
- Henry is the company. The company is Henry.
- Assuage Jane’s anxiety.
- Betty must be in charge.
- Mike sees positions, not people.
- Sally serves the boss.
(And the rule for Tamsen? Tamsen must be heard.)
With someone’s self-interest clearly defined in our mind, we suddenly change everything about how we interact with them. If we’re dealing with Jane, we present problems with solutions already defined and in place (and choose very carefully which, and how many, problems we present at all). If we’re dealing with Marie, we give constructive criticism in private, and position it in a way that helps her look even better. With Sally, we remember that however much she may agree with our point of view, she will do what the boss tells her to do—always.
If we ignore what drives people, or assume that our self-interest is theirs, we are closing off our most likely avenue of success: the one the other person has defined.
So how do you figure out self-interest?
Actions reveal motivations.
“It’s not what you say, it’s what you do.” Or, as my friend Julien wrote recently, “Everything’s a tell. Nothing is opaque.” Observed over time, what people do tells us what they think.
Yes, it takes patience, practice, and a willingness to change your opinion when the evidence doesn’t hold up. And no, it’s not easy (who said it would be?), mostly because it’s usually in the midst of conflict between what someone does and what we want or expect them to do that we find the answer: Did we piss someone off? Okay, why? Did something someone did piss us off? Okay, why?
If you watch long enough, you’ll see what drives those around you—and they’ll see what drives you, too.
So take a look. What do you see?
What’s your self-interest? What’s theirs?
As always this is a great and informative post, but it misses something extremely essential to new 21st century ways of thinking about business. We have just emerged from a period, or are still emerging to be more precise, when self interestedness, both on the personal and corporate and societal level, was the norm. It DID NOT WORK. And as important as the above blog is to understanding the BASE motives of people, I think it more important to understand self interest so that we, as marketers, as influencers, as the avant garde of social media leaders, to use our intelligence and understanding of the new modes of communication to help people learn how to see beyond simple self interest.
Yes, understanding self interest will help you sell, but that doesn't mean that whatever you are selling is WORTH selling. Get me?
It's a good point you raise: There's a huge difference between being aware of your (or someone else's) self-interest and being self-serving.
Knowledge is power, as they say, and it can be used for good or for ill. So yes, if you can figure out someone's self interest, you can–at least for the short term–use that for manipulating them. Long term, however, you're right: what you're selling needs to be worth selling.
I think another big shift in 21st century business thinking is around selling itself. To me, the more contemporary approach is to think in terms of “offering,” not selling. I can offer you what I have, if *you* determine it's worth it, then a sale happens. Such was always the case, to be sure, but by approaching an interaction with an “offer” mindset, instead of a “sales” one, you're more likely to satisfy your customer's self-interest, and thus more likely to make a longer-term connection with them.
Tamsen,
Interesting post with several good points. Particularly: “…we assume that our self-interest is the same that drives others…OR, if we’ve deduced that someone else’s self-interest isn’t the same as ours, we often sit in judgment of it”. This is what limits productivity in corporate environments and even team sports. It's hard for us to partner with or support someone with different (sometimes radical) self-interests because we spend energy in judgment of them.
I learned a long time ago that as great as I may think it would be if everyone thought like I did, that's just not the case. And that if the argument is strong, we need to consider altering our own beliefs at times (it's how we grow as people). We must also accept that some people are too rigid to ever change regardless of how you show them otherwise. I think the quicker we understand that, the better off we'll be.
Which brings us back to being selfish, a word I don't particularly like, I'd prefer “focused”. Focused on our own individual success so that we can provide for our families, buy a bigger house, a better car, get laid. . .whatever it is that motivates you. I disagree with Zachary's comments. It DOES WORK, will ALWAYS WORK and has NEVER STOPPED WORKING.
You can't assume most people's self-interests are “simple”. There are people ready to die for their interests. And let's not think social media has suddenly created avant-garde thinking, it's just made people's opinions more accessible. There have been great thinkers, leaders & influencers long before twitter came along. Only difference is that back then only the strongest ideas made it through to create change. Today, anyone with more than 10,000 followers is considered an influencer or leader (as if they, somehow, did not have their own self-interests).
In the end, if I may quote the words of one Gordon Gekko in “Wall Street”: “Greed – for lack of a better word – is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed, in all of its forms – greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge – has marked the upward surge of mankind.”
It still works. And as long as we can work around those whose beliefs are different than our own and not let them hinder our “simple self interests”, it will always work.
Nuff said.
There should likely be another section (or another post…) about how self-interest is layered, and contextual. While it's safe to say that it's always important to me to feel heard, that takes on very different shapes whether it's a personal or professional environment–and even within different forms of those environment.
The thing to remember is that, given a particular context, someone's motivation/intent/self-interest is reliably unchangeable. Someone who seeks power at work will almost always do so–even if they don't necessarily seek power at home.
The point, which you clearly get, is that understanding what drives people allows us to operate from a position of empathy in its truest sense: to see the world from the eyes of another. When we do that, the way forward–and the way to resolve conflict–is clear.
There should likely be another section (or another post…) about how self-interest is layered, and contextual. While it's safe to say that it's always important to me to feel heard, that takes on very different shapes whether it's a personal or professional environment–and even within different forms of those environment.
The thing to remember is that, given a particular context, someone's motivation/intent/self-interest is reliably unchangeable. Someone who seeks power at work will almost always do so–even if they don't necessarily seek power at home.
The point, which you clearly get, is that understanding what drives people allows us to operate from a position of empathy in its truest sense: to see the world from the eyes of another. When we do that, the way forward–and the way to resolve conflict–is clear.
It is very important to remember that no one looks out for you more than you. Good post.
One thing that I've come to realise recently is that no matter how hard you try, you cannot win over everyone and you will never see eye to eye with every single one of your coworkers. As the article mentions, we all have different motivations and self-interests – it is inevitable our own needs and style of fulfilling them will come into conflict with others' self-interest at some point. I'm working hard at not taking this sort of conflict personally but instead using it as a learning experience. It's important to recognise that you do not share the same values (and self-interest) with everyone but that doesn't mean they don't deserve respect (or at least a detached version thereof). The minute you personalise differences in each other's POV caused by misaligned values, it makes it very difficult to progress a project you're assigned to with that person. You don't have to like everyone you work with, but you do need to get along with them well enough to deliver, so understanding what makes them tick and adapting is infinitesimally important to success.
hear hear!
That's it precisely, Adam. And those who keep that fact top of mind always–both about themselves and about others–are the ones positioned to really make things happen.
An excellent point, Julie. If we entered more relationships and interactions on the basis of achieving (and delivering) mutual respect–rather than on whether or not we like someone and the way they think–I think we'd not only have far fewer conflicts, but also get a lot more done.
Lovely post, Tamsen. Reminds me both of some depth psychology stuff I read from Thomas Moore (he has a whole chapter on, for lack of a better term, everyday narcissism, in “Care of the Soul”).
Also reminds me of some of the better enneagram stuff I've read–how your biases, beliefs and focus can sometimes rub uncomfortably against someone else's. Clarence Thomson refers to it as a “trance” and that's about as good an explanation as I've heard–we're all sleepwalking, to a certain degree, through a reality we're in part editing on the fly to suit our preconceptions.
In other words, we all make our own Matrix. But if you figure out the source code for your particular version, or another person's, you can at least navigate to some mutually-safe and acceptable common ground. 🙂
I can't remember when I've enjoyed a post more, so please let me thank you. For writing about something complex, with real-life implications, with humility and grace. I struggle daily with self-reflection in search of awareness, balanced with what Seth Godin calls my “lizard brain.” How much should one share in search of a common ground? How much should one remain reserve in self-protection? To what degree do we reposition our words to influence how well someone receives our comments? Oy vey. In any case, thanks again for the thought-provoking piece. I think I gotta go meditate for awhile. 🙂
Great post!
I think the people (and companies) who can successfully serve other people's interests while fulfilling their own are the ones who will win. That's not easy thing to do.
Brilliant, Tamsen! This post is going into my keeper file. It's timeless and communicates so clearly why it's important to always have other people's motivations at the front of your mind in any interaction. One thing that makes it so compelling is that by doing so you're better positioned to create a win-win for you and them, instead of playing a zero sum game where someone leaves the “battlefield” missing a limb. If more people would adopt this technique, there would be much more cooperation in the workplace, and in life. Thanks for the insightfulness. Keep up the great posts!
I know I am totally late to this discussion. I agree with your premise. I know figuring out what people want and giving it to them is the secret to business success. I have been doing just that for over 20 years. Many people don't believe this when I tell them, applying this principle of self intrest, I helped make a company a million dollars extra profit a year. That was over 10 years ago.
I totally agree with you Tamsen… Partially.
As a framework for relating – or selling – to others, it does indeed work well to assume that other people are acting in their own self-interest and to align what you’re offering and saying with their core drivers. That’s why capitalism works: it never assumes the best about people. It knows that people en masse will predictably act in ways that are driven by greed, status, self-preservation,etc. So on that front, right on! You nailed it!
But as a framework for our own actions as people and companies, Maslowe was dead wrong putting “self-actualization” at the top of the pyramid, the old story of Narcissus is a CAUTIONARY tale, and the term “douchebag” was invented for a reason. Individually, if we give ourselves license to only consider our own interest, we will become monsters.
I totally agree with you Tamsen… Partially.
As a framework for relating – or selling – to others, it does indeed work well to assume that other people are acting in their own self-interest and to align what you’re offering and saying with their core drivers. That’s why capitalism works: it never assumes the best about people. It knows that people en masse will predictably act in ways that are driven by greed, status, self-preservation,etc. So on that front, right on! You nailed it!
But as a framework for our own actions as people and companies, Maslowe was dead wrong putting “self-actualization” at the top of the pyramid, the old story of Narcissus is a CAUTIONARY tale, and the term “douchebag” was invented for a reason. Individually, if we give ourselves license to only consider our own interest, we will become monsters.