Will Your Resolutions Be Successful?

Leading up to the New Year I shared a mathematical inequality with the purpose of providing a theory of action to increase the likelihood of success for “change”.  Knowing that the end of the year was coming and in keeping with the much-practiced tradition, New Year resolutions would provide myriad opportunities for change.  Hence, the inequality represented as D x V x FS > R was presented (Dissatisfaction times Vision times First Steps greater than Resistance).

So, the dance of resolutions has begun.  These “best hopes” and “good intentions” for personal as well as professional "change" or "different" are in full motion.  However, the research about the success and failures of New Year resolutions is not very encouraging. 

A contributing factor to the lack of success with "resolutions" is that more often or not they’re too ambitious. Some are naïve at best and unrealistic at worse.  

Commitment is often cited as the reason resolutions fail to produce the desired or expected results.  Underestimating or overestimating the level of “commitment” necessary to achieve our resolutions present in many cases an insurmountable obstacle to our success.

The level of commitment is often commensurate with an understanding of constraint theory.  Knowing our constraints is extremely important.  Just as identifying what is and what isn’t within our control determines to a great extent the level of commitment.  It is difficult to “own” dissatisfaction with something that we want to change if we perceive it to be outside our control. 

Commitment also is contingent upon how we think including what we think and why we think it.  Whether breaking old habits or forming new habits it takes a clear sense of knowing the connection, interaction, and interdependency of what we think and how we behave.  Thus, our logic map is critical.

Logic maps include the components and their relationships to one another that influence, shape, or determine “what” we think.  They include our knowledge and experiences as well as assumptions.  Key to the utility and import of logic maps is identifying the components and understanding how these components relate to one another albeit positively or negatively.

Have you ever thought, “Why am I thinking what I am thinking?  The interaction or relationships of our experiences contribute significantly to “why” we think “what” we think.  Without going cerebral or too theoretical, my application of logic mapping is more pragmatic.  

Our experiences shape how we think. 

Our thinking influences and in many cases dictates how we behave. 

We can’t change behavior without changing the way we think.

Thus, if you are expecting changes in behavior without changing your thinking the change has little opportunity for success.  I believe this is what happens with “resolutions”.  We desire and even expect changes in our behavior but haven’t examined carefully the what, why, and how of our thinking to really change it.

The application of the mathematical inequality, therefore, is really about assisting with changing the what, why, and how we think about change.  It’s not a panacea.  In a like manner, it cannot be used as a short cut to bring about change.  It can however accelerate the change process if and I stress if used to set in context the factors or variables of the change process.

So, with respect to your dissatisfaction –

Do you own your dissatisfaction?

Do you have a picture or vision of the change realized?

Do you have your first steps identified?

Are the aforementioned greater than any obstacle of resistance?

If “yes” is your answer to all – you’re positioned for success.  

If “no” is the answer to one or more of the questions – rethink your thinking.

Remember, change your thinking to change your behavior -