How Full Is Your Cup?

Is anyone’s cup truly half empty or half full? How about the label of a pessimist versus an optimist? In the search to define who we are, such labels do more harm than good. Why? Because we believe them! Once you adopt one of these labels, you potentially begin to look at life through lenses that may not be real.

Have you ever known someone who uses an excessive amount of sarcasm and judgment yet proclaims that they are upbeat and easy going? They so desperately want to be that person, that they spin the meaning of their behaviors attempting to convince not only themselves, but also others of their “cheery” disposition.

Then there is the case of the pessimist who so desperately does not want to be viewed as negative that they soften the blow to themselves by labeling their perspective as “realistic.” This way they can minimize the joy of the optimists as well as judge the negativity of the pessimists.

My main concerns with labeling are (i) that we limit our ability to remain cognitively flexible (meaning to develop awareness and then possibly alter our course based on new information), and (ii) labels foster separateness rather than unity. Our personalities just are not that simply constructed!

Dr. Martin Seligman developed a theory that attempts to explain the cup half empty versus the cup half full cognitive style. Cognitive style refers to the templates we have in our psyches that we use to understand our world and our relationships. Dr. Seligman calls this template your “explanatory style” – simply put, how we explain our actions and beliefs.

It is comprised of three dimensions: internal vs. external, global vs. specific, and stable vs. unstable. Events in our lives are evaluated on each dimension and over time it is an extremely accurate determinant of whether we are pessimistic (half empty) or optimistic (half full).

Lets say that you just received a glowing review. How would you explain this event? One option would be to say to yourself: “I deserved it because I really give 100% effort everyday (global view) and I expect that my next review (stable over time) will be equally great because I am a responsible person (internal worth).” This would be considered an optimistic explanatory style because you believe good things happen because you make them happen, you believe in yourself, and there is no reason to think that it won’t happen again. This cognitive style evokes serenity, predictability and security. Unlike the earlier example, this evaluation is based on real information so this is not about how you want to be.

There could also be another explanation for the same stellar review. This individual says to him or herself; “ I squeezed by that time (unstable) my manager must have missed all my mistakes (external), I not smart enough to ever do this well again (internal).” This is an example of a pessimistic explanatory style. You can see that it breeds stress because it strips away a sense of stability and security. It tells you that life is so unpredictable that the other shoe will drop when you least expect it. A person who adopts this cognitive style often suffers from stress-related somatic symptoms, may be frequently depressed, and may have significant amounts of clinically diagnosable anxiety.

Is the person who has adopted a pessimistic explanatory style eternally trapped in that way of thinking? The answer is a resounding NO! There is a complimentary theory called “learned optimism” that suggests that we can retrain our thinking. We can re-enlist the cognitive flexibility I spoke about earlier and, with a consistent effort, really make significant changes! There are a myriad of self-help books on this topic.

This theory respects the complexity of the human mind, and it evaluates events after the fact, so it is much more reliable than attaching a label to ourselves and then making our behavior fit into our belief. It also identifies a spectrum of dimensions - optimism, realism and pessimism - rather than pigeonholing people in one of two extremes.

Explanatory style has very practical implications in the professional environment. Knowing the explanatory style of your employees would be extremely beneficial in the formation of teams. It would provide managers with additional data points, and, especially when coupled with measurements of Emotional Intelligence, provide more effective guidelines for motivating direct reports. From a leadership perspective, a C-suite that shared a similar explanatory style would be much more capable of timely executing a vision. That alone would breed confidence in the organization and its viability.

If you are serious about changing your explanatory style, I would highly suggest scheduling several consultation sessions with a trained professional who has a working knowledge of this theory. Likewise, if you feel your organization would benefit from integrating this theory at any level, there are numerous approaches that a professional consultant with the appropriate training could offer.