Strategize To Succeed
PC405 – The Duel Between The Shoulds And The Coulds

       Welcome to the next episode of Strategize To Succeed™. Selectively applying the strategies which we discuss each week will help you as you progress from conditions to opportunities to successes.

       In today’s episode, we are discussing two words which some may consider interchangeable. One word is used almost always, indiscriminately, while the other word probably ought to be used almost always.

       As you are well aware from the title of this episode, the words are “should” and “could.” 

      By now, you know Your Mentor’s pattern. First, I turn to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Its definition of “should” is “to be under necessity or obligation to.” A synonym is “must.” Conversely, the definition of “could” is a past form of “can.” And can is defined as “used to indicate possibility . . . sometimes used interchangeably with ‘may’.” Synonyms include “might and possibly.” 

       Examining the definitions side-by-side, there would seem to be a clear-cut distinction between the two words. But that would be too easy. So, let’s look at the implications which attach to the use of each word as a concept.

       In an article by Dr. Rick Hanson entitled, “Drop the ‘Shoulds’” (Psychology Today, posted September 16, 2013), he says that “. . . in a deep sense, your ‘shoulds’ control you . . . ‘should’ is a statement about reality, the way it is . . . this recognition of truth pulls you out of conceptualizing into direct experiencing . . . but the adamancy, the insistence, built into a ‘should’ is usually not true: you would live through the experience and get to the other side . . .” 

      The reality acknowledged by use of “should” really doesn’t mandate that something absolutely must be done. That decision is a choice which you absolutely own.

      Dr. Dorothy Firman, in the article “Have to? Should? Could? Will?” (Psychology Today, posted November 11, 2015), notes that, “When we choose we are our own authors, directors and bosses. And we might just feel more deeply connected to WHY we are choosing this thing . . . to choose based on value, inner resonance, the very Call of our Self, rather than on limiting messages, loss of awareness, have tos and shoulds, is to live in freedom.”

      This position taken is not to say that going to work is not a must. But the reasoning behind the concept is that working becomes a choice which is mandated by the value which you give it. You value the salary which you earn, the friendships which you may have made, the skills learned, the discipline developed and the refinement of your character. These elements all become of value to you and become significant factors when you make the choice to work.

      At the end of the thought process about applying “should” to every task which you have, is the concept of “regret.” As discussed by Dr. Jim Taylor in, “Personal Growth: Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda” (Psychology Today, posted May 30, 2012), “regret relates to action or inaction . . . when people live safe lives, regret is what they will surely experience . . . more good things happen when we go for it than when we run from it.”

       It is the notion that any request, or chore, or responsibility is faced with a “should” response that implicitly has attached to it a heaviness that can weigh down a person. The result is that the opportunity to make a choice is eliminated and an individual is metaphorically beaten into submission. At that point, we usually give in to the path of least resistance and face the resulting consequences of complacency, passivity, and perhaps even the dreaded regret.

       There is a four-step approach which has been suggested as a rational response to a moment of chaos. And it is that very chaos which can draw out the ambivalence in one’s response.

       In the article, “Avoiding The Should’ve, Would’ve, Could’ves” (Forbes Books Author Post, August 7, 2020), author Ande Frazier outlined an approach to reacting to the need for prompt decision making in a reasoned manner. An easy way to remember the process is that the steps constitute “four A’s.”

      The first step is awareness. One needs to be present and mindful of the situation around him. All of one’s actions are indicative of a possibly chaotic response to the events.

      The next step is to acknowledge. This is not a matter of acknowledging what is going on around them. This is an acknowledgement of one’s values and goals which represent important standards in one’s life. It is these values and goals which form the basis of a decision-making framework as one tries to develop a response to the chaotic issues.

      Thirdly, is to affirm. The affirmation is in place to ensure that the steps which are going to be taken in response to an issue are reflective of the previously reviewed goals and values. This is essentially a time to check in with oneself to make certain that one is acting in a manner that is consistent with their established preferences, and if not, then to adjust the response to bring about such an alignment.

      Finally, one must act. By taking the time to review one’s decision-making priorities, it generally becomes easier to act responsibly in a situation. If there is still some doubt as to the best path to take, one can act but take smaller, incremental steps, while reviewing the outcome throughout.

       Ms. Frazier doesn’t negate the possibility that missteps will occur. However, she recommends this approach as being more likely to guide one to the most helpful resolution.

       So far, we have directly or inferentially focused on the application of the word “should,” remembering that basically that word can be interchanged with the word “must.” And it becomes quite clear that once the possibility of “must” doing something enters the discussion, there is really no wiggle room to change the rules, discover new options, or escape entirely.

      Now, we bring in another element, and that is the word “could.”

      Perhaps an easy way to remember the opportunities available with “could” is to link it with another word that starts with “c,” that is “choice.”

      As you can imagine, the “should” and “could” dilemma has been the subject of substantial research. And certain patterns have evolved. 

       For one, if the challenge was a question of morals, right and wrong, the determinative word seemed to be “should” in order to reach a decision. “Should” was also the favored choice when leaders presented a choice for action and presented an either/or scenario.

       However, in contrast, when there was no moral question on the table, “should” as the basis for decision making also seemed to disappear. 

      As noted in the article, “Research Shows Using 1 Word Will Help You Develop Better Ideas, Solutions, and Problem-Solving Skills” by Jeff Haden (Inc., February 1, 2023), a study on the subject was presented in the Academy of Management Journal. The conclusion summarized was that just “substituting the word ‘could’ for ‘should’ causes people to generate a lot more solutions, as well as much better solutions.”

      Further, this study elaborates by stating that “a ‘could’ mindset helps individuals engage in divergent thinking . . . in group contexts, we find that adopting a ‘could’ mindset encouraged individuals to spend more time discussing these dilemmas and generating more ideas.”

       Mr. Haden succinctly distinguishes the two words as follows: “’Should’ feels like something you have to do . . . ‘Could’ feels like something you ‘get’ to do.”

       The conclusion offers an easier, less stressful, and even more productive approach. The question which we all ought be asking is not “what should we do?” the question to be asked is “what could we do?”

       That one change won’t solve all problems, but it may certainly have a positive impact on our lives.

      Thank you for sharing your time today. Remember, your application of strategic decision-making approaches can result in more beneficial outcomes for you, both professionally and personally. Why not turn that process into your opportunity?  

Copyright 2023 by The Bermaelyn Group, LLC