The ability to influence behavior is directly related to the degree in which belief systems are understood. The decisions that we make are a complex web of precepts, or internal belief systems, that we have about ourselves. These precepts are generated emotionally and then reinforced by rational reasons we always seem to make work. If the objective is to affect change and generate a desired outcome, the outcome of that endeavor is one that will be directly dictated by the degree to which these emotional triggers are discovered.
Precepts are something that are often overlooked in messaging today and, in listening to the news this week, I was reminded of how this is exemplified in the ongoing turmoil in Libya and the desire for Muammar el-Qaddafi to secede power.
What sparked this connection was news that Qaddafi’s accounts were being frozen. I can understand the reasoning behind the overall idea (let’s not support Qaddafi), but it’s not in line with the precepts that someone like Qaddafi would identify with to promote such an outcome.
For Qaddafi, if the tangible security of money is non-existent, the only semblance of power that remains is to fight to the end. In many cases, the best result is simply the lesser of two evils and this instance is no exception.
Those with the power to influence the situation must ask themselves what the desired objective is. The concept of leaving Qaddafi powerless and penniless, which is what he would become, seems too drastic to promote action. He seeks power and money and, without power, all that’s left is money. A proposition that includes no room for the desired outcome to take place is a proposition that is a purely anecdotal existence. If Qaddafi does not perceive the terms of his departure as aligned with his belief system, then the process could become a very lengthy one.
And I’d rather see him outta there.