"The Degree of Neurosis...

...depends on how one responds to ambiguous situations." When faced with difficult challenges, my mother often paraphrased that line from a Saul Bellow novel. She never actually articulated - at least not to me - which responses would be more or less neurotic making. That was left for me to discover as I grew into adulthood.


I've generally witnessed two somewhat dichotomous approaches to resolving ambiguous situations. I personally favor the problem-solving approach, namely that through analysis and creativity - and perhaps some luck - we can clear up ambiguity through the light of reason, novel ideas, and perseverance. This approach often leads to unfamiliar recesses of thought, so it can require considerable risk-taking, and it is sometimes very hard; but ultimately worth both the risk and the effort.


This is an effects-based process: First describe the desired outcome ("Begin with the end in mind" a la Covey), then figure out a path or process to that outcome. Next describe obstacles to that path, and determine how to eliminate or mitigate them. Finally, consider the downrange consequences of actually achieving the outcome through that particular process. If the consequences appear to be too dire, work out how to mitigate those. Throughout the process, dare to think "outside the box" (trite though that expression has become). As a last resort, when all novel choices fail the test, choose an alternative outcome or look for a different process. Ironically, the ambiguity is never completely erased and one is often critically aware of the risk involved in charting a new path. So this approach does tend to keep one right on the edge of the personal comfort zone, sometimes right on the border of neurosis. But that is where true creativity and innovation reside. If I find myself feeling too comfortable about a proposed course of action, I wonder what about it I'm missing. 


The antithesis to that analytic and creative approach is practiced by the (seemingly) myriads of people who strive to resolve ambiguity by throwing a cloak of rules on top of it. For the most adroit proponents of this latter approach, life has no ambiguity at all, and therefore no risk. One simply needs to find and apply the right rule. They are seldom at the edge of their comfort zones because the rules that govern their decisions create comfort. Original thought? Out of the box ideas? Novel processes? No need for any of that. Outcome? Don't bother with that. Only the process matters. As long as I have my rules, I am comfortable and life is smooth. Neurosis? Wouldn't know one if it hit me in the head. We often find practitioners of this approach in positions of quasi-authority, where their decisions - or refusal to make any - can wreak neurotic making effects on others. We often call these people "bureaucrats", an unfortunate association since many people who work in bureaucratic organizations are very imaginative and not at all driven by rules for their own sake. Perhaps "autocrat" is a more pertinent moniker. Rules are, of course, important and necessary...as means to achieving a good desired outcome. But when an imaginative thinker and rules-enslaved autocrat clash over an ambiguous situation, the result is often very unpleasant, especially for the creative one.


A recent case in point for our family was the process of moving our two cats to Japan from D.C. We left them behind last summer when we moved because the airline rules clearly state that they will not accept animals when the weather is hot. Not a bad rule in itself, but the downrange consequence of our compliance was to foist the ambiguous burden of cat care and feline transport to several surrogates. Most affected was Number One Stepdaughter, whose life is already quite full both personally and academically, and who never saw the "future mover of cats" memo tacked behind her bedroom door when she was growing up. 


No problem, right? Simply interpret and reinterpret multiple poorly written documents summarizing rules of two different countries, the U.S. Army, and the airline; and deal in an unfamiliar environment with well-meaning but not forward leaning individuals for whom rules are comfort, and who could not imagine stepping even a toe outside the box. Doing so over 6,000 miles distance and 14 hours time difference from the real cat owners/parental comforters simply adds relish to the challenge. Neurotic making potential? Major Generals could decompensate over less.


Fortunately, the analytic/creative process succeeded in finding the simplest of solutions, plus we had a patronus in our local U.S. Army veterinarian. He helped us correctly interpret the  rules-laden documents and then guided his U.S. counterparts to the proper  solution...consistent with the rules, no less. So, while some of our nerves may have been seriously tweaked over the last several weeks (and assuming the desired outcome actually occurs as expected), we are happy to report that our degree of neurosis remains constant. All things are relative, of course.