Subtle Word Differences to Help Reframe (And Improve) Your Mindset, Part 4
“It is not enough to be busy. So are the ants. The question is: "What are we busy about?” ― Henry David Thoreau
Adjust, adapt, effective, efficient: for our final analysis in this month’s series, we’re going to use words that again seem like they’re the same thing, but they’re actually quite different. If you’ve been following, you’ll know that this isn’t some lawyer-level of scrutiny (okay, well, maybe it is, but it’s for your own good!), it’s a way to help hack your mind in order by defining and differentiating these words, especially by feeling.
Since we mentioned feeling, let’s start with a simple explanation for adjusting and adapting: what does it mean to have your suit adjusted versus adapting your body to fit your suit? Likewise, are you adapting your program to match the expectations of your constituents, or are you adjusting it based on their expectations? To adjust is to make some changes so that something works, but in the context of our professional example, it might imply potential compromises–which aren’t necessarily a good thing, such as adjusting numbers. To adapt is to make changes that fit and match something, like adapting an existing program with significant enough differences to not be exactly the same thing but maintains the spirit of the idea, such as an adaptation of a story to a movie, television show, or musical.
A simple way to think about it is adjusting is editing, patching, and cutting, whereas adapting is revising, reimagining, and reframing.
When we talk about effectiveness and efficiency, this might be easier to differentiate because they can be mutually exclusive. Something can be effective, but not efficient, and likewise, something can be done efficiently, but its effectiveness is questionable. For example, your proposed program can impart long-term effects on your targeted community of inner city youth, but the efficiency is questionable because while it can be very effective in helping them, it’s not efficient for your budget and resources. On the other hand, you can maximize the efficiency of your existing resources for a project focused on microfinance, but how effective the program really is ends up being influenced by factors outside of your influence, showing that your input and impact is beyond your control.
Things beyond our control are the reason we focus on differentiating these last two groupings just as much as we have alluded to them in previous parts. Part of our professional goals, especially for new and young employees, people changing fields to join NGOs and social enterprises, and critical projects is not to achieve our aims, but to not screw up. Not screwing up is both ineffective and inefficient because it doesn’t seek to maximize potential, and it requires us to adjust our mindsets to better be able to adapt to the situation. See what we did there?
Likewise, by trying to control, we lose perspective of what is around us and end up with tunnel vision from micromanaging. Micromanaging not only strains your mind, but it also can potentially create unnecessary tension with your colleagues who deserve to be empowered by delegation. When you adjust your thinking, you are better able to adapt your focus and skills to a situation and not try to be a martyr, which becomes far more efficient when maximizing teamwork and resources while having more effective processes and results.
