negotiated order...

That good ol’ date of 11 October has brought me to a place where I am thinking about decisions I have made in the past. I do not, I mean this, do not regret anything that I have ever chosen to do, act upon or having loved. Yet I am taking stock now, trying to understand what drives the decision making process—heart, mind, needs… maybe nothing but curiosity. And depending on the situation, it warrants a combination of the aforementioned, maybe elements of other things, albeit in a balance appropriate for the situation. Regardless, no matter what guided my decisions in the past, I have been a full advocate and participant in the notion that we engage in

…negotiated order: where we make trade offs at specific points in our life, dependent on the situation.

I guess we can look into stakeholder engagement theory (again!) to understand trade off theory, negotiated order in its finest. It is postulated (and I am sure that we have done this ourselves) that we can go through a negotiated order process—where we assign value to certain things, based on the meaning that we assign to it at that given time—and determine its saliency in the grander scheme of things.

Take for example, buying a car (yes, here comes the BMW, nah, how about a Volvo?). You have your principles in place and usually do not gravitate towards SUVs at all. Gas guzzlers, seemingly obnoxious and rather overrated. I have definitely feel that way—I never really knew why on earth one would need a AWD mammoth tanker in south Florida, where it is flat, let alone no snow. So here you are, faced with, let’s say a move to a mountainous region, and up until now you have not needed a car. Then, you see the Volvo XC90 (sweet ride), AWD monster and say *hey, she’s rather sexy… maybe…* Huh?

Time to whip out the trade offs—need AWD in snowy mountainous regions, safer to be higher up to see around the hairpin turns, can carry skis and the like—things you would never consider while living in a flat, tropical environment. So with those needs in place, the earlier *standards* are traded off for the current need. Ta da! You have negotiated the order to fit the bill.

On the flip—what if we are just simply rationalizing our behaviour? Finding a way to bend our principles a bit to fit a new situation? Do you really need the XC90 in the Alps? Why not just a simple sedan with a reasonable amount of HP and front wheel, or 4WD?

Now take it down a level, especially with matters of the heart. Isn’t it funny that at one point in our lives we think *no way, not EVER again* after an experience, only to be faced with another decision that makes us reflect and question the earlier response? You look at that person, that opportunity and think that, well, if I can enjoy _____ then I can give _____. You negotiate the order of what you are willing to do, what you are willing to sacrifice, against what benefit will come to fruition.

Yet is it smart to do so, especially with matters of the heart? As we conversed earlier about *never let the emotions lead the way*, should we find ourselves in a place where the emotions are in the lead, we may trade off more than we would ordinarily have done. And is that a bad thing? I mean, do we not at times think just a little too much? Or is logic our best defense, the sure way to protect ourselves from the potential risks that outweigh the benefits?

question: where do you trade off?