Abundance vs. Scarcity | The Thinking Styles that may Quietly be in the way of getting things done

Several times this week I found myself talking about a filter I use often, Abundance vs. Scarcity.

Over the years of building healthy support networks and teams for business owners, I keep seeing repeated stumbling blocks in trusted relationships as it applies to this filter (including in my dynamics). These two kinds of thinkers frequently butt heads, but in doing so they are missing out on an opportunity by not playing to each other’s strengths. The diversity of human thought stretches as vast as an ocean (yet here I am distilling this significantly – ah well). 

Here’s what this looks like:

Scarcity vs. Abundance Thinkers

Scarcity thinkers tend to be:

• risk-averse (don’t like to take chances),
• Territorial (protecting their stuff), 
• Competitive (win first), 
• pessimistic, and 
• slower to trust. 

When they’re considering a new project, at work or at home, they think through the ramifications carefully: what happens if it works, what happens if it doesn’t. Scarcity thinkers are great at follow-through, they have their map and they hold to it. 

From this commitment to plans comes a reluctance to trust, one wrong move could mean an entire plan destroyed or significantly undermined. That trust gets earned very gradually through repeated proof that others are capable of living up to their expectations.

Abundant thinkers tend to be: 

• risk-tolerant (generally more willing to take chances),
• Work hard to win but willing to share in the bounty
• Collaborative
• optimistic, and
• quick to trust and collaborate,

Take organizing a workspace, for example. An abundance thinker is drawn to new systems and loves trying them out, sometimes several at once. The trouble is follow-through: it doesn’t take long for a system to break down if they’re not deliberately sticking to the structure they set up. They’re strong planners, but planning and sustaining aren’t the same muscle, and the second one takes real dedication.

When they’re considering a new project, at work or at home, they think expansively: how big could this be, who else could be part of it, what’s the best version of this. They think of their own resources, time, connections, tools, as things meant to be shared, and they’d rather build something bigger and better than settle for good enough.

Trust comes easily for them, sometimes before it’s been earned, whether they’re buying a product, hiring someone, or deciding to work with someone new.

Working Together

How does it help you to consider your thinking style and that of people you work closely with? 

In general I think it boils down to personal choice, an ability to discern who you work with and how you collaborate with them (because sometimes you don’t have a choice who you work with). If you are risk averse and your colleague is risk tolerant, how can you navigate that space so that each of you is playing to your strengths rather than fighting each other over your weaknesses? 

How can you cover one another’s blind spots?

Your turn:

A few questions worth sitting with:

Would a real conversation about that help you coordinate better?

Are you the abundance thinker feeling beaten down by the scarcity thinkers around you? What choices would you make to lessen the impact of their direct actions?

Are you the scarcity thinker, quietly annoyed by the buzz of an abundance thinker who won’t slow down? How can you coordinate more effectively and protect your outcomes?

NOTES:

Here’s where this filter can be useful and can also get messy:

Pair up two scarcity thinkers and you get a juggernaut. They can bowl over everything in their path and get a lot done fast, often at the cost of future collaborations. Scooby ruh-row.

Pair up two abundance thinkers and you get a world full of possibility (almost too much of it). They can be their own worst enemy unless they’ve got a realistic vision and coordinate their actions so the group is moving in the same direction.