Optimism in Action or Optimism Inaction?

We all know the old expression: "the pessimist sees the glass half empty and the optimist sees the glass half full." But I've always felt that was a little too simplistic of a description of both of those mental attitudes. In fact, I've come to believe that "optimism," generally is a very misunderstood term. And don't even get me started on "pessimism."

What many people call "optimism" — this idea that "things always work out for the best" or that "the sun will rise again" — is really just a refusal to look at the facts. After all, if you're lying down on a set of railroads tracks, all the sunny thoughts in the world won't stop the inevitable. A cheerful disposition that isn't rooted in reality isn't much good to you or anyone else, for that matter.

Instead, I prefer the definition of optimism put forward by the Nobel Prize Winning Bengali poet and philosopher Rabindranath Tagore. He said: “I have become my own version of an optimist. If I can't make it through one door, I'll go through another door - or I'll make a door. Something terrific will come no matter how dark the present.”

The first thing you'll notice about Tagore's definition is that he doesn't suggest optimism is easy. He says "if i can't make it through one door" — meaning that he knows that challenges will come. In fact, he's betting on it.

Next, you'll notice that his solution to a closed (or stuck or locked) door isn't to sit down and hope the problem will fix itself. Instead, Tagore gets active. He looks for alternatives. He'll go through another door if he can find one. If not, he'll make one. Obviously, this is not the kind of optimism that sits idly by and waits for better days. Only if you're willing to work, Tagore says, will something terrific come to you.

I love that definition of optimism because, too often, leaders try to project a sense of confidence and optimism by minimizing challenges. In fact, Tagore seems to suggest that the only way to be truly optimistic is to be clear about what the challenges are, to look for alternatives or to find a way around them. All the positive spin in the world can't make problems go away — it takes effort.

It seems to me that being forthcoming about the challenges we face as a Faculty hasn't always come easy to us. While we're happy to talk publicly about our successes, we tend to keep the discussion about our problems to ourselves.

Take, for example, the challenges facing us when it comes to funding.  Not only do we have to do more with less public funding for basic research — our research is also increasingly expected to have an immediate and obvious application.  This could result in research that only explores well-trod ground rather than breaking new ground. In fact, some of the biggest research to come out of U of T in recent decades — the discovery of stem cells — had far-reaching implications that weren’t really understood at the time.  Recently, Dr. Janet Rossant won the 2015 Canada Gairdner Wightman Award for her contributions to developmental biology, her international leadership in stem cell biology and policy-making, and for her pivotal role in advancing research programs for children’s health.  So we know there is real benefit to open-ended basic science research. That’s why we have been – and will continue to make the case for – increased public funding for basic research.

Limited public resources also mean that our researchers have had to become adept at partnering with the private sector — which has led to some amazing results. Recently, Dr. Sachdev Sidhu announced the launch of Northern Biologics, a collaboration between his lab in the Donnelly Centre and a private sector investor that will develop new antibody-based therapeutics for disease.  Sidhu and others — more than can be named — have been tremendously innovative and terms of building these partnerships.  Though it’s born of necessity, this kind of inventive spirit is worth celebrating.

Only by speaking about our successes in the context of our challenges can we get to work efficiently and intelligently solving the problems we encounter.  We need to be focused on what we do well, and then figure out a way to keep doing it well despite the problems facing us.

That's why the glass of water analogy doesn't work for me. It implies inaction. As a leader -- or a leading institution -- if you find your glass at the halfway point, you need to have a plan to find more water. You need to know where the taps are, or have a plan to create a new supply yourself.

That's optimism in action.