This week, in the final part of our series "Better with Ben," we look at Franklin's instructive response to a petty annoyance. This column mentions another great American, Frederick Douglass, whom I will be discussing in my next free Zoom lecture on February 10. Visit mindinclined.org to register.
In his autobiography, Benjamin Franklin tells the story of getting into a pickle with his co-workers in a print shop when he was a young man. He was expected to pay something called a "Bienvenu, or Sum for Drink." Franklin had already paid it when he worked in one part of the printing house, but then he was called on to pay again when he moved to a different part of the shop. He protested that he had already paid it, and his boss agreed with him, but the workers in this new section did not accept this response and began sabotaging his work.
What would you do if you were in a similar situation — that is, if you felt you were in the right, but you still had to deal with the hassles that others were creating for you? Franklin's response, I think, is instructive. Here's what he wrote:
I stood out two or three Weeks, was accordingly considered as an Excommunicate, and had so many little Pieces of private Mischief done me, by mixing my Sorts, transposing my Pages, breaking my Matter &c, &c. if I were ever so little out of the Room, & all ascrib'd to the Chapel Ghost, which they said ever haunted those not regularly admitted, that notwithstanding the Master's Protection, I found myself oblig'd to comply and pay the Money; convinc'd of the Folly of being on ill Terms with those one is to live with continually.
Franklin felt he was right, and so did his boss. He was probably angry about the whole thing, and he could have shouted at the other men, sabotaged their work, or tried to build new alliances so that he would have others on his side. Instead, he decided to pay the sum again. His reason is worth noting. He recognized "the Folly of being on ill Terms with those one is to live with continually."
Franklin did something I find very useful — but too rare. A boss and mentor of mine sometimes said things like, "Let's play this out." In other words, he wanted us to imagine what would happen after we or someone else took an action. What was likely to happen next — and perhaps after that and even after that? Franklin realized that continuing to hold out or taking more severe actions almost certainly would alienate his co-workers, and he would feel the consequences. He played out the situation: "If I do this, then they will do that, and what will be the impact on me and the operation?"
Franklin, in short, was a pragmatist. That's not to say that he acted immorally to achieve his ends. In this case, he dropped his beef and did something that would be better in the long run.
I wish more people would take Franklin's approach. I'm convinced we would have fewer conflicts, even fewer wars. There are times when people need to stand their ground — as Frederick Douglass did in his fight against slavery — but there are far more instances of petty things that simply don't merit dramatic responses. The waitress got your order wrong. The copy machine isn't working (again). Your teenager left the milk out (again). You can be annoyed, even angry, but will a dramatic response make things better or worse? I'm 57 years old. My wife and I raised two kids through adolescence. I have worked in numerous offices and, yes, a fast-food restaurant over the past 41 years, and I'm convinced that the answer to that question is almost always "worse."
Next time, I'll address one reason why too many people respond unproductively to petty annoyances. For now, I suggest you play things out, as Franklin did, and look for ways to make things better, not worse.