It’s a daily problem. Whether in private life or business you routinely have to figure out why somebody did something.

Often more important in a competitive world: what will they do in a given circumstance?

I’ve previously discussed the propensity of humans to rationalize everything. This outlines how folks make decisions, but not necessarily what they will do, or why.

Many years ago I homed in on a couple of principles to better predict and understand people’s action(s). Why are they likely to go in particular directions? What might those directions be?

Consider these two guiding principles:

• Path of Least Resistance

Humans tend to move in the simplest and most convenient direction for them; often they can be just downright lazy. So ask yourself: What is their easiest path? What have I previously observed relevant to the situation?

• Occam’s (sometimes Ockham) Razor

Not an irrefutable theory, but basically the idea that the most simple explanation is also the most likely. Certainly until excluding evidence exists it’s usually wiser to presume the least complex outcome or explanation.

Now, these ideas may not be flawless or apply in every case. However, if you really understand someone’s situation they will often provide extraordinarily useful insights into what they might do and why.

Consider a simple case. You call a new business contact about an issue important to yourself. They don’t reply. Instantly your mind might go into overdrive managing innumerable fears and concerns:

• They don’t agree with me. So they won’t lend their support.
• Maybe it’s not important to them? Perhaps they don’t have the facts I do?
• They’re working on a side deal (the one you fear most) in the background.
• And on, and on, often needlessly.

I have witnessed many situations like this. I’ve lived through similar events.

The brighter you are, the quicker your mind and the more likely you can spin into managing uncountable alternatives.

In the above case, you’ll invariably find you’re just dealing with a less responsive professional who’s routinely delinquent with replies. This is hardly a cause for significant concern. Yet, we’ve all done it.

However, when it really does matter look at the facts. Assume a simple reason behind actions (and inactions) until simple explorations unearth more usable evidence that refutes your current assumptions.

If you are then forced to prudently consider events more deeply, use facts to eliminate simple explanations first and only escalate when such findings indicate something more profound is afoot.

Certainly, we sometimes do need to manage unlikely, but truly significant risks. On these occasions paranoia is what ensures we survive. Yet still whenever possible we should always first begin by attempting a lower-stress general approach.

Do you spend time and energy fearful of outcomes that never occur? Ever catch yourself overplaying your concern? Perhaps, you should try considering that the simplest explanation is consistent with what you’ve already observed or might expect?

If a situation isn’t presenting as a real liability, make it easy on yourself. Consider the two guiding principles described above.

After all, there’s no point wasting your valuable time or emotional energy on small-scale matters that have no obvious path to something significant.

So, gather readily accessible information where you can and don’t dive in until you’re more certain it’s really important. Keep it simple.

Ian R. Mackintosh is the author of Empower Your Inner Manager Twitter @ianrmackintosh