Posts tagged consistency
what is management?
May 21st
“Responsibility for one’s impacts is the oldest principle of the law” – Peter Drucker (New Realities, 1989, p. 87)
To me, in today’s business, manager management training is woefully lacking. Training simply equals “results” <with an additional emphasis on doing it while being politically correct and appropriately sensitive – to avoid litigation>.
And, no, I don’t believe this is a generational ‘thing.’
In other words I hear a lot of people suggest this upcoming generation of managers always needs to be told exactly what to do and what expectations are …well … in general I don’t agree. But even if I did those people are being told “results.”
It is the easiest (laziest) way to outline expectations.
To be fair to the lazy guidance organizations (or enterprises as Drucker calls them) … the enterprise also focuses on “results.” That ultimately translates into the fact you can be the biggest jerk manager in the world, the most anti social manager, one who exhibits gobs of poor management (team leadership skills) … but if you generate the enterprise holy grail <results> … well…then you are an “effective manager.”
And the fallback statement is almost always “not everyone is going to like you” as justification to answer the question of whether that person is ‘good manager material’ as everyone immediately points to ‘results achieved.’
Ok.
It’s bullshit.
And I know its bullshit.
And when your television and internet is lost for 4 days, and even though you may not be a heavy tv viewer, you end up having time to think and do things. So I ended up pulling a book off the shelf I haven’t read in a while. Peter Drucker’s “the new realities” from 1989. I have another post coming up inspired from the rereading but Drucker does a great job of simply outlining “what is management.”. And I have to tell you that a lot of us managers would do well to reread this book. And reread all early Drucker while you are at it. Oh. And company owners should too (by the way …they are also Management in case they have forgotten).
As P. Druddy <as Drucker was called by his closest friends> said:
Management has to be accountable for performance. But how is performance defined? How is it to be measured? How should it be enforced? And to whom should management be accountable? Management needs to face the fact they represent power and power has to be accountable … and it has to be legitimate <he means to a greater social good>. Management has to face up to the fact that they matter <in a societal responsibility way>.
What is management?
Is it a bag of techniques and tricks? A bundle of analytical tools like those taught n business schools? There are important as a thermometer and anatomy is important to a physician. But the evolution and history of management, its successes as well as its problems, teach that management is above all else a very few essential principles:
- Management is about human beings. The task is to make people capable of join performance, to make their strengths effective and their weaknesses irrelevant. We depend upon management for our livelihoods. And our ability to contribute to society also depends on management of the organizations in which we work as it does on our own skills, dedication and effort.
- Because management deals with the integration of people in a common venture it is deeply embedded in culture. What managers do in Germany, United Kingdom, United states, Japan or Brazil is exactly the same. How they do it may be quite different. This one of the basic challenges managers face is to find and identify those parts of their own tradition, history and culture that can be used as management building blocks. Every enterprise requires commitment to common goals and shared values. Without such commitment there is no enterprise, there is only a mob. The enterprise must have simple clear and unifying objectives. The mission of the organization has to be clear enough and big enough to provide common vision. The goals that embody it have to be clear, public and constantly reaffirmed. Management’s first job is to think through, set, and exemplify those objectives, values and goals.
- Management must enable the enterprise and each of its members to grow and develop as needs and opportunities change. Every enterprise is a learning and teaching institution. Training and development must be built into it on all levels – training and development that never stop. 
- Every enterprise is composed of people with different skills and knowledge doing many different toes of work. It must be built on communication and on individual responsibility All members need to think through what they aim to accomplish and make sure their associates know and understand that aim. All have to think through what they owe others and make sure that others understand. All have to think through what they need from others and make sure that others know what is expected of them.
- Neither the quantity of output not the ‘bottom line’ is by itself an adequate measure of the performance of management and enterprise. Market standing (brand & reputation), innovation, production, development of people, quality, financial results are all crucial to an organizations performance and to its survival. Just as a human being needs a diversity of measures to assess his or her health and performance an organization needs a diversity of measures to assess its health and performance.
- Finally, the single most important thing to remember about any enterprise is that results exist only on the outside. The result f a business is a satisfied customer. The result of a healthy organization is a contribution to society. The result of a hospital is a healthy patient. The result of a school is a student who has learned something and puts it into practice at some later date. Inside an enterprise there are only costs.
Some thoughts <from me>.
While there are some gems I may come back to at some point … like “without such a commitment you only have a mob” and “make their strengths effective and their weaknesses irrelevant” … here are my rant-like thoughts:
• “individual responsibility.” Hmmmmmmmmmmmm it seems like we abuse this in today’s business world. We want to “empower employees” and expect them to assume “proactive individual responsibility” and yet we are not fulfilling some of Drucker’s other principles. Where is our responsibility to them? Where is the training? Where is the development? It seems to me that responsibility goes both ways <and, no, it is not just a paycheck from management side> and to ask one without offering the other is a medieval serf mentality.
• Organization ‘health’ …. When is the last time you heard this discussed in in anything other than financials (or some derivative of financials)? I cannot remember the last time anyone discussed culture and/or people’s true happiness as a measure of organization health … well … at least until maybe ‘we have hit the numbers.’
That said. “Management is about human beings.” Ok. Nowhere in that sentence do I see “numbers,” “results” or “profitability”. Am I foolish enough to believe that those three things aren’t important? Nope <I am foolish in other ways>. But his point is subtle. Maybe too subtle. If you manage the human beings well, effectively and they are happy, those three little words he excluded from that sentence will happen. THAT is why the sentence reads “management is about human beings.”
And.
I love the last thought.
The truly important problems managers face do not come from technology or politics; they do not originate outside of management and enterprise. Think about that …
“They are problems caused by the very success of the management itself.”
Drucker is actually suggesting that success breeds problems. How about that? What a great point. A point I am relatively sure that today’s managers do not think of. Today it seems like success breeds “process everyone should follow.”
Anyway.
Ignore my comments if you would like.
But don’t ignore Drucker’s comments.
life formulas
May 9th
Life is not as simple as it seems. Or maybe it isn’t as complicated as it seems.
Shit.
Maybe its both … at exactly the same time.
I cannot remember where I found all these awesome “life formulas” but I love the way they take complex life things and simplify them into basic equations (note: I apologize to the creator for not being able to source).
And in their incredibly obvious simplicity there is a nuanced complexity that makes you think about the truth they contain.
The first one I ever saw was the truth equation.
Truth. What I think happened divided by what really happened.
Brilliant.
It got to the core truth behind … well … truth. And it makes you wonder a little why there isn’t a class somewhere in maybe high school where they teach you stuff like this. Or at least make you think like this. It may seem silly at first glance but it is a really interesting exercise.
And back to truth?
What you think divided by what really happened.
By dividing it can equal, diminish what you think or actually be bigger by such a margin it actually marginalizes what you originally thought.
Awesome.
And when I see Life defined by formulas like this I begin to think about what makes 100%.
Well.
It actually made me begin by thinking about “giving 110%.” Which is actually kind of silly when you think about it. Is it really possible to actually give more than 100%? <no>
And what the hell is more than 100%? (unless you are bionic you cannot answer that)
I do know as I think about this 110% thing it makes some want to bring one of these formulas along with me to a meeting and if someone suggests you to give over 100% (that infamous 110%) maybe I would force them to show us how to do just that mathematically.
When someone does say that … aren’t they really saying “give me 100% <because I know you are juggling things and I need you to focus on this>.”
So why can’t we just tell the truth and say “c’mon … its not extra effort … its just focus. Focus 100% on this.” <albeit it doesn’t sound as inspiring or leader like or gung ho-ish … yeah … I just typed ‘ho-ish’>.
Anyway.
From there I actually began thinking about the whole 100% we are supposed to give in life.
100% is tricky. Is it defined by effort, focus, the best of our abilities or the best we can do <at that time>?
Whew. Now THERE are some choices for ya.
Life is a constant juggling game <or a balancing act>. There’s always balancing that needs to be done. And there are always tradeoffs.
Ah.
But.
I think there is a difference between juggling and balancing.
Juggling is all about keeping track of a bunch of things … all up in the air.
Balancing is all about … well … balancing … evening things out.
It seems to me that is one is more controlled chaos-like <juggling> … and the other is a more prioritizing of actions <balancing>.
Wow. Makes me think of whether I am a juggler or a balancer. And that makes my head hurt.
Regardless.
Aw. Anyway <quit babbling Bruce>.
There is a simplicity that these formulas give us in thinking about life.
Disappointment being expectation divided by reality.
- Which suggests it is our own inability to manage our expectations that create a sense of disappointment. Makes you think a little, huh?
Shock being expectation minus expectation.
- The unequivocalness <that isn’t really a word> of this is brilliant.
Modern art being the belief you could do it plus the fact you didn’t.
- The formula nicely builds, instead of divides or subtracts, to heighten the value
The slight cynicism built into diamonds being forever … balanced by whether you are a jewel thief (awesome)
Oh.
And obligation.
This one is fabulous.
Starts with do. Just the action itself. Add on “the right thing” so value increases by doing the right thing … and then plus or minus the amount of guilt.
Very very nice.
I actually see a great class session for young people somewhere in this life formula idea. The ability to simplify the challenges, the decisions, the actions in life into equations. It is a nice way to be able to point out some complex critical thinking in life.
In the end, while it may seem silly, I think it is a good and interesting exercise.
Particularly if you are juggling, or balancing, a bunch of crap and making so many judgment calls your head seem like it is going to explode … these simple formulas, in a really weird way, provide perspective.
Maybe you have an obligation to give this a shot if you feel overwhelmed with life.
Because maybe, in their simplicity, maybe you find more balance.
And that … I am pretty sure in my pea like brain … is a good thing.
finagle’s Law
Apr 30th
Well. I imagine I am way behind the rest of the cool people <who already know what finagle’s law is> but I just discovered it. Maybe because I had always known it as Murphy’s Law.
The generalized or `folk’ version of Murphy’s Law, fully named “Finagle’s Law of Dynamic Negatives” and usually rendered “Anything that can go wrong, will” (source: Urban Dictionary)
Finagle’s Law comes from science fiction author Larry Niven who, in several stories, depicted a frontier culture which celebrated a religion <or a running joke> which involved the worship of the dread god Finagle … and his mad prophet Murphy <hence the source of ‘murphy’s law’>.
Ok. About Finagles ´Law <before I get to the point of this little writeup>. It is an amazingly cool extraordinary mixture of cruel logic … as well as somewhat scarily indicative of everyday life. Just in case you didn’t know here is Finagle’s logic:
- What we have is not what we need.
- What we want is not what we need.
- What we need is impossible to get.
- You can get hold of this information for a much higher price then you are prepared to pay.
Ok. Here is the coolest thought. One of my favorite blogs, 50topmodels, actually wondered if Finagle´s Law got it all wrong and reexamined it as … Yhprum´s Law (Yhprum is Murphy backwards).
They actually analyzed it under the theory that ‘everything that can work, will work’ quoting Richard Zeckhauser <Harvard> “sometimes systems that should not work, work nevertheless.“
Ok. It is that last thought that made me sit up and think and decide to write.
Why?
Well. “Systems that should not work …do.” How often do people design perfect systems in the workplace, under the guise of ‘this is the way its done’ and, ultimately, it is just another inefficient process & system? Or maybe it is easy to do so everyone just does things going through the motions? Or the perfect system is <gasp> measured on its efficiency and therefore everyone simply tries to ‘hit the measurement numbers”?
On the other hand.
Someone else builds a system and has everyone working within this system that has those ‘people who designed perfect systems’ scratching their heads and saying that will never work … and, uh oh, it does work.
Yhprum´s Law. Huh? Well. Organizations are living organisms.
And just as placebos can work (lets call that the power of the mind) … a system that should not work … well … does. Why?
Because whether things work or not is often up to the people. And people are inconsistent in that they consistently do unexpectedly great things. In addition sometimes mistakes become stepping stones to blinding success. Oh. And the systems that shouldn’t work gain significant improvements thru some trial & error while the perfect systems remain … well … stagnant – never improving. Maybe it is that last thought that is so controversial in my thinking.
Perfection is often a thief. It steals fresh thinking.
Business, in general, like life, is messy. Sure. We seek perfection. It is kind of like the holy grail of ‘job well done.’
Here is the funny thing about attaining perfection.
Realistically we should be seeking to immediately change, rather than replicate, if we actually stumble upon it. ‘Doing it right’ is simply a level. And attaining levels of ‘perfection’ is good but also breeds an aspect of complacency or rote. And unless you are putting together a car, or a bomb <as an example>, in my mind we should always be aware the process is a means to an end.
Another sad thing about perfection. Nothing is ever really perfect. So when we put the label on something we are already in a bad place. As noted in alternative phrases for Finagle’s Law … let’s maybe call it “not quite the right thing.” It seems to me that systems & process reside most often closest to that phrase. And to a perfectionist that is bad and to others it is just not quite the right thing.
Ok. As for systems that shouldn’t work? the imperfect systems? The power of the mind suggest that everything that can work will work … sometimes better than others.
Oh.
And if you have that attitude .. an attitude to, rather than finding the flaws, instead focusing on the mistakes made … in my mind you end up seeking to better the system.
Ok. Moving on.
There is another aspect to Murphy’s Law … “If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it.”
Now. If you think about that from a logic perspective … this suggests <for example> that if someone plugs in a toaster backwards and it fries itself, the problem isn’t just that some idiot plugged it in backward, but that it was able to be plugged in backwards in the first place.
In other words … the flaw isn’t in the person … but rather the design. And people just make mistakes <and are not flawed>.
If you believe that … then maybe when mistakes are made we shouldn’t be blaming people but rather seeking to design a better system. Not ‘perfect’ systems but systems with the minimum opportunity for flaws. Call it constant improvement.
If you don’t believe that then you end up simply assuming people will make mistakes, some big … some small … some stupid <or some derivative of stupid> … some smart <yeah … you can still do something really smart and make a mistake>. As I stated earlier … systems are a means to an end therefore using Finagle’s Law everyone should be focusing more on the people aspect. And not in a “you suck” perspective but rather a deeper understanding for why and how mistakes are made.
Mistakes are part of life.
I actually believe more managers should have the chart above in their offices and when mistakes are made identify which aspect the mistake characterizes. It may make us better managers and it may make for better systems (and certainly better managers of people).
Anyway.
The true Finagle’s Law is much more twisted than “anything that can go wrong will go wrong.” The Law also allows for things going well. It’s like as if the universe is merely lulling you into a false sense of security before proceeding to screw you. It also allows for things that can’t go wrong … going wrong <and within Finagle’s Law this counts as Gone Horribly Right.>
Regardless.To end this I wanted to share some last thoughts on Finagle’s Law. The law owes its existence more or less entirely to the Rule of Drama, and is especially common in Crapsack Worlds where things that do go wrong tend to go wrong in the worst possible way.
Finagle’s Law also suggests that Life has a pretty warped sense of humor in that it is obsessed with making your life as difficult and humiliating as possible.
On a slightly serious note … I imagine the potential for danger in everyday Life, within the Law, can do one of two things:
- make you scared to do anything
- make you assume that you cannot ever do anything right
I could write gobs about both of those but instead I am hoping that what I have written about Finagle’s Law suggests that successfully navigating Life takes some flexibility. If perfection is your thing … well … Finagle will be your constant companion and friend.
Take Life with a grain of salt. Things go wrong. Even when they aren’t supposed to. And things go right. Even when they aren’t supposed to.
Last. And just so you are fully aware of ‘the Law’ here are optional expressions of Finagle’s Law <so you recognize them>:
- A Simple Plan
- Butterfly of Doom
- Consolation Backfire
- Cosmic Plaything
- Disaster Dominoes
- Destructive Saviour
- Deus Angst Machina when taken Up to Eleven
- Everything Trying to Kill You in videogames
- Failsafe Failure
- Failure Is the Only Option
- The Fun in Funeral
- Gave Up Too Soon
- Law of Disproportionate Response
- Inverse Law of Utility and Lethality
- It Got Worse
- Magnum Opus Dissonance
- Mistimed Revival
- Murphy’s Bed
- Murphy’s Bullet
- My Car Hates Me
- Not Quite The Right Thing
- Out with a Bang
- Phlebotinum Breakdown
- Ashes to Crashes
- Doomed New Clothes
- Watch the Paint Job
- The Precious, Precious Car
- Random Number God
- Retirony
- Springtime for Hitler
- Tempting Fate
- Unspoken Plan Guarantee
- Useless Superpowers
- What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
- You Can’t Thwart Stage One
- Your Princess is in Another Castle
Anyway.
Finagle’s Law. Murphy’s Law. Or. My favorite? “Not quite the right thing.” Life is perfectly imperfect. You can either accept it or end up in a loony bin some day.
I fail, you fail, we all fail. Here is our tale.
Mar 14th
So.
I wanted to write something on failure and started … stopped … started again … stopped.
Well. I don’t know why but it was hard for some reason.
Harshly? I failed.
I failed at something I wanted to do. But. If creating a blog has taught me one thing <if that is at least one criteria of failing> that I fail constantly.
Little failures? Sure.
But a failure nonetheless.
Oh. And if you are not careful little failures are like dying a death of a thousand cuts.
Regardless.
That REALLY got me thinking about several things … the word failure (and how little it seems to be used these days) and failing itself & lessons and all that crap.
So I went hunting.
Hunting for some inspiration for the right words to say about failing and failure.
My first hunt.
Choose the Right Word by Hayakawa (almost my bible of word descriptions).
It didn’t fail me here.
“Failing” fell under Flaw <wow … I could write an entire book over that little insight>.
Flaw has a variety of aspects … blemish, defect, failing, fault, foible, imperfection, mar, shortcoming.
Regardless.
Failure is a reflection of a flaw.
An imperfection (which seems okay).
A defect (which seems not okay).
Is failure a reflection of a defective product <product being … well … us … a human … a person>?
That seems harsh. Ok. Maybe extreme.
But.
In terms of “truth to oneself” think about this … ‘imperfection’ points more often to a lack that may be a matter of opinion (Hayakawa).
Well. THAT certainly makes it easier to say “I am imperfect … I have failed.” Because, well, it is on a basis of opinion (and everyone has opinions).
Failure, on the other and, suggests a more severe shortcoming that has more severe consequences.
How ‘bout that?
There is some tough love.
The word failure is tough love.
A severe shortcoming.
And if you have a shortcoming … well … there are consequences. In fact … more severe consequences.
And maybe in this politically correct world we want to soften up things a little … and we don’t ‘fail’ but rather we made a mistake or took a step on the path to success or whatever.
Maybe it is better to just say we failed at something.
I don’t know.
But I do believe we should be better at admitting failure. I believe it should be more acceptable to say “you failed” <without it being construed in a negative way>.
I do believe we should be better at understanding we have failings … and they have consequences.
Now. Notice. Hayakawa never, anywhere, attached “negative” or “bad” adjectives to consequences. He simply points out that failures suggest shortcomings leading to consequences.
And that, my friends, is a Life truth … and more people <in my eyes> should just step up to the plate and accept that truth without all the suggestions that they keep you from being a successful or ‘whole’ person.
We fail. And maybe it is because of some shortcoming and absolutely I am assuming that shortcoming will create at least one dead end in your life (toward some success). But it doesn’t mean that it keeps you from some other path to success.
It does not mean you are a failure. It just may mean you have failed, and you may fail consistently, if you pursue that path.
Ok.
Next.
And when I went hunting I found a blog focused solely on failure. And it wasn’t bad or negative or even totally depressing.
Now. It certainly wasn’t uplifting by any stretch of the imagination but it was kind of an interesting glimpse into what I assume was a normal every day woman kind of getting a grip on life.
And this blog is her way of doing it … by embracing failure (she actually has a post called “why have a blog about failure?”: http://soyoufailed.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/why-have-a-blog-about-failure/)
As she says in her ‘about me’ section:
Who am I?
- I am female
- I’m in my mid 30′s
- I live in the Bay Area, California
- My day job is as a User Experience Designer (my 24 hour/day job is “failure” 
)
- I am a mother of 2 beautiful boys
- My “other” interests besides failure are photography, learning to play the guitar, and user experience design.
I loved it.
“my other interests beyond failure …” Nice perspective.
The site has glimpses of insight <albeit I wonder if writing nonstop about failure is completely healthy>. And while absolutely focused on failure, which I equate to a songwriter trying to write every song about a falling star <or God>, there are truly some nice perspectives on failing.
And all written from an everyday perspective.
Anyway.
About a failure <she says as one of 5 things> …
5. You learned something.
And that’s what life is all about. Learning something. In failing you probably learned something about yourself, about someone else, about a situation, about how to do something better next time. Failing is so valuable. Don’t focus on the failure. Focus on what you got from that failure.
So go ahead, fail on!
(nice closing line by the way)
Life is about learning.
Life is about failure.
I imagine the corollary thought would be “how boring would life be if we never failed?” there is such a stigma attached to failure … and the word itself. In fact, to be politically correct, I probably shouldn’t use the word failure.
It would be “trial & error” (what a bunch of bullhockey).
Look.
We fail.
And it’s okay to fail.
And it’s even okay to fail on some of the really Big things in life. Not that you try to … just that … well … we do.
It is called Life.
- Marriages fall apart even when you don’t really want them to.
- You try to win a game but you don’t.
- You try and lose those 10 pounds and you don’t.
- You try and be the best friend you can but miss when a good friend needs you.
Some are big things. Some are small things.
But all ‘things’ examples of failing at something.
And, once again, that’s okay. It’s cool.
You aren’t a failure just because you failed.
And that is a big, no HUGE, distinction.
You aren’t a failure … unless … you don’t pay attention to #5 (you learned something). You just failed.
Because, in fact, some failures are just part of life.
Maybe these are “failings” rather than failures but … well … whatever. Semantics.
I guess my point here is don’t aim to fail <as if any of us actually would, huh?> but recognize you do fail. And accept it IS failing.
Lastly.
Here is a great example of how failure … well … happens. And we (who are perfect of course) looking at failure happening right before our eyes … need to be very very <very> careful in our judgement with regard to failings and failure.
Let me give you a really big example … a really good one … which was part of this whole ‘failure’ blog:
… my crisis started. I had reached a point where I just could not figure out what to do. I was crying and weeping and just could not calm myself down. I got to the point when I had to ask myself, “What will make you sane and get you through this moment? What will keep you from killing yourself right now?” And to me, and it is a different thing for everybody, smoking had always been the thing that I turned to when I got to such a low point. It was what got me to calm down and take a moment and just be present. For some it could be a stiff drink, a dozen donuts, or a shopping spree. For me it was smoking. So I did it. I failed my abstinence. I went to the closest Walgreens, bought a pack, and smoked a cigarette.
And I admit, I failed even more and bought two more packs to get me through lower lows these past few months. I gave myself a break. I thought, it is better to have a crutch to get through these horrible days, than to be perfect and not have a crutch and go crazy. I took it easy on myself, I “failed” myself. Or more like I let myself have what I needed. I think at some point in our lives, when we need to, we should give in to ourselves. In our darkest times, we need to stop and think about what we need to get us through it. If you need to spend $1000 on clothing to save yourself, do it.
But know when it is time to stop. Know when the break needs to be over. Know when the fail needs to stop. For me that break is over now. I need to stop smoking now, before it becomes a full blown addiction again. Before it spirals out of control. Now it is becoming less helpful and is on the brink of being harmful. And so, while it is still easy to stop, I have stopped. I no longer need my crutch. It has done its job. It has gotten me through my darkest times.
I hope that for you, when you are going through a tough time, that you are able to stop and think about what crutch you need to get you through, and that you let yourself have that and let yourself fail. But I also hope that at some point, when you are healed, you are able to gracefully lay the crutch down.
Big thought in there.
“In our darkest times, we need to stop and think about what we need to get us through it. If you need to spend $1000 on clothing to save yourself, do it.
But know when it is time to stop. Know when the break needs to be over. Know when the fail needs to stop.”
Failing always needs context.
No. It doesn’t need excuses … just context.
I wrote about this kind of thing over a year ago … I stated there and then I was wrong … wrong in a way that this blogger said it best.
Here is what I said: http://brucemctague.com/doubt-part-3-crushed-between-internal-and-external-doubt
(the key words from that post)
Do what it takes to keep it alive. Keep your sense of I and don’t lose it.
Whatever it takes.
Let me repeat.
Whatever it takes.
In the past I have judged people who have leaned on religion. Leaned on prescription drugs. Leaned on self help books. Leaned on betterment programs.
Well. I have been a fool.
And ignorant.
A stupid ignorant fool.
For whatever path one chooses to maintain their flame is the right path. And a good path. And a path well taken.
You do whatever it takes to keep the flame alive and don’t get crushed by doubt. That’s it. Bottom line.
I didn’t know better words at that time but in my head I saw some things as “failings”, or failure, in people and was making my own judgments on their actions.
Look.
We have rules. We have guidelines. We have distinctions between what is right and wrong. And if we don’t meet them we ‘fail.’
Yes. All of that is true.
Yet.
In dark times … you have to do whatever you have to do to cross that dark bridge.
Whatever. Even if it means ‘failing’ in some form or fashion. Even if it means that it LOOKS like failure in someone else’s eyes.
The blogger is right.
It is okay to fail.
Failing does not make you a failure.
By the way …. Here is the site:
I fail, you fail, we all fail. Here is our tale.
the silence lie
Jan 18th
“just because you didn’t speak the facts out loud didn’t erase their existence. silence was just a quieter way to lie.” – unknown 
I am fairly sure I found these words in some tween blog. I don’t remember the frame of reference but I wrote down the words because … well … I don’t really give a shit about the frame of reference because it defines the ‘silent lie’ better than anything else I have ever seen.
“silence was just a quieter way to lie.”
Boy oh boy.
That is a powerful thought.
I guess the funny thing is truth is truth … whether it is spoken or silent. So why wouldn’t a lie be exactly the same?
A lie’s existence is not defined by words or lack of words … it is defined by whether it exists or not.
Maybe I say this because anything that exists can take on a life of its own.
It breathes and lives and, well, it actually eats. It eats away at your thoughts and, if you are unfortunate, it eats away at your soul.
And if a lie exists then it does all that.
Frankly, I am not sure you can ever kill a lie. Even by eventually speaking the truth. I believe even in that case it doesn’t cease to exist but maybe by speaking it … it attains a more tangible form. And maybe that makes it easier to accept … ok, well … maybe not accept. Maybe it’s just live with it.
So if I believe that, when does a lie stop existing? When does it take its last breath?
Well.
I actually believe they take their last breath the same time you do. Yup. I believe lies are things you carry with you until the end of your days. You cannot erase their existence by ‘speaking the facts out loud.’ They are one of Life’s burdens.
I imagine we all lie at some point or another.
A white lie. A lie of omission. A lie of silence. A lie of words. I personally don’t believe Life weighs lies … like there are ‘big lies’ and ‘little lies’ … I just believe Life counts them all simply as lies.
So.
Maybe the measure of our life is … how many lies take their last breath when we do at the end.
lie and truth
Mar 27th
This is the natural partner to my optimistically cynical of truth post.
Or.
Maybe let’s think of this as the adult version follow up to the wonderful teen version of Beauty is Truth I posted.
I won’t do that teen’s thought justice. But I may take a more serious note.
Maybe this is the ‘ugly is truth’ version.
“A lie can fly halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.” Winston Churchill.
I am sure we have all heard versions of this quote before.
And chuckle.
But have you ever wondered why we actually take this kind of sad and sobering thought at face value – kind of as a … well … truth? A teen wrote this on their site:
Sobering.
Sad.
And true?
Even we adults looking at this take a moment and a part of us, maybe even a large part of us, agrees.
We believe somewhere inside us that all people lie.
And what may be worse?
Even when we hear ‘the truth’? We doubt.
And even more worse?
The more emphatic on their belief in the truth (as they state it)?
The more we disbelieve.
It’s kind of crazy if you think about it.
It seems often the “absolute truth” leads to some confusion on our part.
Confused on ‘how can they be so sure’?
And the conclusion of confusion is “someone has lied.”
What a downward spiral we have encountered in discussing truth.
I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you. “
— ~ Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Truth is tricky.
The beauty in truth is that it creates boundaries. Or maybe more playfully … fences within you can find comfort to play with others and be free to say and do without thought.
And discuss ‘truth.’
But within those boundaries are shades of gray.
Truth is complex.
And there is an ugly enemy to truth.
The ugly enemy is doubt.
It is because of doubt in truth that a lie can sweep its way around the world while good ole truth is stuck behind dealing with doubt.
A lie is unhindered by the burden of proof. It flies free of such weight.
While truth carries the burden of debate, discussion and understanding.
Now. Let’s be clear. Debate is good. It clarifies. It communicates. It clears the mind of clutter.
But, oddly, nowadays truth’s slowness (in debate and discussion) only enhances an implication of ‘non-true’ and slows down even more with the weight of added burden.
Do we ever wonder why truth takes eons to get around the world while a lie circles endlessly?
Not when you think about it this way.
Sadly, if I am actually right about something for once, I guess the way you can tell a lie from a truth now is that the first is always the lie and the last is always the truth.
In the end the turtle wins I guess.
optimistically cynical of truth
Feb 6th
“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.”
André Gide
(warning: I get to talk about conflict & truth in one post … something I love)
I am always wary of those who come out blazing by claiming to speak “the truth.”
Mostly because I believe rarely are things black & white.
In fact I have been called optimistically cynical.
I imagine I am a contrarian (up to a point).
I would also imagine it’s because in today’s world I see too much lazy thinking (or possibly lazy sloppy communication) … or maybe it’s just people are quick to select the facts they want to use and ignore others and then pontificate on “the truth.”
Anyway.
I question everything upfront (or maybe one would hope as I have become older I can judge what to question and what to accept upfront) but always believe great things can come of it (rather than use the cynicism to drag things down).
In old times (like really really old) this questioning would be a version of Socratic questioning (because I am not as smart as good ole Socrates).
Socratic questioning focuses on the importance of questioning in learning (Socrates actually thought that questioning was the only real form of teaching). Simplistically Socratic questioning highlights the difference between systematic and fragmented thinking. It teaches us to dig beneath the surface of ideas. It teaches us the value of developing questioning minds in cultivating deep learning.
(now. In my global generation 9 ‘about critical thinking’ I will actually use this in discussing elements of teaching in the global education initiative)
So.
I guess the point is that questioning (a version of conflict) actually helps us get closer to the truth.
The art of Socratic questioning is tightly aligned to the idea of critical thinking. Mostly because it ties the art of questioning to excellence of thought. To summarize this thought … “Socratic” means a systematic approach in the interest in assessing truth or plausibility of things.
Both critical thinking and Socratic questioning share a common end.
Seeking meaning and truth.
Critical thinking provides the conceptual tools for understanding how the mind functions in its pursuit of meaning and truth.
Socratic questioning employs those tools in framing questions essential to the pursuit of meaning and truth.
The beauty of critical thinking skills is that it establishes an additional level of thinking to our thinking, an inner voice of reason, that monitors, assesses, and reforms our idea/opinions/thoughts (in a more rational direction) and affects our feelings and actions. Socratic discussion cultivates that inner voice through an explicit focus on using the “outer voice” with directed, disciplined questioning.
So.
As for those who adamantly state ‘the truth’ (and we seem to hear a lot of these people on radio shows and talk shows and “advocates” of some special interest) I would suggest they are lying.
(ouch. big claim there).
Ok. that lying thought.
Maybe better said is that they aren’t stating truth but rather opinion under the guise of truth (and duping a significant amount of people along the way).
Some of the people we have to listen to (claiming to say the truth) have made a choice … a choice to state truth when it is simply opinion (and shame on them for that … particularly if they do it under the ‘freedom of speech’ heading as well as if they have some ability to impact people).
The truth behind the truth is that it does come with choice.
Try this on for size.
With awareness of some truths comes choice, and with choice freedom or chaos or crisis.
This comes from a 19th Century philosopher – a guy called G. W. F. Hegel.
Discarding an absolute notion of truth, he saw today’s “truth” merely as a passing “bloom” in an evolving process of new “blooms”.
(let’s just call these stupid blooms ‘ideas’)
Ideas and truth advance, he believed, only as ideas come into conflict.
This occurs when a counter idea (the antithesis) arises to challenge the status quo (the thesis). It was this “conflict” or “crisis” which brought about the “higher idea” (the synthesis).
Now.
Be clear. The Hegelian Dialectic is more of an observation of the way thought systems evolve than it is a call to direct action in creating such an evolution (so crisis is not an action but part of thought … think of it as maybe a Plato would … someone states a belief or ‘perceived truth’ and the debate is the ‘crisis’ – or when an antithesis point of view is articulated- of which synthesis occurs and, hopefully, truth emerges).
I make that point so we don’t start running around being crazy trying to drive “crisis” into every frickin’ conversation we have.
But. Marx and Darwin applied this notion to the social and biological realm.
Marx and Communism stood on a pillar of crisis (just called revolution). The higher social order could only arise from the “crisis” of conflict—the proletariat arising to battle the bourgeoisie.
Darwin and Neo-Darwinian theory see the higher biological order arising only from a life and death struggle—survival of the fittest.
So.
What this suggests is that truth can only arise from crisis (or in a dialectic world) through debate and discussion. And I don’t know that I dislike this thought.
As long as we don’t start thinking there is something “magical” in the crisis. While theoretically it is a critical piece to achieve the “synthesis” hat shouldn’t mean we should begin to create a crisis if it doesn’t exist. Or even misjudge “crisis” when it really is just a natural down slope of the curve.
Anyway.
Crisis is a big word. And easily misunderstood (at least by someone with a pea like brain like me)
I don’t believe we need crisis to create change.
Simply some conflict. Simply some debate for god’s sake.
Maybe some questioning of people who state “the truth.”
(then that debate within conflicting point of views could be construed as a ‘crisis’ and Hegel can sleep at night)
Anyway.
I guess the other fear in this questioning construct is the concept of never ending debate.
Or how about “unresolved conflict” because diametrically opposed opinions are locked in “absolute truths” and are unwilling to accept anything otherwise.
In other words … we never leave “crisis” mode.
That is bad.
And useless.
And dangerous.
But.
The entire idea of “thought” to ‘crisis in debate’ to ‘clearer truth’ is a viable thought.
So when someone states “absolute truth’ without debate or discussion I think its kinda nuts.
Oh.
And one last important thought ( a REALLY important one in this entire discussion).
We are as much at fault as the “liar” if we remain silent.
Silence is the death of debate. The death of the search for truth. No questioning = no truth.
Think about that the next time you hear something that’s sounds … well … wrong. And you remain silent.
Anyway.
I would like to believe I am one of those people who are constantly seeking truth.
I may not be but it is certainly a good objective to try to attain. I do know that I believe as long as you are ‘seeking’ you are being persistently curious and there are worse things to be.
But, yes, I am cynical of those espousing truth all the time.
But maybe Dill said it best:
“I ain’t cynical, Miss Alexandra. Tellin’ the truth’s not cynical, is it?” ~Dill, To Kill a Mockingbird
So.
I will not remain silent in my search as an optimistically cynical view of truth
doing what you say you will
Sep 13th
Whew.
Doing what you said you would do.
I guess I could have called this keeping your word.
This is all about tying intentions to actions. Words to actually ‘doing.’
And this is an important discussion because it affects outcomes …. NOT just perceptions.
And it gets tricky.
Of course you can never give your word unless you are sure you can keep it. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …. Didn’t I just write about perfection? Geez.
Or you can have an attitude that says give your word, but that “life happens” and sometimes you can’t keep it, and this is fine.
Ok.
Here is my opinion.
Timing and situation matters.
And your track record matters.
So.
Upfront?
Perfection, baby, perfection.
If you give my word you are beholden to keep it. You have put an intention out there and must hold up your end of the bargain. Tough shit if life gets in the way.
No excuses. You either follow through on promises or you:
1. Don’t earn trust from others
2. Give permission to others to not follow through (or give permission for excuses)
First time through the chute (and by first time I am suggesting “enough time to establish a behavior pattern and belief system) you are setting expectations.
Anything “less than” erodes both faith and integrity.
Done once you have made it exponentially tougher to prove otherwise.
Done more (or enough) and no credibility is earned and, at its worst, you appear dishonest.
This is a simple equation. Words = Intent. Intent = Actions. Therefore … Words = Actions.
I guess I am writing about this because I perceive (I don’t have any huge research study to back me up on this) that we in the business world are struggling with this concept. And I cannot figure out why.
Yes.
I do understand that an issue is often “here is what I think I said (the leader) and here is what I heard (the people).” And, yes, that is a huge issue.
But in general I find people are becoming quite flippant with promises or “words associated with doing” and just not following through.
And it seems that it really shouldn’t take a lot of thought.
And to me (who writes a lot about leadership and guiding and aligning organizations) this whole idea is a massive building block for creating unity behind leadership, really strong partnerships and great affinity in relationships of all types.
So.
Why do I have this perception?
Well. Maybe if we all note how often that the exception (someone who actually always does what they say they will) actually draws attention that is certainly an indication.
Yup. It’s true.
When someone says “I’ll get it done” and they do, people notice, especially if they deliver consistently. For some reason people seem to be trying to gain respect or perceptions of commitment in other ways when it seems (at least to me) that putting action behind your words is the simplest way to show commitment.
“Commitment is what transforms a promise into reality. It is the words that speak boldly of your intentions. And the actions which speak louder than the words. It is making the time when there is none. Coming through time after time after time, year after year after year. Commitment is the stuff character is made of; the power to change the face of things. It is the daily triumph of integrity over skepticism.”
commonly attributed to Abraham Lincoln or Shearson Lehman
And I wonder why is doing what you say you would do slipping away from us?
Simplistically the excuse is time. Sure it’s tougher right now to ‘match words and actions’ with fewer people doing more.
But (and this is a HUGE but).
This concept needs to be addressed (or assume higher priority) maybe because of these thoughts:
1. Because organizations today cannot afford to be ‘not aligned’ behind leadership. Streamlined organizational actions are essential to maximize organizational energy.
2. Because executing well is essential when resources are low. There is no time or money for do-over’s or extended schedules.
3. Because partners are being thinned and stretched themselves and this value stands out as the type of person/partner you want to keep on your team.
So.
All that said let me say something pretty simple (and probably sounds stupidly silly). This whole issue needs to be thought of from the top down. Because the organization starts with its leader.
“I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.”
John Locke
Yup. That sounds basic but I believe we are investing so much energy (at the top) on insuring that those at the bottom are ‘doing what they say they will do’ that the top is forgetting that they need to meet the same (if not higher) stands.
And this whole top down thing benefits all. It helps create a culture of ‘evidence’ (proof we say what we do) without slowing the organization down. And that means people are empowered to “do” within an outlined system. But doing starts at the top. There has to be a commitment to doing. Delivering on what words are used (which means that of course you should be careful what words you use but that is a different article).
This whole ‘words-to-action’ concept extends to outside partners (vendors) also.
Anyway.
Let me take a minute to look beyond the business application aspect of this and focus on organizational leadership and alignment.
This whole thing is really about trust.
What is a person if you cannot trust what they say? Words unfulfilled with some action become empty promises to people. “I will call the client” (and never does). “I will share a plan of action by next week (and doesn’t).” “I will be at that meeting (and misses it).”
Yeah.
Many leaders often have great intentions and also often fall into the trap of “I have too many things to do” philosophy (“and people will understand I am a busy person and just couldn’t get to it”).
We judge ourselves by our intentions, but others judge us by our actions.
Lee J. Colan
Actions are where intentions hit the road. Actions behind words show integrity.
And, ultimately, leadership is about integrity. The integrity to stand by your word. If you elect to not do what you said you would do people start questioning your integrity. While intentions express a desire to do, actions express commitment. People don’t follow intentions (over time).
In order to be a leader a man must have followers. And to have followers, a man must have their confidence. Hence, the supreme quality for a leader is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office. If a man’s associates find him guilty of being phony, if they find that he lacks forthright integrity, he will fail. His teachings and actions must square with each other. The first great need therefore is integrity and high purpose.
Dwight D Eisenhower
Without trust leaders cannot meet the largest challenge of any leader – connecting the real to the possible.
Without trust you cannot get people to do what you asking them to do to fulfill this vision you have outlined.
Without trust people will become cynical.
I do find it humorous (in a sad way).
We blame today’s youth for a “what have you done for me lately” attitude but the reality is that attitude has always existed in the establishment of leadership. And their whole attitude is often driven by our (at the top) inability to follow through. Or setting odd expectations in our own heads on what those actions will mean to people.
Never, rarely or inconsistent follow through on words leads to an organization lack of trust in leadership. Only consistent follow through of words with actions symbolizes the great led organizations. And often in those same organizations you find a strong self empowerment to “do” culturally. And even more often you will find that “what have you done for me lately” group not being so vocal and actually assuming some responsibilities of their own.
Anyway.
I babbled a lot but remember this if nothing else:
“Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions. You may have a heart of gold — but so does a hard-boiled egg.”
Anonymous
Bottom line.
When you have verbalized intentions and aligned them with consistent actions people will follow. The other people in the company, people who report to you, people within the organization and your outside partners will all listen when you have something to say and come to “count on you.”
Yeah. Doing what you say you will do certainly comes with a burden. But. That burden is the price of leadership.
Oh.
One last thing on the whole “words to action” idea.
Let’s call this “the time warp” issue.
Or the “time and space star trek continuum”.
The other side of this equation resides in the doee (the one asking to have something done … oh, ‘sooooooooooo-eeEEEE!’ is what they yell at Arkansas games).
So.
Someone asks for something.
Uh oh.
Sometimes in the mind of the doee there is a star trek episode in their head where time stands still and a shitload of things happen and then the clock starts again and all that shit has been done.
The time continuum hits and the doer didn’t even know it happened.
They asked the question (with the intent of trying to make sure they could actually meet what they promised).
Doer: “Do you need it right away or can we have some time?
Doee: “oh, no rush, I can have it later. Even tomorrow is fine.”
Doer: okay. (the promise to do has been made)
Uh oh (part 2).
The difference between I can have it now and I am okay with having it later translates to hours in their head (if not minutes).
Doee: you didn’t do what you promised.
Doer: you said today (which is now tomorrow) was okay.
Doee: yes. But it almost lunch and I don’t have it.
Doer: uhm. I can have it today.
Doee: but I have to leave for lunch soon.
Doer: (thought bubble) gosh. If you hadn’t called I was half out the door myself.
I say all of this simply to say that Time is tricky in this whole math words = action equation.
The space between those two words is perceived differently by the leader (the person who generates the words) and the receiver of words (the one who heard the intentions).
And someone is gonna come rockin’ into my comments section and say “well, you need to be clear and be specific!” (and say it like there is an exclamation point at the end).
Well.
Yeah.
Sure.
I call bullshit on that.
No matter how specific or articulate you are a certain percentage of listeners will not hear exactly what you said. And that percentage grows exponentially as time slides down the slope.
What that means is the faster you tie an action to a word the more likely you are to earn trust.
That’s it.
Is that always doable? Shit no.
Just be aware.
And always remember the equation.
Words = intent. Intent = actions. Therefore words = actions. And all that = trust.
to do or not to do
Aug 26th
“most agencies are in the same boat — from big ones to two man shops. They’re in it for the money and they’re scared. Scared the client’s going to walk. And because they are afraid they compromise their principles. They are so scared of losing the business they give the customer what they think they want rather than what they know he needs. And sometimes it works — for a while. But in the end it always backfires. You lose the business anyway and you wake up one day to find you’re a prostitute. So, in the end, stick to your principles. ‘to thine ownself be true.’ 0ver 200 years old but still good advice.”
- Stephen Hawley Martin (founder of The Martin Agency)
Anyone in the service industry will read this and understand exactly what Mr. Martin is saying.
When in service business you are always trapped by “doing whatever it takes to make the customer happy” (which seems to be an insane mantra seeping through business these days) versus “what is going to make me happy” (as a business, business person, business owner).
This is not an easy answer.
I am not suggesting ignoring customers (although I do believe the tired “customer is king/queen” mantra is going a little bit too far) but at some point you draw a line.
You need to draw a line or you will go nuts.
Or just become a prostitute.
Look. Sure sometimes lines can fence you in but sometimes lines can neaten life.
Someone who draws a great line yet is focused on the customer?
Ritz Carlton.
“Ladies and gentlemen serving ladies and gentleman.” You see that everywhere in the back rooms and over back-to-front entryways at Ritz Carltons. It is their culture and their attitude and their mantra.
So.
What is the line? The moment a Ritz guest no longer acts like a ‘ladies or gentleman.’ That is their line.
Anyway.
I imagine drawing a line is about making boundaries.
And it is probably one of the hardest things in the world to do. With anything I may add.
In business? Yikes. I have been in those meetings. Especially now with the internet where one ‘declined’ customer (they don’t even have to be mistreated in any way) can reach out and impact hundreds because they weren’t allowed to join the club. How to grow your business? Whew. Of course in a recession passing on a dollar in hand is tough (heck. even in good times it is) but do you really want them as a customer?.
Think about government. Regardless of whether it is government policy on dealing with terrorists or rules of warfare. What is acceptable and what isn’t? Tough tough questions.
Personal? Personal time off in a business. Your kids and their activities. Job searches and type of job you want. Time commitments. Personal behavior.
Anyway.
Where do you draw the line?
I know I struggle with people who want it all spelled out upfront (or maybe people who live only by ‘rules’). Mostly because you invest a lot of energy and time thinking about every possibility (which could be time doing more productive things) and then lo and behold something you couldn’t have foreseen pops up. And you start discussing ‘exceptions’ (which really aren’t exceptions other than the fact someone demanded you draw a line … or a boundary).
And where does it fall on the line you have drawn. Some things are black and white but they seem to be far and few between.
The one thing that remains black & white?
Being true to thineself.
Draw the line somewhere where you can sleep well at night.
That’s the line.
monkey bars
Aug 19th
“Getting over a painful experience is like crossing monkey bars. You have to let go at some point in order to move forward.” – anonymous
So. I write a lot about moving forward and as Tupac said “at some point you just have to leave the pieces behind and move the fuck on.”
But moving forward isn’t just about walking or taking baby steps or giant leaps … sometimes it is about letting go and having faith you can find another thing to hold onto.
And, like monkey bars, it is not just once to get to the other side but a series of ‘letting gos’ to make it where you want to go.
I guess I tie ‘letting go’ to some type of suffering.
And I imagine for anyone that an important part of gaining confidence is to “let go” of suffering and have the courage to move on and be whatever person we should be (without having to hold on to that burden of suffering).
I also imagine letting go also means letting go of … well … I will call it “anger” (not sure this is the right word but let me stick with it).
A lot of times it seems some people are so filled with anger with the past … against the person or events or whatever … and feel a sense of helplessness about what to do (or for permitting it to happen in the first place).
It then sometimes seems that when this happens the anger can turn inwards and can become very self destructive and quite ‘life debilitating.’
Yeah.
Self destruction appears in many forms (we people can be quite creative in incurring self pain).
Eating disorders, drug or alcohol addiction, toxic relationships, recurring job irresponsibility or lack of performance and on and on and on. It seems everyone finds a different way to be angry and beat themselves up (in a recurring destructive behavioral pattern).
So letting go becomes complicated.
Because while there is that ‘anger’ burning inside it is embodied in some behavioral aspect. And I don’t know that they are inextricably attached. Meaning that someone could focus on the understanding they deserve better in relationships and address that but the anger still simmers inside. And vice versa.
Anyway.
Letting go isn’t simple.
In fact … exactly like the first time you try the monkey bars. It takes some faith and confidence and … well … sheer desire to just go and swing out.
“All the art of living lies in a fine mingling of letting go and holding on.“
– Havelock Ellis
So.
Here is probably the understatement of the year.
Letting go of your past is one of the hardest things anyone can ever do.
Even if it was the most painful relationship ever and you had to let go just to maintain your sanity … you will struggle with saying goodbye to the past (oddly … it seems people want to remember the few glimmers of happiness in those toxic relationships as ‘maybe it wasn’t as bad as I thought’).
Anyway.
I am not Dr. Phil and I know it ain’t easy but I have seen people do it.
I do know the most successful let go of the anger. They face up to the memories and experiences accept responsibility for mistakes in judgment, actions, whatever and let go of the anger. At the event, the circumstances, the other person … and most importantly themselves.
And letting go?
Get it out. Write. Paint. Talk. Whatever. Consider it “letters unsent.” Whatever you need to do to get what is inside somewhere outside. Surprisingly once it is out in the open for all to see it just doesn’t seem as dark and ominous and worthy of anger as it was when it was bottled up inside eating you up piece by piece.
Share. Find someone to trust with your anger. Sometimes you have to suck it up and admit it is partially about pride and just accept some humility. Yeah. This is also about vulnerability (so finding someone to trust is REALLY important). Guilt, anger, resentment, confession or fear (or any combination thereof) it needs to be shared. Similar to the first on the list this is unburdening but unburdening the thought behind the thought (and the thought behind that thought). And this is unburdening with a response mechanism.
Get out of the gray. Ok. What I mean by this is deal with the past in black & whites. If you have something to say to someone say it. Period. End of thought. No dangling participles. No questions asked. Look to finish it up with a well defined “the end” to it. Anger thrives in the gray of unresolved emotion and feelings. It festers there. Eliminate it.
Look.
The second and third I just wrote are monkey bars for sure. You are dangling by one hand and reaching for another bar and … well … there will be a moment of uncertainty and reaching.
But.
That’s the gig. That’s the deal. Letting go is the monkey bars of life.
So. In the end?
Letting go is certainly hard … and healthy.
Just be sure you don’t avoid the monkey bars because of this following thought for it would be a shame to suffer solely because it was familiar:
“People have a hard time letting go of their suffering. Out of a fear of the unknown, they prefer suffering that is familiar.”
– Thich Nhat Hanh
