hopelesshappiness.com

When a breach is exposed, do we have a responsibility to see it? To shine a light and poke around? Search for what may have slipped through? Or are we better to let sleeping dogs die? And if not yet an actual breach, what is our responsibility to the potential? Do I look for cracks? Do I intentionally widen small cracks thus forcing power to see, in hope of repair and closure? Or by widening cracks, am I labeled an alarmist and do I lose credibility? In theory a breach is a breach. But what then if decisions are made (above my pay grade) to ignore the crack? To maintain status quo? To forego any search and rescue? Even if increased diligence results, is this enough?

This past week at work, in a new position, a potential breach introduced itself. At first management discouraged me from poking around because “it really isn’t our job.” It was not the way things had always been done. I took initiative and started poking around anyway. And in my role as alarmist, I found multiple alarming examples of neglect; or worse. And once the wanton disregard was exposed, management was suddenly on board. In the context of the circumstance, there were casualties; people got hurt. Search and rescue will be a delicate, difficult operation. In theory a breach is a breach. Yet here in the early stages, I have the impression that I am the proverbial messenger.

There are parallels. Look at our nation (work) and our government (management). We have a long history in which wanton disregard begets wanton disregard. So many have slipped through the cracks. So many inequities in housing, healthcare, childcare, education; too many to really, adequately count. And perhaps this is why we allow management (our government) to ignore the cracks, forego search and rescue, claim that efforts are underway, maintain status quo. We are overwhelmed. We are accustomed. We are complicit.

System: (paraphrased from dictionary.com) – “an ordered, comprehensive, coordinated body of methods and/or a plan of procedure and/or a program of action.”

A system is created and put in place to accomplish an objective; so to create a system one must first grasp the objective. Nothing new. Per Stephen Covey, “begin with the end in mind.” But too often we conjure a system from the magic of past success with little or no consideration for present and future dissimilarities, resources, and/or circumstance, much less any new and/or evolving objectives. Complex systems are required to accomplish multiple, layered objectives.

In the workplace, I have observed the following, sometimes overlapping (categories of) systems utilized by individuals or workgroups to attain objectives:

• Do what I am told, (when I have to).
• Do it the way we have always done it.
• Willingly follow direction with a sense of responsibility.
• Squeaky wheel / put out fires / distracted / unfocused.
• Understand objectives working within a strict adherence to existing, approved, (often outdated) policy and procedure.
• Good intentions / possibly open to suggestions / rely on knowledge / rest on laurels.
• Understand objectives, listen attentively to stakeholders, and work to improve.
• Prolific uncertainty.

Prolificity and Prolific Uncertainty:

To be complete, prolificity must be more than productivity – (think of a prolific bureaucrat); it must also be fruitful, (i.e., good, beneficial). To be fruitful in one's efforts to be prolific one must also be thoughtful, one must doubt and question, one must evolve, learn, grow, and one must work to be prescient. This prolific uncertainty emphasizes quality over quantity; reason over acclaim. (8/5/23)

I want to believe, if given the opportunity, many (perhaps most) individuals and (especially) groups would gravitate toward prolific uncertainty. Unfortunately wielded power often squelches actual, beneficial progress and improvement by requiring one of the less flexible, less ordered, less comprehensive systems. Yet within a lesser system, I believe one should still thoughtfully (and according to circumstance, respectfully) doubt and question in order to personally evolve, learn, grow, and enhance the potential for Good. When one is trapped in a sucking spiral of sluggish buoyancy, one can choose to not suck.

According to Life, to be a nobody or to be a somebody (and each point in-between) is determined by one’s influence. But it appears to me that I have no influence outside context and circumstance.

Context includes:

• A Job.
• A Family.
• An Organization.
• An Association.
• An Event.

Circumstance is individual and subject to changing and different interpretations.

According to Life, when I am a part of something, when I belong to something, I am somebody. When I am alone, truly alone, I am nobody.

Sign seen in Buckner, Missouri: “First Baptist Church – A Place to Belong.”

I want to turn it upside down and claim to be somebody only when nobody (me), is influenced. Nobody (me) = nobody else. If you think about it, when another is influenced they are only influenced within context and circumstance meaning they are not influenced by me, they are influenced by the results of my influence on context and circumstance meaning I am a somebody diluted by being at least twice removed, once by context then by circumstance. So, I am less of a somebody within context and circumstance than I will ever be within me; when I am alone; truly alone. Yet I believe in the illusion, and everyone within the context and circumstance believes in the illusion, and we all want to belong.

According to Life, the less of a somebody one is, the more they are undervalued; most especially by a bigger somebody. But by turning it upside down, by defying the illusion, it is obvious these labels do not define the individual; they define context and circumstance according to Life. Yet, still, according to Life:

• I am defined by my job.
• I am defined by the concerts, sporting events, rallies, festivals I attend.
• I am defined by the movies and shows that I watch, by the books that I read, by the food establishments I frequent.
• I am defined by my associations, affiliations, and memberships.
• I am defined by the clothes that I wear, the car that I drive, the house and neighborhood where I live, the money I earn, the money I have, the money I appear to have.
• I am defined by my shadow.

And because we are all within all this context and circumstance, and because we want to belong, we buy into the illusion and we believe and we act accordingly. The problem with this is not so much the lesser somebodies understanding who they are (or more appropriately who they are not), the problem is the bigger somebodies constantly reminding us that we are not so they can continue to believe that they are. It. Is. An. Illusion.

But by turning it upside down, by defying the illusion, I am a somebody; invisible, yes, but still an actual somebody as opposed to the parading pretense seen within context and circumstance.

The illusion is unavoidable. I will continue to find myself in the parade, caught up in the beat of the drum, (mostly) in tune and in step. And I will continue to be defined according to an illusion.

According to the Mayo Clinic, those who have narcissistic personality disorder can:

• “Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
• Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration.
• Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it.
• Exaggerate achievements and talents.
• Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate.
• Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people.
• Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior.
• Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations.
• Take advantage of others to get what they want.
• Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others.
• Be envious of others and believe others envy them.
• Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious.
• Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office.”

I believe narcissistic personality disorder has become so much the norm, so pervasive, so prevalent that it also commonly afflicts larger entities and organizations including:

• Human Resources.
• Management.
• The Republican Party.
• The Democratic Party.
• The Legislative Branch.
• The Executive Branch.
• The Judicial Branch.
• Organized Religion.
• Health Care.
• The United States of America.

This is far from a complete list.

I am expected by more powerful NPD's to be happy taking care of my piece of our plateau. And I do a good job; clearing, cutting, trimming, keeping it looking nice. There's a nice view and people like to visit. Our reviews from visitors are solid. The problem for me is I no more than get one section trimmed and looking nice when another section is threatening unruliness. So I move on, and again, and again. Meanwhile, the more powerful NPD's look down upon my work and congratulate themselves on keeping their visitors happy, not noticing and/or ignoring the prickly undergrowth around the perimeter and the ominous overgrowth stretching above our plateaunic oasis and the slippery erosion just beneath the surface.

There is work that could and should be done. I prefer a path with possibility over a plot of land to maintain.

I have one more week on our pleasant plateau before I take a new path up the hill.

Finesse: “skill in handling a difficult or sensitive situation; adroit and artful management.”

Heavy-handed: “oppressive, harsh, clumsy, graceless.”

Hands-off: “characterized by nonintervention or noninterference.”

I would argue that any situation involving interaction with another already is, or has a strong potential for being, difficult or sensitive.

When interacting with heavy-handed, one tends toward hands-off.

When interacting with hands-off, one tends toward heavy-handed.

In a multi-player game when caught in-between, one learns finesse.

So if it is a horizontal spectrum from 0 to 100 with heavy-handed to the right, hands-off to the left, and finesse at 50, where is power?

When interacting with greater power, one tends toward hands-off.

When interacting with lesser power, one tends toward heavy-handed.

When interacting with greater power that tends toward hands-off, one learns finesse.

When interacting with lesser power that tends toward heavy-handed, one learns finesse.

Power is two spectrums of the same length forming an X, both intersecting the finesse line at 50 (all lines 60 degrees apart) with greater power above and lesser power below the horizontal.

No good comes from an interaction between heavy-handed and heavy-handed.

Nothing comes from an interaction between hands-off and hands-off.

Improvement or progress from an interaction between heavy-handed and hands-off depends on proximity to finesse.

A level-playing-field requires finesse.

Power tilts a playing-field.

Heavy-handed tilts a playing-field.

Hands-off tilts a playing-field.

When interacting on a level-playing-field, much is possible.

Very, very, very, very few playing-fields are truly level.

Perhaps instead of going into a situation with or without power, heavy-handed, or hands-off, one should practice finesse.

One should excel at finesse.

So does this mean that to help finesse along, when I interact with greater power I should tilt toward heavy-handed and when I interact with lesser power I should tilt toward hands-off?

Yes; gradually until power becomes a non-factor.

Though (in my experience) very unlikely, if/when power becomes a non-factor, finesse becomes not only more possible but likely.

Multi-player finesse is necessary for improvement or progress beyond baby-steps.

There is no finesse in literal interpretation.

This week when I gave my current department two weeks' notice they had difficulty understanding why I would make a lateral move when I have been fussing about pay for more than two years. According to their yardstick, pay, I am an average employee (recently promoted from below average) compared to those in the same position. Utilizing that same yardstick I am moving to a department where I will be a top-paid employee in a lesser position. For me pay is not about pay, it is about justice. And I believe my performance consistently warrants top pay, (which I am now receiving), though I did not get a pay raise. Justice. I was never asking for money; I was asking for justice. And I was only asking for personal justice in a circumstance where I could compare apples to apples. Don't get me started on the injustice of the power-driven, heavy-handed wealth gap.

Justice requires finesse.