Does this describe you? Sadly, it doesn't describe me. I am the goal setting, future planning type, I tend to look at what I need to do today in order to be able to reach my desired end. If I don't do today what needs to be done, I postpone the possibility of my ordered path. Plus I double up on what needs to be done the next day. But also... it was a principle (not to put off) that I was raised with so it's difficult to not have that mindset.
There's part of me that would definitely like to be a bit more 'one day at a time' type. But not enough to discard my plan. There's a type of freedom, spontaneity that comes with the one day approach. Some, not me, would call it frivolous and/or irresponsible. Personally I view this on a continuum - from highly organized to highly serendipitous (not sure that's a word but it does convey the correct attitude). Extreme on either end is not particularly ideal. A blend, merge seems to be a better stance.
I believe life should have your plan: what you'd like to do, to be, to accomplish and how you'll know if you are on your path toward success. But the plan can't be in so much cement that it can't breathe: grow, evolve, and even change. One becomes quite rudderless without a goal and without a path to attain the goal. But there are storms that cause one to veer from the primary focus. It comes as part and parcel of living.
Whether on the mountain top or in the valley, occasionally you need to stop and consider. Your path, your plan may need adjusting and the one day at a time approach encourages this. The assessment part of life typically is relegated to a form of oblivion because everyone is so involved in 'surviving'. If you are a one day at a time type, you typically wake to a discovery and determination of what to do ... in the day.
...but, what do you think?
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Noise... Communicating...
Are you listening? I've heard people complain that no one listens to them but have they stopped long enough to hear... themself? Do they ever listen to what they say? What is it they want to say that would entice others to listen? And equally important - what is so life changing or impactful that is critical or sufficiently important? Granted not everything spoken is designed to be profound. But... do we want to communicate?
My first question though is... 'how' do you listen? Do you listen to the entire statement made by the other person? Or are you forming your response based on the first half of their sentence? Be honest. We all mentally fill in the rest of the sentence for the speaker - whether or not that's where they go. But stop for a moment - how does it make you feel when it's obvious that the listener hasn't a clue about what you just said?
I wonder how many misunderstandings wouldn't have occurred if we all just allowed the other person to finish speaking before we respond.? But that's only half the problem in communication. The other part is speaking/listening with the same word understandings. Simply because we use the same words doesn't mean we use the same definitions... nor does the fact that we don't use the same words mean that we aren't saying the same thing.
The issue is noise v. communication. Noise is just saying your piece and letting the other person say theirs but going no further with it. Communication takes work! If you want the other person to understand what you want to communicate you take the time to see if they heard you and understood. And as a listener you do the same thing - discover if what you heard is what they said. It isn't a battle and the effort may stem a battle. But it truly depends on which stance you take: noise or communicating.
...but, what do you think?
My first question though is... 'how' do you listen? Do you listen to the entire statement made by the other person? Or are you forming your response based on the first half of their sentence? Be honest. We all mentally fill in the rest of the sentence for the speaker - whether or not that's where they go. But stop for a moment - how does it make you feel when it's obvious that the listener hasn't a clue about what you just said?
I wonder how many misunderstandings wouldn't have occurred if we all just allowed the other person to finish speaking before we respond.? But that's only half the problem in communication. The other part is speaking/listening with the same word understandings. Simply because we use the same words doesn't mean we use the same definitions... nor does the fact that we don't use the same words mean that we aren't saying the same thing.
The issue is noise v. communication. Noise is just saying your piece and letting the other person say theirs but going no further with it. Communication takes work! If you want the other person to understand what you want to communicate you take the time to see if they heard you and understood. And as a listener you do the same thing - discover if what you heard is what they said. It isn't a battle and the effort may stem a battle. But it truly depends on which stance you take: noise or communicating.
...but, what do you think?
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Advice
We all tend to like to give advice and we all tend to not act on the advice others give us. Yes? Yes. I'm not sure if it's the fact that we are asked for our thinking or the feeling we get when we give the advice that is the greatest pleasure. If I sound slightly skeptical... I am. I know that pontificating is not how we should present our thinking, but often that's how it appears. And you have to admit - you sometimes give advice even if it isn't sought or wanted.
Advice is always an, "... if I were in your shoes..." but it isn't. You aren't. Remember that you have limited information on which to provide advice - you don't always know those that would be affected by your advice. My suggestion (advice) is to first ask a question. Most advice giving situations are prefaced by the other person's question of what would you do in their position. So... don't assume, ask them how they would describe their 'position'. Unless you have a understanding of what the issue is and what their need is - advice is really rarely effective.
Perhaps one of the more important aspects of giving advice is remembering our own reactions when we receive the advice. 'How' we provide the advice given is critical... if we think we have the 'right' (our definition of 'only'?) answer to their situation, maybe, maybe not. You aren't always 'right' in your advice giving but you aren't always wrong either. The crucial point is remembering that it isn't your decision to act on your advice - it's theirs. And if the decision isn't theirs then there's no ownership and no responsibility.
Advice should always be given with an awareness that it is your way of thinking and acting which may not necessarily be the other person's MO. You give advice with an open hand because you can only offer your thinking. If you cause the other person to rethink then you really have accomplished the highest form of advice-giving. It IS their decision.
... but, what do you think?
Advice is always an, "... if I were in your shoes..." but it isn't. You aren't. Remember that you have limited information on which to provide advice - you don't always know those that would be affected by your advice. My suggestion (advice) is to first ask a question. Most advice giving situations are prefaced by the other person's question of what would you do in their position. So... don't assume, ask them how they would describe their 'position'. Unless you have a understanding of what the issue is and what their need is - advice is really rarely effective.
Perhaps one of the more important aspects of giving advice is remembering our own reactions when we receive the advice. 'How' we provide the advice given is critical... if we think we have the 'right' (our definition of 'only'?) answer to their situation, maybe, maybe not. You aren't always 'right' in your advice giving but you aren't always wrong either. The crucial point is remembering that it isn't your decision to act on your advice - it's theirs. And if the decision isn't theirs then there's no ownership and no responsibility.
Advice should always be given with an awareness that it is your way of thinking and acting which may not necessarily be the other person's MO. You give advice with an open hand because you can only offer your thinking. If you cause the other person to rethink then you really have accomplished the highest form of advice-giving. It IS their decision.
... but, what do you think?
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Making Memories
No, not only for yourself... with and for others. How are you involved with making memories with the closest circle in your world? And what kind of memories? I suspect a different way of saying this is, do people like to spend time with you? When you aren't there, will your presence be missed? Do you ever think about the memories you are making? Bottom line is that every day we make memories but what kind becomes the issue.
In making memories, consciously, I'm not talking about censoring your words or actions. That would be tragic. Many times it is the spontaneous reaction and interaction that create the most enduring and lasting memories. Some are funny. Some are sad. But all of them are part of your relationships. And all of them form the fabric of your memories.
Second: I'm not talking about scripting the conversation. That never works out. After you've said your part, rarely is the response the one you scripted. This is especially true when you are 'correcting' someone. Often your truth is not the one they understand so your script is irrelevant. And, if you don't listen to their response and assume they will be saying what you scripted for them, you will be in for a bit of a surprise. Now you have to throw your script out and engage on the basis of their comments.
Most memories are interactions between you and someone else. Do they reflect who you are and what you believe? They should. You don't start out the day saying that you are going to make a notable memory today. It's only on reflection, typically at the end of the day, that you see the memory you have made. Memories are dear. They will either make you smile or grimace.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
In making memories, consciously, I'm not talking about censoring your words or actions. That would be tragic. Many times it is the spontaneous reaction and interaction that create the most enduring and lasting memories. Some are funny. Some are sad. But all of them are part of your relationships. And all of them form the fabric of your memories.
Second: I'm not talking about scripting the conversation. That never works out. After you've said your part, rarely is the response the one you scripted. This is especially true when you are 'correcting' someone. Often your truth is not the one they understand so your script is irrelevant. And, if you don't listen to their response and assume they will be saying what you scripted for them, you will be in for a bit of a surprise. Now you have to throw your script out and engage on the basis of their comments.
Most memories are interactions between you and someone else. Do they reflect who you are and what you believe? They should. You don't start out the day saying that you are going to make a notable memory today. It's only on reflection, typically at the end of the day, that you see the memory you have made. Memories are dear. They will either make you smile or grimace.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Security
On your 'qualities' needs list, where is security? Obviously the answer is related to how secure you feel? And if you respond with... it depends on the subject, that's a legitimate reply. But, for yourself, as an overall analysis - how secure are you? Obviously if you don't feel secure - safe, then this becomes a higher priority. If you do feel 'safe' then you don't particularly think about this. Security though is more than mere safety from outside threats, it also means, according to Webster, freedom from fear or anxiety. And this last definition typically results in a much higher ranking.
When we consider security, we discover that much of this is intangible rather than the tangible aspects. When we look at the intangible areas we must also look at what we place our trust in to keep us safe. And now the issue of security begins to be complicated. It's the interconnectiveness that makes for complication and this defines 'secure'. There is always a minimum level of 'safe' that has to exist for us to be able to live and not spend all our energy on trying to create a safety net.
Our level of security forms our foundation. The more secure we feel, the more we are embolden to risk. Without a safe fallback position, our risk becomes constrained. The balance between safe and risky is always tenuous... but it does add spice and adventure. You really can't live your life on only one side of this teeter totter. Everyone needs times of both.
Safe and secure is a state of mind as much as it is a state of being and it is always relative and individualized. But this doesn't make the issue of security any less important. Everyone needs to be able to 'feel' secure from outside threats while realizing that they always exist. We tend to make a form of 'peace treaty' with our idealized safe and the acceptable level of safe. 'Safe' allows us a freedom to be and do.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe
When we consider security, we discover that much of this is intangible rather than the tangible aspects. When we look at the intangible areas we must also look at what we place our trust in to keep us safe. And now the issue of security begins to be complicated. It's the interconnectiveness that makes for complication and this defines 'secure'. There is always a minimum level of 'safe' that has to exist for us to be able to live and not spend all our energy on trying to create a safety net.
Our level of security forms our foundation. The more secure we feel, the more we are embolden to risk. Without a safe fallback position, our risk becomes constrained. The balance between safe and risky is always tenuous... but it does add spice and adventure. You really can't live your life on only one side of this teeter totter. Everyone needs times of both.
Safe and secure is a state of mind as much as it is a state of being and it is always relative and individualized. But this doesn't make the issue of security any less important. Everyone needs to be able to 'feel' secure from outside threats while realizing that they always exist. We tend to make a form of 'peace treaty' with our idealized safe and the acceptable level of safe. 'Safe' allows us a freedom to be and do.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Hidden Agenda(s)
I believe that we all operate on the basis of our hidden agendas... sometimes hidden even from our conscious self. Agendas are good as long as they are properly (my definition) used. Hidden agendas, on the other hand, are typically not good as they are manipulative and self promoting. The primary reason I say they are not good is ... if they were positive why the need to hide?
Yet, I do believe we all consciously or not have and operate on hidden agendas. Why? To suggest that they really aren't 'bad' begs the question. Why do we keep them hidden? Undoubtedly part of the reason is that on some level we believe them to be somewhat self promoting and thus not necessarily 'acceptable' to others. Since you wouldn't want to spend your talent, time, energy, etc. to promote someone else, why would anyone do the same for you' thinking.
I would suggest that the other reason we have hidden agendas is that though they may not be totally 'illegal' or immoral, they are tinged with sneakiness and hovering close to the illegal/immoral line. Or maybe we just aren't completely convinced in our own mind that they are positive.??? Or maybe you are completely convinced that this is the best way to proceed, legal or not.
Being 'hidden' provides you a safe distance if it blows up - deniable culpability. You do realize that if you are not responsible for the disaster, how can you claim the accolade for the success?! A hidden agenda is really a double edged sword. Hidden agendas also require a great deal of work - far more than if everyone was aware. You have to subtly convince and adjust others to the approach without seeming to be involved. Actually... in the final analysis hidden agendas are a lose-lose.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
Yet, I do believe we all consciously or not have and operate on hidden agendas. Why? To suggest that they really aren't 'bad' begs the question. Why do we keep them hidden? Undoubtedly part of the reason is that on some level we believe them to be somewhat self promoting and thus not necessarily 'acceptable' to others. Since you wouldn't want to spend your talent, time, energy, etc. to promote someone else, why would anyone do the same for you' thinking.
I would suggest that the other reason we have hidden agendas is that though they may not be totally 'illegal' or immoral, they are tinged with sneakiness and hovering close to the illegal/immoral line. Or maybe we just aren't completely convinced in our own mind that they are positive.??? Or maybe you are completely convinced that this is the best way to proceed, legal or not.
Being 'hidden' provides you a safe distance if it blows up - deniable culpability. You do realize that if you are not responsible for the disaster, how can you claim the accolade for the success?! A hidden agenda is really a double edged sword. Hidden agendas also require a great deal of work - far more than if everyone was aware. You have to subtly convince and adjust others to the approach without seeming to be involved. Actually... in the final analysis hidden agendas are a lose-lose.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
Sunday, July 15, 2012
...found wanting
Have you ever been concerned that in the last analysis what will be said of you is... found wanting? Though I doubt this is true, if you believe this as an accurate assessment - what are you willing to do to change it? Or are you simply going to sit in your self loathing stew? Yes, that was harsh but the question is still valid. What do you want to do, be that would improve your status?
Many, if not most, Christians get caught in the trap of trying to 'prove' themselves. This often gets translated into doing something 'major' (rarely defined) or 'visible' (to whom?) that demonstrates their Christianity. Unfortunately many give up because they don't feel 'called' to the (professional) ministry to be a Pastor or Missionary and they don't know what to do 'instead'. While they are bemoaning their inadequacy they also aren't seeing what they can be and do.
Actually, to my thinking the hardest of all is the daily Christian walk - without fanfare, without accolades, and often - without notice. I would suggest that if you wake in the morning with the mindset to be the best you that you can be in the day, that this becomes the start of your daily walk. Certainly it includes prayer and study but it's also being aware of those around you that you can encourage or help.
If, at the end of the day, you can review and know that you've done all you could have and been true to who you are - the day's been successful! It doesn't mean that you've made no mistakes, but it does say that when/if you do, you take responsibility and correct it, including apologizing when you were wrong. It includes appreciating those in your world during the day and the life you are leading. ALL of that requires courage and the willingness to learn new things, meet new people, enjoy all the gifts you've received. Rejoice in how you are being led by the Lord. You're not found wanting... you simply may not be seeing correctly.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
Many, if not most, Christians get caught in the trap of trying to 'prove' themselves. This often gets translated into doing something 'major' (rarely defined) or 'visible' (to whom?) that demonstrates their Christianity. Unfortunately many give up because they don't feel 'called' to the (professional) ministry to be a Pastor or Missionary and they don't know what to do 'instead'. While they are bemoaning their inadequacy they also aren't seeing what they can be and do.
Actually, to my thinking the hardest of all is the daily Christian walk - without fanfare, without accolades, and often - without notice. I would suggest that if you wake in the morning with the mindset to be the best you that you can be in the day, that this becomes the start of your daily walk. Certainly it includes prayer and study but it's also being aware of those around you that you can encourage or help.
If, at the end of the day, you can review and know that you've done all you could have and been true to who you are - the day's been successful! It doesn't mean that you've made no mistakes, but it does say that when/if you do, you take responsibility and correct it, including apologizing when you were wrong. It includes appreciating those in your world during the day and the life you are leading. ALL of that requires courage and the willingness to learn new things, meet new people, enjoy all the gifts you've received. Rejoice in how you are being led by the Lord. You're not found wanting... you simply may not be seeing correctly.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Diluted Testimony
Do you dilute your testimony? The reason...??? possibly so that it may be more palatable for others? If so then you are diluting the potential, the power of your words and actions, of your experience. But far worse... you are diluting that which you are testifying about. Ask yourself the simple question of would you be enticed to learn more after listening to you?
Diluting rarely produces the effect you are wanting or seeking. Far more often it is nothing more than diminishing what you believe, what you say, what you do in other people's eyes. Powerlessness is not something that people will follow, most are trying to escape from that. And if you are diluting your testimony then does your life reflect a diluted life change? If so then you fall perilously close to the warning given in Revelations about being neither hot or cold. That's not a spiritual condition that should be followed.
Repeating my question - would anyone be interested in discovering more and following a powerless idea or person? Of course you wouldn't so why would you present the idea/person in an adulterated or weakened state? And if you are so concerned about how you would be 'judged' what message does it give to others that what you are testifying about is so meaningless?
Your testimony is potentially powerful. If it 'speaks' to only one listener and if you never find out the impact of your testimony... if it doesn't display the depth and breadth of how you felt, what change occurred for you and how you walk this out daily... then you really deny the testimony. Remember that your testimony isn't focusing on you but on Who made the impact and how you've been changed. Any time you dilute, you deny. And that would be unfortunate. I realize this sounds dire - it is.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
Diluting rarely produces the effect you are wanting or seeking. Far more often it is nothing more than diminishing what you believe, what you say, what you do in other people's eyes. Powerlessness is not something that people will follow, most are trying to escape from that. And if you are diluting your testimony then does your life reflect a diluted life change? If so then you fall perilously close to the warning given in Revelations about being neither hot or cold. That's not a spiritual condition that should be followed.
Repeating my question - would anyone be interested in discovering more and following a powerless idea or person? Of course you wouldn't so why would you present the idea/person in an adulterated or weakened state? And if you are so concerned about how you would be 'judged' what message does it give to others that what you are testifying about is so meaningless?
Your testimony is potentially powerful. If it 'speaks' to only one listener and if you never find out the impact of your testimony... if it doesn't display the depth and breadth of how you felt, what change occurred for you and how you walk this out daily... then you really deny the testimony. Remember that your testimony isn't focusing on you but on Who made the impact and how you've been changed. Any time you dilute, you deny. And that would be unfortunate. I realize this sounds dire - it is.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Original
Have you ever considered that anyone else attempting to be you would come in a very poor second? If so... or if not, then consider that if you are trying to be/act like someone else you are a very poor second of them? It's true - it's only the original of whatever/whoever it is that makes the perfect... them. And if you aren't enjoying your originality, rather than imitating someone else, what is it you want (need?) to be you?
Actually I'm of the mindset that once a person comes into this world, regardless of their 'how', the mold is broken - it's totally impossible to have a second one. And that includes identical twins - each one is slightly different from the other. So why would you ever try and duplicate someone else? You've not walked in their shoes - felt their joys and pains, successes and not, etc. - how could you be them? You can't! No matter how 'great' they are, regardless - you won't, can't be them.
You can always admire another person... how they present themself to the 'world'- but unless you experienced everything that person has and reacted in precisely the same way - you will never be who they are. But why would you want to? If there are qualities that are part of who they are then this you can cultivate in your style. To accomplish this you will have to know what the quality is, why you'd want to emulate it, and develop it into your personal frame of reference.
Personally I've always like that I'm an original - the only one that's precisely me. It's not that I'm perfect but this gives me a foundation to grow, to change, to develop. I've always lived with me, albeit not always comfortably, but 'I' know what and where I need to grow, change, develop. If I'm trying to imitate someone else then I'm not involved with improving me. Remember, it's you, your originality that brings something unique to the situation - no one can bring/be what you can. Original is terrific.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
Actually I'm of the mindset that once a person comes into this world, regardless of their 'how', the mold is broken - it's totally impossible to have a second one. And that includes identical twins - each one is slightly different from the other. So why would you ever try and duplicate someone else? You've not walked in their shoes - felt their joys and pains, successes and not, etc. - how could you be them? You can't! No matter how 'great' they are, regardless - you won't, can't be them.
You can always admire another person... how they present themself to the 'world'- but unless you experienced everything that person has and reacted in precisely the same way - you will never be who they are. But why would you want to? If there are qualities that are part of who they are then this you can cultivate in your style. To accomplish this you will have to know what the quality is, why you'd want to emulate it, and develop it into your personal frame of reference.
Personally I've always like that I'm an original - the only one that's precisely me. It's not that I'm perfect but this gives me a foundation to grow, to change, to develop. I've always lived with me, albeit not always comfortably, but 'I' know what and where I need to grow, change, develop. If I'm trying to imitate someone else then I'm not involved with improving me. Remember, it's you, your originality that brings something unique to the situation - no one can bring/be what you can. Original is terrific.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
Friday, July 6, 2012
PaNic!
How do you handle panic? Do you panic easily, swept along by the behavior of those around you? Do you add to the panic or are you a calming force? Or... are you the source of the panic? Panic in others many times takes us by surprise and our response is often in direct proportion to the displayed panic. Our own panic is typically reactive. But... do you react or do you assess first? If you're like most, the answer is - panic.
And panic accomplishes...? Right! Absolutely nothing. Other than adding to the ensuing chaos. There may be a perfectly logical reason to panic but not until you know the facts (and potential resolutions). If the panic is a reasonable response then I would suggest that your responsibility is to not panic and to provide 'cooler heads'. If there's a reason to panic then safety (however that is defined in this particular situation) needs to be the focus. ...however. Panic rarely is logical. And, I would suggest, rarely a response that will respond to resolution.
But, if panicking is not the best response... what can you do? ... especially if everyone around you is panicking. Surprisingly, a calming 'force' does help. Someone who is able to calm other's fears will emerge as the current leader. Because there is nothing more effective than a person who appears to know what to do to resolve the current issue/problem. This typically needs to be accompanied by specific action not just intellectual thought.
Panic does not need to control the situation in which you find yourself. It really is your choice... even if you don't have all the answers. You know the other participants and their abilities, you can see the situation - therefore, you are able to construct, at least, the beginning steps toward resolution. Actually... simply bringing calm to the situation is the best response to - PaNic!
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
And panic accomplishes...? Right! Absolutely nothing. Other than adding to the ensuing chaos. There may be a perfectly logical reason to panic but not until you know the facts (and potential resolutions). If the panic is a reasonable response then I would suggest that your responsibility is to not panic and to provide 'cooler heads'. If there's a reason to panic then safety (however that is defined in this particular situation) needs to be the focus. ...however. Panic rarely is logical. And, I would suggest, rarely a response that will respond to resolution.
But, if panicking is not the best response... what can you do? ... especially if everyone around you is panicking. Surprisingly, a calming 'force' does help. Someone who is able to calm other's fears will emerge as the current leader. Because there is nothing more effective than a person who appears to know what to do to resolve the current issue/problem. This typically needs to be accompanied by specific action not just intellectual thought.
Panic does not need to control the situation in which you find yourself. It really is your choice... even if you don't have all the answers. You know the other participants and their abilities, you can see the situation - therefore, you are able to construct, at least, the beginning steps toward resolution. Actually... simply bringing calm to the situation is the best response to - PaNic!
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Determined!
Are you the detemined type or the wishy washy type? When you set out to do something, do you follow through and do it? Or... when things start to get hard, do you abandon whatever you were pursuing? How you approach 'determined' and how you handle any obstacles that emerge says a great deal about your character.
I would never suggest pursuing, simply for the sake of pursuing, but once started how do you respond to obstacles. Did you consider in advance that they would emerge? Did they blindside you? And once they have made their presence known - what do you do? It is dependent upon if this is a solo effort or if others are involved as well. But should numbers be the determining factor? Or... the goal?
Obviously I would put the emphasis on 'goal'. If you have miscalculated then you need to let those who are/will be impacted know as soon as you do. If a 'cut your losses' becomes the only logical response to the obstacles, try not to be the first off the boat and into the life rafts. You do have a responsibility. But if this isn't the reality and you can continue, is the obstacle going to dilute your determination?
Determination in my world of definitions is a strong word and one that provides a foundation for continued actions. Webster describes the word as much as it defines: the act of deciding definitely and firmly; firm or fixed intention to achieve a desired end; resoluteness. Those are strong words, precisely why, prior to starting action toward any goal accomplishment, that you should 'determine' whether determined is your attitude.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
I would never suggest pursuing, simply for the sake of pursuing, but once started how do you respond to obstacles. Did you consider in advance that they would emerge? Did they blindside you? And once they have made their presence known - what do you do? It is dependent upon if this is a solo effort or if others are involved as well. But should numbers be the determining factor? Or... the goal?
Obviously I would put the emphasis on 'goal'. If you have miscalculated then you need to let those who are/will be impacted know as soon as you do. If a 'cut your losses' becomes the only logical response to the obstacles, try not to be the first off the boat and into the life rafts. You do have a responsibility. But if this isn't the reality and you can continue, is the obstacle going to dilute your determination?
Determination in my world of definitions is a strong word and one that provides a foundation for continued actions. Webster describes the word as much as it defines: the act of deciding definitely and firmly; firm or fixed intention to achieve a desired end; resoluteness. Those are strong words, precisely why, prior to starting action toward any goal accomplishment, that you should 'determine' whether determined is your attitude.
...but, what do you think? what do you believe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)