Top Tags

Tag spectrum

End Game Analysis: Relationship Spectrum

This article, and the articles that follow analyze my thoughts on what I am calling my “end game.” You can read more about this concept here.

In my Connectedness post, I highlighted the importance of staying reasonably connected with others when one’s primary energy is focused on challenging work. Maintaining a balance between the two contexts can improve the quality of both.

Unfortunately, not every connection will result in a positive experience or outcome. Hence, it is very important to consider the use of “early warning systems” and boundaries to enable one to continue to stay reasonably connected regardless of the participant “mix.”

Thus, it’s worth exploring another spectrum, one that I have traveled along and gained experience from. Let’s call this the “relationship spectrum.”

At one end of this spectrum is naive openness, where one’s relationship with others places no restriction on the types of people or the relationships themselves. All advice and opinions are weighted equally regardless of source, and there is little-to-no “post-processing” done before acting upon such advice. All behaviors are tolerated.

At the far end of this spectrum is complete isolation and containment. Here, all relationships are discouraged, and the concept of “post-processing” has little to no meaning given that advice is neither sought nor recognized. All behavior is absent.

These are extreme positions.

Without an appropriate understanding or management of this spectrum, one can find themselves needlessly vacillating. This pattern of behavior, if left unchecked, can result in a cascade of poor decisions, the outcome of which can be difficult to unwind.

In my next post, I’ll talk about “minding the gap” via a comprehensive understanding of what lies between these two positions, and a starting point for defining a set of operating principles to maintain perspective and a positive outlook.

A Mind Forever Voyaging I.

One of the challenges I’m facing now is assessing where to focus my creative and intellectual energy, both in the short and long-term.

While this statement makes it appear I am absent of direction, this is incorrect. My journey over the past four years, documented within Territories and Incubator, has ultimately established a new operating foundation for my personal and professional lives.  On the flip side, this increased awareness has also introduced some level of uncertainty with respect to the next course of action.

Over the course of my career, I’ve tended to use the phrase “foundation” as a way for me to maintain a high sense of humility and to continuously reset a logical “starting point” so that I can advance with greater depth and efficacy.

Looking at this phrase from an alternative perspective, while a foundation is essential for continuous growth, remaining at this foundation can be potentially limiting.

I use the word “limiting” to describe several things.

The first is that one’s future is largely based upon one’s belief system.  If you choose to believe that you are always operating at a “foundation” level, it’s unlikely that you’ll also see that you have moved well beyond this foundation and are capable of much more.

The second is that building a foundation that spans beyond the norm (i.e. a foundation exhibiting greater breadth vs. depth within any particular topic) allows one to operate in many areas, but can ultimately limit one’s potential along any one particular path.

I’ve reached a point in my career where I’ve labeled myself a “solutions builder” first and foremost, followed immediately by “designer” and “technologist;” the latter two ranked in no particular order.  I am comfortable with this self-imposed labeling right now, but question its long-term validity.

The challenge that I am facing now is determining where I fit within a fabricated specialization/generalization spectrum, and whether that placement is the best fit for long-term success.

What do I truly wish to become and how do I get there?