The difference between us and Joe, I make assumptions about your demeanour here but I think I’m right, is that Joe is incredibly differential and diplomatic in most situations. At least I would have handled it… differently. It’s good to have one heavily earth tethered human in a marriage. 🤦🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️😬😅
The bartender's compliment in response to your generous assumption (or rather willingness to withhold judgment) about the divorced researcher aligns neatly with a principal of leadership that has been solidifying in my perspective for my whole career. The principal is that the most important thing that leaders do is facilitate the possibility of both thriving and contribution, and the most important first aspect in this is to not damage or harm people with the potentially very harmful social and institutional power they wield (thus the importance of withholding judgment). The most important second aspect is that they intervene when the powerful social and institutional system is actively damaging or harming people (I wrote about that here: https://soundingslightlyoff.substack.com/p/real-leaders-intervene)
It might sound obvious, but I feel like it's contrary to how many people view leadership, as a practice of only making judgment calls and taking action. I have had too many leaders who would have benefitted the organization and team and individuals more by withholding judgment and taking no action (wu wei).
Life is hard and there are some assholes out there!
The difference between us and Joe, I make assumptions about your demeanour here but I think I’m right, is that Joe is incredibly differential and diplomatic in most situations. At least I would have handled it… differently. It’s good to have one heavily earth tethered human in a marriage. 🤦🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️😬😅
Steve's got a few tricks up his sleeve in these kinds of situations 😉(https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ashole-whisperer-how-talk-toxic-leaders3-series-steve-gladis-ph-d--x48oe)
Ha! Of course I’m going to read this!
The bartender's compliment in response to your generous assumption (or rather willingness to withhold judgment) about the divorced researcher aligns neatly with a principal of leadership that has been solidifying in my perspective for my whole career. The principal is that the most important thing that leaders do is facilitate the possibility of both thriving and contribution, and the most important first aspect in this is to not damage or harm people with the potentially very harmful social and institutional power they wield (thus the importance of withholding judgment). The most important second aspect is that they intervene when the powerful social and institutional system is actively damaging or harming people (I wrote about that here: https://soundingslightlyoff.substack.com/p/real-leaders-intervene)
It might sound obvious, but I feel like it's contrary to how many people view leadership, as a practice of only making judgment calls and taking action. I have had too many leaders who would have benefitted the organization and team and individuals more by withholding judgment and taking no action (wu wei).