Daring Greatly Part 7

One issue that made these interviews some of the most difficult was the honesty with which people spoke about the struggles in their personal lives-dealing with high-risk behaviors, divorces, disconnection, loneliness, addiction, anger, exhaustion. But rather than seeing these behaviors and negative outcomes as consequences of their Viking-or-Victim worldview, they perceived them as evidence of the harsh win-or-lose nature of life.

When I look at the statistics in more vulnerability-intolerant Viking-or-Victim professions, I see a dangerous pattern developing. And no place is this more evident than in the military. The statistics on post-traumatic-stress-related suicides, violence, addiction, and risk-taking all point to this haunting truth: For soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, coming home is more lethal than being in combat. From the invasion of Afghanistan to the summer of 2009, the US military lost 761 soldiers in combat in that country. Compare that to the 817 who took their own lives over the same period. And this number doesn't account for deaths related to violence, high-risk behaviors, and addiction.

Craig Bryan, a University of Texas psychologist and suicide expert who recently left the air force, told Time magazine that the military finds itself in a catch-22: "We train our warriors to use controlled violence and aggression, to suppress strong emotional reactions in the face of adversity, to tolerate physical and emotional pain, and to overcome the fear of injury and death. These qualities are also a.s.sociated with increased risk for suicide." Bryan then explained that the military can't decrease the intensity of that conditioning "without negatively affecting the fighting capability of our military." And he gave chilling expression to the inherent danger of looking at the world through the Viking-or-Victim lens for those in the military when he noted, "Service members are, simply put, more capable of killing themselves by sheer consequence of their professional training." The situation may be at its most extreme in the military, but if you look at the mental and physical health statistics of police officers, you'll find the same thing.

The same holds true in organizations-when we lead, teach, or preach from a gospel of Viking or Victim, win or lose, we crush faith, innovation, creativity, and adaptability to change. Take away the guns, in fact, and we find outcomes similar to those for soldiers and police in corporate America. Lawyers-an example of a profession largely trained in win or lose, succeed or fail-have outcomes that aren't much better. The American Bar a.s.sociation reports that suicides among lawyers are close to four times greater than the rate of the general population. An American Bar a.s.sociation Journal article reported that experts on lawyer depression and substance abuse attributed the higher suicide rate to lawyers' perfectionism and on their need to be aggressive and emotionally detached. And this mentality can trickle down into our home lives as well. When we teach or model to our children that vulnerability is dangerous and should be pushed away, we lead them directly into danger and disconnection.

The Viking or Victim armor doesn't just perpetuate behaviors such as dominance, control, and power over folks who see themselves as Vikings, it can also perpetuate a sense of ongoing victimhood for people who constantly struggle with the idea that they're being targeted or unfairly treated. With this lens, there are only two possible positions that people can occupy-power over or powerless. In the interviews I heard many partic.i.p.ants sound resigned to Victim simply because they didn't want to become the only alternative in their opinion-Vikings. Reducing our life options to such limited and extreme roles leaves very little hope for transformation and meaningful change. I think that's why there's often a sense of desperation and feeling "boxed in" around this perspective.

DARING GREATLY: REDEFINING SUCCESS, REINTEGRATING VULNERABILITY, AND SEEKING SUPPORT.

To examine how the research partic.i.p.ants moved from Viking or Victim to engaging in vulnerability, there was a clear distinction between those who operated from this belief system because it's what they learned or it's a value they hold, and those who rely on this life lens as a result of trauma. Ultimately the question that best challenges the logic behind Viking or Victim for both groups is this: How are you defining success?

It turns out that in this win-or-lose, succeed-or-fail paradigm, Vikings are not victorious by any metric that most of us would label "success." Survival or winning may be success in the midst of compet.i.tion, combat, or trauma, but when the immediacy of that threat is removed, merely surviving is not living. As I mentioned earlier, love and belonging are irreducible needs of men, women, and children, and love and belonging are impossible to experience without vulnerability. Living without connection-without knowing love and belonging-is not victory. Fear and scarcity fuel the Viking-or-Victim approach and part of reintegrating vulnerability means examining shame triggers; what's fueling the win-or-lose fear? The men and women who made the shift from this paradigm to Wholeheartedness all talked about cultivating trust and connection in relationships as a prerequisite for trying on a less-combative way of engaging with the world.

As far as connection and the military is concerned, I'm not advocating for a kinder, gentler fighting force-I understand the realities faced by nations and the soldiers who protect them. What I am advocating is a kinder, gentler public, one willing to embrace, support, and reach out to the men and women we pay to be invulnerable on our behalf. Are we willing to reach out and connect?

A great example of how connection can heal and transform is the work being done by Team Red, White and Blue (TeamRWB.org). According to their mission statement, they believe the most effective way to impact a veteran's life is through a meaningful relationship with someone in their community. Their program pairs wounded veterans with local volunteers. Together, they share meals, attend the veteran's medical appointments, go to local sporting events, and engage in other social activities. This interaction allows veterans to grow in their community, meet supportive people, and find new pa.s.sions in life.

My interest in this work not only stemmed from my research, but also from an extraordinary experience I had working with a group of veterans and military family members on a shame resilience project in one of my cla.s.ses at the University of Houston. It changed my life. It made me realize how much we, the public, can do for veterans, and why our politics and beliefs about war shouldn't stop us from reaching out to them with vulnerability, compa.s.sion, and connection. I will always be grateful for that experience and for what I've learned interviewing veterans about their experiences. For many of us who grieve over the wounds of war, we're missing an opportunity for healing that's right in front of us. Team RWB's motto, It's Our Turn!, is a call to action for all of us who want to do something to support vets. I'm working with them now and I invite everyone to find a way to reach out. Dare greatly and take actions that communicate to veterans or military families that they are not alone. Actions that communicate, "Your struggle is my struggle. Your trauma is my trauma. Your healing is my healing."

TRAUMA AND DARING GREATLY.

We all struggle to understand why some people who have survived trauma-be it combat, domestic violence, s.e.xual or physical abuse, or the quieter but equally devastating covert traumas of oppression, neglect, isolation, or living in extreme fear or stress-exhibit tremendous resilience and lead full, Wholehearted lives, while others become defined by their trauma. They may become perpetrators themselves of the violence they suffered, they struggle with addiction, or they're unable to escape the feeling that they are victims in situations where they're not.

After studying shame for six years, I knew that part of the answer was shame resilience-the people with the most resilience intentionally cultivated the four elements that we discussed in the earlier chapters. The other part of the answer felt elusive to me until I started my new research interviewing people about Wholeheartedness and vulnerability. Then it made perfect sense. If we're forced into seeing the world through the Viking-or-Victim lens as a survival mechanism, then it can feel impossible or even deadly to let go of that worldview. How can we expect someone to give up a way of seeing and understanding the world that has physically, cognitively, or emotionally kept them alive? None of us is ever able to part with our survival strategies without significant support and the cultivation of replacement strategies. Putting down the Viking-or-Victim shield often requires help from a professional-someone who understands trauma. Groups are also very helpful.

The research partic.i.p.ants who survived trauma and are living Wholehearted lives spoke pa.s.sionately about the need to: Acknowledge the problem; Seek professional help and/or support; Work through the accompanying shame and secrecy; And approach the reintegration of vulnerability as a daily practice rather than a checklist item.

And while the importance of spirituality saturated all of the interviews with the Wholehearted, it emerged as especially important with the partic.i.p.ants who consider themselves not only trauma survivors, but also "thrivers."

THE SHIELD: LETTING IT ALL HANG OUT.

I see two forms of oversharing in our culture. The first is what I call floodlighting, and the other is the smash and grab.

As we discussed in the chapter on vulnerability myths, oversharing is not vulnerability. In fact, it often results in disconnection, distrust, and disengagement.

THE SHIELD: FLOODLIGHTING.

To understand floodlighting, we have to see that the intentions behind this kind of sharing are multifaceted and often include some combination of soothing one's pain, testing the loyalty and tolerance in a relationship, and/or hot-wiring a new connection ("We've only known each other for a couple of weeks, but I'm going to share this and we'll be BFFs now"). Unfortunately for all of us who've done this (and I include myself in this group), the response is normally the opposite of what we're looking for: People recoil and shut down, compounding our shame and disconnection. You can't use vulnerability to discharge your own discomfort, or as a tolerance barometer in a relationship ("I'll share this and see if you stick around"), or to fast-forward a relationship-it just won't cooperate.

Ordinarily, when we reach out and share ourselves-our fears, hopes, struggles, and joy-we create small sparks of connection. Our shared vulnerability creates light in normally dark places. My metaphor for this is twinkle lights (I keep them in my house year-round as a reminder).

There's something magical about the idea of twinkle lights shining in dark and difficult places. The lights are small, and a single light is not very special, but an entire strand of sparkling lights is sheer beauty. It's the connectivity that makes them beautiful. When it comes to vulnerability, connectivity means sharing our stories with people who have earned the right to hear them-people with whom we've cultivated relationships that can bear the weight of our story. Is there trust? Is there mutual empathy? Is there reciprocal sharing? Can we ask for what we need? These are the crucial connection questions.

When we share vulnerability, especially shame stories, with someone with whom there is no connectivity, their emotional (and sometimes physical) response is often to wince, as if we have shone a floodlight in their eyes. Instead of a strand of delicate lights, our shared vulnerability is blinding, harsh, and unbearable. If we are on the receiving end, our hands fly up and cover our faces, we squeeze our entire faces (not just our eyes) shut, and we look away. When it's over, we feel depleted, confused, and sometimes even manipulated. Not exactly the empathic response that those telling the story were hoping for. Even for those of us who study empathy and teach empathy skills, it's rare that we're able to stay attuned when someone's oversharing has stretched us past our connectivity with them.

DARING GREATLY: CLARIFYING INTENTIONS, SETTING BOUNDARIES, AND CULTIVATING CONNECTION.

Much of the beauty of light owes its existence to the dark. The most powerful moments of our lives happen when we string together the small flickers of light created by courage, compa.s.sion, and connection and see them shine in the darkness of our struggles. That darkness is lost when we use vulnerability to floodlight our listener, and the response is disconnection. We then use this disconnection as verification that we'll never find comfort, that we're not worthy, that the relationship is no good, or, in the case of oversharing to hot-wire a connection, that we'll never have the intimacy that we crave. We think, "Vulnerability is a crock. It's not worth it and I'm not worth it." What we don't see is that using vulnerability is not the same thing as being vulnerable; it's the opposite-it's armor.

Sometimes we're not even aware that we're oversharing as armor. We can purge our vulnerability or our shame stories out of total desperation to be heard. We blurt out something that is causing us immense pain because we can't bear the thought of holding it in for one more second. Our intentions may not be purging or blurting to armor ourselves or push others away, but that's the exact outcome of our behaviors. Whether we're on the purging end or the receiving end of this experience, self-compa.s.sion is critical. We have to give ourselves a break when we share too much too soon, and we have to practice self-kindness when we feel like we weren't able to hold s.p.a.ce for someone who hit us with the floodlight. Judgment exacerbates disconnection.

Hearing this, sometimes people ask me how I decide what to share and how to share it when it comes to my own work. I share a lot of myself in my work, after all, and I certainly haven't cultivated trusting relationships with all of you or all of the people in the audiences where I speak. It's an important question, and the answer is that I don't tell stories or share vulnerabilities with the public until I've worked through them with the people I love. I have my own boundaries around what I share and what I don't share and I stay mindful of my intentions.

First, I only share stories or experiences that I've worked through and feel that I can share from solid ground. I don't share what I define as "intimate" stories, nor do I share stories that are fresh wounds. I did that once or twice early in my career and it was pretty terrible. There's nothing like staring into an audience of a thousand people who are all giving you the floodlight look.

Second, I follow the rule that I learned in my graduate social work training. Sharing yourself to teach or move a process forward can be healthy and effective, but disclosing information as a way to work through your personal stuff is inappropriate and unethical. Last, I only share when I have no unmet needs that I'm trying to fill. I firmly believe that being vulnerable with a larger audience is only a good idea if the healing is tied to the sharing, not to the expectations I might have for the response I get.

When I asked other people who share their stories through blogs, books, and public speaking about this, it turns out that they are very similar in their approaches and intentions. I don't want the fear of floodlighting to stop anyone from sharing their struggles with the world, but being mindful about what, why, and how we share is important when the context is a larger public. We're all grateful for people who write and speak in ways that help us remember that we're not alone.

If you recognize yourself in this shield, this checklist might help: Why am I sharing this?

What outcome am I hoping for?

What emotions am I experiencing?

Do my intentions align with my values?

Is there an outcome, response, or lack of a response that will hurt my feelings?

Is this sharing in the service of connection?

Am I genuinely asking the people in my life for what I need?

THE SHIELD: THE SMASH AND GRAB.

If floodlighting is about misusing vulnerability, the second form of oversharing is all about using vulnerability as a manipulation tool. A smash-and-grab job is where a burglar smashes in a door or a store window and grabs what s/he can; it's sloppy, unplanned, and desperate. The smash and grab used as vulnerability armor is about smashing through people's social boundaries with intimate information, then grabbing whatever attention and energy you can get your hands on. We see this most often in celebrity culture, where sensationalism thrives.

Unfortunately, teachers and school administrators have told me that they see this same smash-and-grab behavior in students as young as middle school kids. Unlike floodlighting, which at least comes from a place of needing confirmation of our worthiness, this purported disclosure of vulnerability feels less real. I haven't interviewed enough people who engage in this behavior to fully understand the motivation, but what's emerged so far is attention seeking. Of course, worthiness issues can and do underpin attention seeking, but in our social media world, it's increasingly difficult to determine what's a real attempt to connect and what's performance. The only thing I do know is that it's not vulnerability.

DARING GREATLY: QUESTIONING INTENTIONS.

This self-exposure instead feels one-directional, and for those who engage in it an audience appears to be more desirable than intimate connection. If we find ourselves engaging in a smash and grab, I think the reality-check questions are the same as the ones in the section on floodlighting. I think it's also important to ask, "What need is driving this behavior?" and "Am I trying to reach, hurt, or connect with someone specifically, and is this the right way to do it?"

THE SHIELD: SERPENTINING.

I'm not someone who typically enjoys slapstick humor or screwball comedies. I much prefer a good romantic comedy or one of those painfully slow, character-driven Miramax movies. That makes the movie clip that I'm using as the metaphor for this particular vulnerability protection mechanism seem odd. But honestly, every time I watch this movie, I laugh so hard that my face hurts. Just thinking about it makes me start laughing.

The movie is the 1979 comedy The In-Laws, starring Peter Falk and Alan Arkin. On the eve of their children's wedding, dentist Sheldon Kornpett (played by Alan Arkin) meets Vince Ricardo (played by Peter Falk). Sheldon is the bride's father, and Vince is the groom's. Arkin's character is an anxious, regimented, straitlaced dentist. Falk's character is a CIA operative who appears to have gone rogue and who thinks nothing of car chases and shootouts. As you've probably guessed, the lovable but reckless agent drags the unsuspecting dentist into his far-flung misadventures.

The movie is really corny, but Peter Falk is brilliant as the outrageous agent and Alan Arkin is the perfect uptight straight man. My very favorite scene is when Falk tells a terrified Arkin to avoid a flurry of bullets by running in a zigzag pattern. They're totally exposed on an airport runway while being shot at by multiple snipers, and his best advice is "Serpentine, Shel! Serpentine!" At one point, the dentist miraculously makes it to shelter, but then remembers that he didn't serpentine, so he runs back into the line of fire so he can zigzag his way back to cover. I'm totally into this, so I put the two-minute clip on my website. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll see it (http://www.brenebrown.com/videos).

I don't know why it cracks me up, but I laugh out loud every time I see it. Maybe it's the visual of a wild-eyed Peter Falk running back and forth, yelling, "Serpentine!" Maybe it's because I remember watching it with my dad and brother and falling out. To this day if things are getting tense in a family conversation, one of us will nonchalantly say, "Serpentine," and we'll all laugh.

Serpentining is the perfect metaphor for how we spend enormous energy trying to dodge vulnerability when it would take far less effort to face it straight on. The image also conveys how fruitless it is to think of zigzagging in the face of something as expansive and all-consuming as vulnerability.

"Serpentining" means trying to control a situation, backing out of it, pretending it's not happening, or maybe even pretending that you don't care. We use it to dodge conflict, discomfort, possible confrontation, the potential for shame or hurt, and/or criticism (self- or other-inflicted). Serpentining can lead to hiding out, pretending, avoidance, procrastination, rationalizing, blaming, and lying.

I have a tendency to want to serpentine when I feel vulnerable. If I have to make a difficult call, I'll try to script both sides of it, I'll convince myself that I should wait, I'll draft an e-mail while telling myself that it's better in writing, and I'll think of a million other things to do. I'll emotionally run back and forth until I'm exhausted.

DARING GREATLY: BEING PRESENT, PAYING ATTENTION, MOVING FORWARD.

When I catch myself trying to zigzag my way out of vulnerability, it always helps to have Peter Falk's voice in my head shouting, "Serpentine, Shel!" It makes me laugh, which forces me to breathe. Breathing and humor are great ways to reality-check our behaviors and to start engaging with vulnerability.

Serpentining is draining, and running back and forth to avoid something is not a good way to live. As I was trying to come up with occasions when serpentining might be useful, I thought about the advice that I once received from an old guy who lived in a Louisiana swamp. My parents took my brother and me to fish in the channels running through some swampland owned by the company my dad worked for in New Orleans. The man who let us onto the property said, "If a gator comes atcha, run a zigzag pattern-they're quick but they ain't good at making turns."

Well, a gator did lunge out of the water and ate the end off my mom's fishing pole, but we never were chased. And, as it turns out, the whole thing is a myth anyway. According to the experts at the San Diego Zoo, we can easily outrun an alligator, zigzagging or not. They max out at a speed of around ten or eleven miles per hour, and more importantly, they can't run very far. They depend on surprise attacks, not chasing down their prey. In that sense they're very much like the gremlins that live in the shame swamplands and keep us from being vulnerable. So, we don't need to serpentine; we just need to be present, pay attention, and move forward.

THE SHIELD: CYNICISM, CRITICISM, COOL, AND CRUELTY.

If you decide to walk into the arena and dare greatly, you're going to get kicked around. It doesn't matter if your arena is politics or the PTO, or if your great dare is an article for your school newsletter, a promotion, or selling a piece of pottery on Etsy-you're going to be on the receiving end of some cynicism and criticism before it's over. There may even be some plain ol' mean-spiritedness. Why? Because cynicism, criticism, cruelty, and cool are even better than armor-they can be fashioned into weapons that not only keep vulnerability at a distance but also can inflict injury on the people who are being vulnerable and making us uncomfortable.

If we are the kind of people who "don't do vulnerability," there's nothing that makes us feel more threatened and more incited to attack and shame people than to see someone daring greatly. Someone else's daring provides an uncomfortable mirror that reflects back our own fears about showing up, creating, and letting ourselves be seen. That's why we come out swinging. When we see cruelty, vulnerability is likely to be the driver.

When I say criticism, I don't mean productive feedback, debate, and disagreement over the value or importance of a contribution. I'm talking about put-downs, personal attacks, and unsubstantiated claims about our motivations and intentions.

When I talk about cynicism, I don't mean healthy skepticism and questioning. I'm talking about the reflexive cynicism that leads to mindless responses like "That's so stupid," or "What a loser idea." Cool is one of the most rampant forms of cynicism. Whatever. Totally Lame. So uncool. Who gives a s.h.i.t? Among some folks it's almost as if enthusiasm and engagement have become a sign of gullibility. Being too excited or invested makes you lame. A word that we've banned in our house along with loser and stupid.

In the introduction to the Chapter I talked about adolescence as the starting line for the race to the armory. Cynicism and cool are currency of the realm in middle and high school. Every single student in my daughter's middle school wears a hoodie every single day (even when it's 95 degrees outside). Not only do these jackets shield vulnerability by being the ultimate in cool accessories, but I'm pretty sure the kids think of them as invisibility cloaks. They literally disappear inside them. They're a way to hide. When the hoods are up and the hands are hidden in the pocket, they scream disengagement. Too cool to care.

As adults, we can also protect ourselves from vulnerability with cool. We worry about being perceived as laughing too loud, buying in, caring too much, being too eager. We don't wear hoodies as often, but we can use our t.i.tles, education, background, and positions as handles on the shields of criticism, cynicism, cool, and cruelty: I can talk to you this way or blow you off because of who I am or what I do for a living. And, make no mistake, when it comes to this shield, handles are also fashioned out of nonconformity and rejection of traditional status markers: I dismiss you because you've sold out and you spend your life in a cubicle or I'm more relevant and interesting because I rejected the trappings of higher education, traditional employment, etc.

DARING GREATLY: TIGHTROPE WALKING, PRACTICING SHAME RESILIENCE, AND REALITY CHECKING.

Over the course of one year, I interviewed artists, writers, innovators, business leaders, clergy, and community leaders about these issues, and how they stayed open to the constructive (albeit difficult-to-hear) criticism while filtering out the mean-spirited attacks. Basically I wanted to know how they maintained the courage to keep on walking into the arena. I'll confess that I was motivated by my own struggle to learn how to keep daring.

When we stop caring about what people think, we lose our capacity for connection. When we become defined by what people think, we lose our willingness to be vulnerable. If we dismiss all the criticism, we lose out on important feedback, but if we subject ourselves to the hatefulness, our spirits get crushed. It's a tightrope, shame resilience is the balance bar, and the safety net below is the one or two people in our lives who can help us reality-check the criticism and cynicism.

I'm very visual, so I have a picture of a person on a tightrope hanging over my desk to remind me that working to stay open and at the same time to keep boundaries in place is worth the energy and risk. I actually used a Sharpie to write this across the balance bar: "Worthiness is my birthright." It's both a reminder to practice shame resilience and a touchstone of my spiritual beliefs. And in case I'm feeling more ornery than usual, I have a little Post-it Note under my tightrope picture that reads, "Cruelty is cheap, easy, and chickens.h.i.t." That's also a touchstone of my spiritual beliefs.

The research partic.i.p.ants who had used criticism and cynicism in the past as a way to protect themselves from vulnerability had some very powerful wisdom to share about their transition to Wholeheartedness. Many of them said that they grew up with parents who modeled that behavior and that they weren't aware of how fully they had mimicked it until they started investigating their own fear of being vulnerable, trying new things, and engaging. These folks were not egomaniacs who took pleasure in cutting down other people; in fact, they were consistently harder on themselves than they were on other people. So their mean-spiritedness wasn't only directed outward, even if they admitted that they often used it to lessen their own self-doubt.

The first sentence of the "daring greatly" quote from Theodore Roosevelt says a lot: "It's not the critic who counts." And for the men and women I interviewed who defined themselves as that critic, the "not counting" was definitely felt. They often struggled with feeling dismissed and invisible in their own lives. Criticizing was a way to be heard. When I asked how they moved from hurtful criticism to constructive criticism and from cynicism to contribution, they described a process that mirrored shame resilience: understanding what triggered their attack, what it means about their own sense of self-worth, talking to people they trust about it, and asking for what they need. Many of these folks had to dig deep about the cool issue. How did being perceived as cool become a driving value and what was the cost of pretending that things didn't matter?

The fear of being vulnerable can unleash cruelty, criticism, and cynicism in all of us. Making sure we take responsibility for what we say is one way that we can check our intentions. Dare greatly and put your name on your posted comments online. If you don't feel comfortable owning it, then don't say it. And if you're reading this and you have control over online sites that allow comments, then you should dare greatly and make users sign in and use real names, and hold the community responsible for creating a respectful environment.

In addition to walking the tightrope, practicing shame resilience, and cultivating a safety-net community that supports me when I'm feeling attacked or hurt, I've implemented two additional strategies. The first is simple: I only accept and pay attention to feedback from people who are also in the arena. If you're occasionally getting your b.u.t.t kicked as you respond, and if you're also figuring out how to stay open to feedback without getting pummeled by insults, I'm more likely to pay attention to your thoughts about my work. If, on the other hand, you're not helping, contributing, or wrestling with your own gremlins, I'm not at all interested in your commentary.

The second strategy is also simple. I carry a small sheet of paper in my wallet that has written on it the names of people whose opinions of me matter. To be on that list, you have to love me for my strengths and struggles. You have to know that I'm trying to be Wholehearted, but I still cuss too much, flip people off under the steering wheel, and have both Lawrence Welk and Metallica on my iPod. You have to know and respect that I'm totally uncool. There's a great quote from the movie Almost Famous that says, "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."

To be on my list, you have to be what I call a "stretch-mark friend"-our connection has been stretched and pulled so much that it's become part of who we are, a second skin, and there are a few scars to prove it. We're totally uncool with each other. I don't think anyone has more than one or two people who qualify for that list. The important thing is not to discount the stretch-mark friends to gain the approval of the strangers who are being mean and nasty or are too cool. Nothing serves as a better reminder of that than the immortal words of my friend Scott Stratten, author of UnMarketing: "Don't try to win over the haters; you're not the jacka.s.s whisperer."

CHAPTER 5.

MIND THE GAP:.

CULTIVATING CHANGE.

AND CLOSING THE.

DISENGAGEMENT DIVIDE.

Minding the gap is a daring strategy. We have to pay attention to the s.p.a.ce between where we're actually standing and where we want to be. More importantly, we have to practice the values that we're holding out as important in our culture. Minding the gap requires both an embrace of our own vulnerability and cultivation of shame resilience-we're going to be called upon to show up as leaders and parents and educators in new and uncomfortable ways. We don't have to be perfect, just engaged and committed to aligning values with action.

MIND the Gap" first appeared in 1969 on the London Underground as a warning to train pa.s.sengers to be careful while stepping over the gap between the train door and the station platform. It has since become the name of a band and a movie, and the phrase has been captured on everything from T-shirts to doormats. In our house we have a small, framed "Mind the Gap" postcard that reminds us to pay attention to the s.p.a.ce between where we're standing and where we want to go. Let me explain.

STRATEGY VERSUS CULTURE.

In the business world, there's an ongoing debate about the relationship between strategy and culture, and the relative importance of each. Just to define the terms, I think of strategy as "the game plan," or the detailed answer to the question "What do we want to achieve and how are we going to get there?" We all-families, religious groups, project teams, teachers from the kindergarten cl.u.s.ter-have game plans. And we all think about the goals we want to accomplish and the steps we need to take to be successful.

Culture, on the other hand, is less about what we want to achieve and more about who we are. Out of the many complex definitions of culture, including those that weighed down my undergrad sociology textbooks, the one that resonates the most with me is the simplest. As organizational development pioneers Terrence Deal and Allan Kennedy explained it: "Culture is the way we do things around here." I like this definition because it rings true for discussions about all cultures-from the larger culture of scarcity that I write about in the first chapter, to a specific organizational culture, to the culture that defines my family.

Some form of the debate about what's more important, strategy or culture, bubbles up in every conversation I have with leaders. One camp subscribes to the famous quote often attributed to thought leader Peter Drucker: "Culture eats strategy for breakfast." Other folks believe that pitting one against the other creates a false dichotomy and that we need both. Interestingly, I've yet to find a strong argument that strategy is more important than culture. I think everyone agrees in theory that "who we are" is at least as important as "what we want to achieve."

While some complain that the debate is old, and too chicken-or-the-egg to be helpful, I think it's a critically relevant discussion for organizations. Maybe more importantly, I think examining these issues can transform families, schools, and communities.

"The way we do things around here," or culture, is complex. In my experience, I can tell a lot about the culture and values of a group, family, or organization by asking these ten questions: What behaviors are rewarded? Punished?

Where and how are people actually spending their resources (time, money, attention)?

What rules and expectations are followed, enforced, and ignored?

Do people feel safe and supported talking about how they feel and asking for what they need?

What are the sacred cows? Who is most likely to tip them? Who stands the cows back up?

What stories are legend and what values do they convey?

What happens when someone fails, disappoints, or makes a mistake?