I have to deal with the world I live in. Not the world I want.
This is an interesting phrase.
Earlier today, I saw this used as justification for addressing a symptom rather than a root cause. I can sympathize with the basic sentiment. But I don’t like it as a catch-all phrase.
Here’s the reason. And I’m digressing here for a moment.
I’ve seen other, completely unrelated, posts that talked about the difference (in their mind) between a ‘manager’ and a ‘leader’. In these posts, the common thread is that ‘managers’ behave poorly. While ‘leaders’ behave admirably. An example – ‘Managers’ blame people. ‘Leaders’ protect people. The faulty logic is clear. They’re simply attributing all bad attributes to ‘manager’ and all good attributes to ‘leader’.
And it occurred to me that the “I have to deal with the world I live in” phrase is a far better proxy for the ‘manager’ versus ‘leader’ distinction.
Generally speaking (undoubtedly not true in all situations) – if you accept that you have to ‘deal with the world you live in’, you’re managing to external expectations. You’re going to address symptoms rather than root causes. But if you reject the idea that the world is unchangeable, then you’re going to be more willing to look for root causes. And, maybe, help create the world you want.
So – is this a basic test of ‘manager’ versus ‘leader’?
Do you view your role as ‘dealing with the world you live in’?
Or are you more inclined to ‘change the world you live in’?