Who's In Charge?

Boss, chairperson of an organization, head of household, committee president; these are all positions of authority.  They direct or delegate, make the unpopular decisions and have the "big picture."
They're in charge.

Being in charge definitely has its advantages.  Deciding on vision, direction and goals, and being the delegator, rather than the "delegatee" are just a few of them.  The Big Cheese gets the first compliments when things go well.

That said, within any hierarchical group I've belonged to, there's often a measure of grumbling that So-and-So isn't doing his/her job.  S/he's inept.  Doesn't follow directions.  Tries to tell others what to do, instead of doing his/her job.  (As I say at our house, "Don't be like Henry Ford, who had a better idea.")

At which point, the boss/chair/HoH/president has a choice.
Either, make it clear the underling in question has no moral authority to weigh in on anything and should be ignored, or find out why they do what they do...and bring them around.

All this really isn't important, until suddenly it is.
Anyone who's witnessed an older sibling babysitting a younger sibling has seen this.
The Number One question is:
"Why should I listen to YOU?"
("Because Mom/Dad said so" never is an acceptable answer!)

I suspect this happens because the younger child, being nobody's fool, observes the older child being disciplined, hears the parent(s) grumble about the older child's behavior and remembers these instances, either as "Note to self, don't do that" or as "moral ammunition" to use later.

Now "the boss" is in a tough spot.  Having eliminated all comers to the position of authority, there's no one left to take the reins in an emergency, or, in the case of an organization, to take up the torch.

When I was in graduate school, I was at odds with my initial advisor, as well as with the program in general (great program, bad fit).  But...I also remembered I needed letters of recommendation for an internship and possibly for my first job.  At that time, it didn't make sense to burn bridges or sacrifice good will from the faculty.  I was the "underling" looking up, but in a similar way, if I'd let the people  whose recommendations I needed know they didn't have moral authority to weigh in on my ability...I would have been outta luck.

If this sounds a little calculating, it needn't.  In fact, I believe this used to be called good manners!  I tell the children if they want to create a "cult of personality", where they, and only they, can be in charge, that's fine.  But, if their family/business/class project needs to tootle along in their absence, it's wiser (kinder, and better leadership!) to grumble in private and lift up a replacement or three as they go.

That way, there'll always be a good, clear answer to "Who's in charge?"

The Missing Link

"The missing link" is a common phrase evolutionists use to explain gaps in the fossil record.  Here is fossil A and here is fossil C.  They have some similar characteristics, but it looks like there should be a transitional fossil B in between them.  It's difficult to see how A could lead to C without the existence of B.  Therefore, the reasoning goes. B must exist somewhere.  It simply hasn't been discovered yet.

I was contemplating my lack of overt, worldly "success" this week.  No national or Olympic sports career, no home-based-business fancy car, no publishing contract, no weekly paycheck even.  And then...I thought of Mary.

Mary, mother of Jesus.  Don't worry, this is historical, not spiritual. 

There's not much recorded about Mary, and nothing about her ancestors.  They're lost in the mists of time. So are mine, if I go back a thousand or so years.  They definitely existed, or I wouldn't be here.  In fact, each one of them had to exist. 

Along the way, as with Mary's ancestors, it's statistically likely there were some unhappy relationships, some bad decisions, some "failures", and definitely no knowledge of who this particular 21st-century descendent would be.

Mary hit the world stage big time, with everything in her background working toward that moment.  Remove any "link" from that chain, and she wouldn't have existed. 
Just like me.  Or my children. 

Maybe my life will be a culmination of some sort (hey, it's never too late, right?) or, more likely,  I'm "just"a necessary link, either genetically, to a great-great-great grand, or through love and influence.  There's more than one way to participate in destiny!

From that perspective, everyone's a necessary link in at least one chain.  "Success" doesn't make any link more important or necessary than any other.  I hope the children understand they don't have to be the "best" or "brightest" to participate in something great, and that their lives are not in vain, no matter where circumstances lead them.  They're precious, valuable links in a thousands-year-old chain.  Pretty cool, when you stop to think about it.

The Precarious Nature Of "Want to"

Being considered a kind, thoughtful, compassionate person is a good thing.  I imagine a few people don't want themselves described that way, but it seems likely that at least fifty-one percent of folks wouldn't object.

I've heard the whine of toddlers and teens, "But I don't WAAAAANT to" often enough to think there may have been a flaw in my childrearing practices.  Instead of asking "Do you want your sweater or your sweatshirt?" (and hearing, "I don't want either one") I should have asked, "Will you wear your sweater or your sweatshirt?"

Now, the "neither" option has come home to roost, and the desire to do something seems to be a necessary prerequisite for actually doing anything:  Practicing music...putting away laundry...writing a thank-you note...trying to gin up a warm, fuzzy feeling for any of those is slow going.  But, they still need to be done.

In fact, true kindness and compassion are facets of self-discipline, and antitheses of emotion-driven behavior.  It's not necessary to delight in writing a thank-you note in order to do it.  Ever.
Internalized kindness and compassion simply respond to the need in front of them, without pausing to ask "Do I really want to?"

Feeling inspired toward acts of kindness and actually being a kind person seem to be slightly different animals.  I'm not sure one can say, "I'm a kind person," any more than one can say "I've been a blessing to Susie." (Would Susie agree?)  There's a calculated-ness to that statement, the impression of impression-management.  True kindness and compassion simply respond to the need in front of them, without pausing to ask "Do I really want to?"

The precarious nature of "Want to" is that it's impossible to be consistent, day in and day out, based on emotion.  Sooner or later, the streak has to end, leaving confusion in its wake.
"You've changed."  "You're not the person I thought you were."
A compassionate person IS compassionate.  A person who wants to appear compassionate can't keep it up forever.

I hope my children will see the value of "be" over "want to."