A Dangerous Combination – As You Were

As You Were – looking for connections between the work of Brené Brown and Daniel Quinn as I revisit them in book clubs. See the introductory post for what this is all about. In this post, I look at:

(Commissions earned on Amazon links.)

Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts.

Part One: Rumbling with Vulnerability – Section One: The Moment and the Myths

“Vulnerability is not winning or losing. It’s having the courage to show up when you can’t control the outcome.” Resonates with Quinn’s notion of living in the hands of the gods.

“Myth #1: Vulnerability is weakness… Myth #2: I don’t do vulnerability… Myth #3: I can go it alone… Myth #4: You can engineer the uncertainty and discomfort out of vulnerability.” All central beliefs of Taker culture, keeping it always pursuing the impossible goal of conquering ever more perfectly.

“We are hardwired for connection. From our mirror neurons to language, we are a social species… Our neural, hormonal, and genetic makeup support interdependence over independence.” Quinn also focuses on the essentially social nature of humans.

“Those fields in which systemic vulnerability is equated with failure (or worse) are often the ones in which I see people struggling the most for daring leadership…” Taker civilization can’t imagine another way of life for humans — the ultimate example of equating systemic vulnerability with failure or worse.

“So if you don’t ‘do’ vulnerability, and/or you have a culture that thinks vulnerability is weakness, then it’s no wonder that ethical decision making is a problem.” This is inherently the case in Taker civilization.

“The stealth intention is a self-protection need that lurks beneath the surface and often drives behavior outside our values. Closely related is the stealth expectation — a desire or expectation that exists outside our awareness and typically includes a dangerous combination of fear and magical thinking.” Relates to Quinn’s systems-thinking-based assessments that reveal a difference between what a system’s design actually produces and what people want the system’s results to be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *