Motivation: In Work, Training, and Life

For several weeks earlier this year, I struggled with motivation, particularly motivation in my training. Up until a few months ago, I was missing workouts or finding ways to limit them. My ability to manage my job, life, and training felt out of balance. About a month ago, I made a conscious choice to commit to do every training session. As my coach told me, I “get” to exercise; it is never a “have to.”

Many of us don’t think about or don’t respond to the reality that we are all temporarily abled bodied. We are temporarily able to engage in rigorous activity and that ability could be lost at any time. The risk that one day our mobility might no longer be as it is today, is real. Yet, even when we know folks who have struggled with physical changes to their bodies, if it’s not in our immediate foreground, it lacks any power to change our own behavior. We know it could be, perhaps, maybe, kind of, but it isn’t right now, so why think about it? I have endeavored to remind myself of this when my motivation is slipping away to re-orient myself to my training as a choice and as something I get to do. It isn’t an obligation, it isn’t something I drag around with me like a ball and chain. It is something that has positive benefits and gets me outside and away from the pull of the sofa.

Motivation is of course a complex matter. Sometimes we just cannot motivate ourselves to get up and outside into activity and there are very real cognitive and biological reasons for that. I think about this inner struggle I have experienced with training – the “should I/shouldn’t I” conversation that happens almost daily in my head – and compare it to my professional life. Motivation at work is a real issue for many of us. I believe it is connected to the need for change, intellectual stimulation, or something new and interesting. However, I don’t think folks experiencing a lack luster work environment or a lack of interest in their work always see it as such. Blah becomes the new normal and ceases to be noticeably problematic. I have talked a lot about stagnancy in the professional realm before now. In particular, how employees lacking in professional cultivation by their employer stay at organizations for years and cease to grow personally and professionally. This stagnancy impacts organizational culture over time and slowly puts the brakes on innovation and opportunity. Stagnancy can impede the forward momentum of your business as much as stagnancy in training can impede progress toward your athletic goals.

Stagnancy and motivation are linked. When motivation is waning among employees or there is a lack of energy about the future and what could be, that’s an indicator that stagnancy has, or is about to take hold. The responsibility lies with the employer to remove the collective hand from the brake and inspire something different. Employers should encourage a culture of constant professional development so that folks don’t fall into low-risk, uninspired ruts. That is not to say that employees don’t have some responsibility here. They have to pick up what their conscientious employer is throwing down. Much like I have to work with, and listen to my coach as I struggle through periods of low motivation. This body of mine is not invincible, it is permeable and it is vulnerable despite what I can make it do. I work hard to make it strong, but I must remind myself not to take it for granted, not to get stagnant. In work, as in training, I must check in with myself and be honest about when I am stuck. We should all strive to not take work life for granted and simply sink back down into our sofas instead of rising to the challenge and opportunity of something new. Put another way, I must resist the urge in work and training to choose comfort over possibility. *

*credit for that last line goes to my fabulous work friend, Trish.

Slow Down and Focus on Pace

It's been too long since my last blog post and this fact is the basis of this post - slow down. These past few weeks have been immensely busy and writing this post keeps dropping down to the lower levels of my to do list. A number of friends and colleagues have confessed to feeling overwhelmed at work and they offer this as the basis for their lack of engagement. I, too, have felt as though I don't have time for probably the more important things in life. 

This afternoon I read an article in this month's Runner's World about pace over speed. The central argument was that while speed is often what people pay attention too (think 100m sprint in the Olympics), managing your pace, and going the distance is really where it's at. The author talked about how we think we can overcome the constraints of time by going faster, but really time continues to roll forward at the same pace regardless of how fast we try to move. I have experienced this phenomenon when out for an hour run and I am struggling to motivate to get through it. In an effort to get it done more quickly, I run it faster. Now that I think about it, it makes me laugh, because an hour, is an hour, is an hour. Going faster will mean I cover more distance but it won't actually end the run any faster. Speed creates the illusion of time going faster and a greater sense of achievement or production. 

This focus on speed over pace permeates work culture too. Get as much done as you can. We are constantly told that we should cover more distance (do more) which inevitably requires us to move faster. In so doing however, we risk making more mistakes, we may not engage as deeply, and we may lose sight of why we do what we do. Bouncing from task to task to task at lightening speed because your to do list isn't getting any shorter creates the illusion that we are managing our time well - "look at how much I have done!" But it may not be an effective way to manage our time and tasks. The to do list will always be there; something will always get added. For me it almost feels like I am chasing my tail. I can never get to zero on my to do list, and going faster simply leads me to miss things or end up overwhelmed. 

U.S. work culture orients itself to more is better, faster is better. If you don't produce at phenomenal rates, you risk being labeled incompetent. The message many companies communicate to their employees, implicitly or explicitly, focuses on speed over pace. The long haul and managing a consistent pace is infrequently valued. Instead, the content of the message often includes the requirement for employees to move more quickly (read: produce more, do more). The association with speed and production is fascinating. Covering more miles doesn't necessarily mean you are running a quality workout. Producing more in your workplace doesn't necessarily lead to quality results. The old adage: quality not quantity is heard often in employment contexts, but I don't think employers enact it. 

It shouldn't always be about doing more or going faster. We cannot manipulate time by doing either. As in running, we should focus on efficiency in our work. When I say efficiency, I don't mean doing more with less as is often the classic "tightening of the belt strategy" espoused by employers. The tacit meaning of "more with less" is go faster, cover more distance and do so in the same amount of time as before. Efficiency, like with running, means shifting our focus to pace and form. Allow employees to engage consistently in their work and in their life. We should use our resources more thoughtfully and reduce the amount of energy we throw at something. Overwhelm breaks down our form and reduces our efficiency. This is true in life as much as it is true in running. Recognize the lists will always be there and that there will always be something to do. That reality shouldn't necessitate us moving faster; it should necessitate us mastering our pace, finding our rhythm and methodically moving from one task to the next with a clear head and relaxed approach. Long distance running can teach us individually and organizationally about who is more likely to win the race without injury in the end.

Effort Aversion: Comfort, Boredom and Change

On the eve of my first half marathon of the season, I am keeping off my feet and trying to relax as much as possible in preparation for my effort tomorrow morning. I want to try and maintain an 8 minute pace but the effort involved in doing so does not excite me. Nevertheless, I will likely try and see what happens. I have a tendency mid-way through races to give in to the discomfort and decide the effort and result is not worth the pain, even though the pain is transitory. I am working on this mental flaw.

As I have shared before, I love the NPR show Hidden Brain, and the most recent podcast that I listened to was about boredom. I listened to this podcast while running 4 miles on a treadmill after a snow storm sent me inside. As my feet thumped rhythmically on the human conveyer belt, the monotony of the treadmill got to me within about a minute and I turned on my podcasts. The treadmill, lovingly nicknamed the "dreadmill" by runners, is a site of boredom for me and I suspect many others. I have never understood why runners at any level would choose to run on a treadmill inside when they could go outside. However, this podcast gave me some new insight. 

The concept of "effort aversion" explained in the podcast applies here. Our aversion to effort, makes us often choose boring things - jobs, tasks, activities - because we perceive them to be easier even though they are by and large, less fun. The treadmill in many ways involves less effort than running outside overall, especially if it's snowing. If I want to go for a run to reap the physical rewards of exercise, how can I do that with the least amount of effort? The gym is easy. I don't have to map a route, the temperature is constant, my nose hairs don't freeze, and I don't have to deal with wind or hills. I can also stop and use the bathroom without risking arrest for indecent exposure. I am sure the list goes on. The amount of perceived effort involved in running outside outweighs the boredom I might experience by staring at a wall while running on a treadmill. This can also be applied to folks who have the ability to walk to close by locations such as a neighbor's house or a local store, and choose to drive. Driving involves less (perceived) effort.

Effort aversion, the podcast shares, is why many people get stuck in boring jobs for years, where complacency sets in and you no longer seek change, professional development, or innovation. Even though boredom for many is unbearable, the idea of putting in additional effort for the same amount of pay is less desirable. Why work harder when I don't have to? Even if we are mildly to moderately unhappy in our current job, the effort involved in a job search is a deterrent to trying something new. We tell ourselves that if we can stay doing the same thing that is low risk and doesn't involve much effort, at a salary we can manage, why change? The effort involved in changing the status quo is not desirable, even though we are not super jazzed about the work and not very challenged. Comfort, the enemy of organizational change and creativity, is linked with "effort aversion" and works to keep us in the same place. 

As my coaching training has taught me, if all you do is run 8 minute miles, then you will get very good at running 8 minute miles. You become comfortable at that pace, and the effort involved to improve may not feel worth it. The initial effort curve to get to the 8 minute mile might be tough, like when you start a new job. It can feel challenging and overwhelming as you learn the role but then after enough practice you settle in and your effort to get the job done decreases significantly. Once you are comfortable, it's like you have settled into your favorite sofa, and quite honestly, why change that? Your job/8 minute mile works just fine for you. Sort of. The memory of the previously exerted effort to learn your job or race at that pace is enough to keep you from exerting effort again to get you to the next step.

I don't like to be bored, and yet I definitely run up against this concept of "effort aversion" in my running, triathloning, and work where I will sometimes take boring over effort. Yet, we also go to great lengths to avoid being bored too. It's such an odd phenomenon. Case in point: A study featured in this Hidden Brain podcast involved folks being locked in a room with nothing but their thoughts for 15 minutes. However, they were also given the opportunity to shock themselves rather than just sit there. Of the participants, about 1/4 of women and over 2/3 of men chose to shock themselves rather than just sit and do nothing. We choose to do bizarre things in the face of boredom yet when our jobs are boring or uninspiring, the effort involved with changing the status quo shuts us down. Or when we want to get to the next level athletically we let mental effort aversion hold us back even if we are getting bored with our same training routine and paces. Why this inconsistency?

I don't have an answer to fix this but I do know that "effort aversion" is detrimental to us individually and for our organizations. We have to harness the desire to avoid boredom (sans electric shocks of course) to move out of our comfort zone and out of complacency. Thinking about the why can be helpful: Why is boredom or status quo more acceptable than change in our professional and personal lives? If we manage an organization, is having a team of long term staff who just kick the can down the road the most effective set up for the future of the organization? If we are bored with our training regime, why is the effort involved in changing it too much? If we want to get faster in our running, swimming, and biking, how can we reconcile the fact that to do so requires more effort even when our sofa's invitation is quite compelling? More effort can equal fun even if the "pay" is the same, we just have to be willing to try.

As an aside, Runner's World just posted on Facebook as I was writing this blog an article called "This is what effort looks like." It features a 63 year old Irish runner at the IAAF World Indoor Championships in Portland, Oregon finishing the 800 meters who pulled out everything to finish. Effort doesn't of course have to look exactly like this, but the reward for him, and for us, can be well worth it.

Listen to the Hidden Brain podcast on Boredom from March 15, 2016

Inclusive Leadership

I have been thinking a great deal about organizational leadership and culture lately, especially as I consider and explore launching a business aimed at helping organizations excel in the area. We spend so much of our time at work, why wouldn't we want these spaces to be happy and healthy? The leaders of our organizations are integral at determining the health and happiness of a workplace but many still either refuse to address concerns or are the concern themselves.

There are two areas I want to address in this blog: toxicity and stagnancy. Many of my friends are struggling with toxic bosses, stagnant or unhealthy work places. I have heard some horrendous stories that leave me wondering how these experiences are even allowed to occur. This is a persistent and enduring issue that arises constantly and I am sure you each have your own stories to share. 

Toxic or Unhealthy Workplaces and Bosses
Many individuals have experienced wounding in their workplace, in some cases to the extreme where the psychological impact is long lasting, influencing their professional interactions in their future jobs. It is hard to unlearn the survival behaviors developed in an unhealthy workplace or to manage a toxic boss. This difficulty can sometimes prevent us from flourishing in a new environment. Unhealthy work environments and toxic bosses are debilitating and harmful, this we can all agree, and yet employees often feel powerlessness to change their situation.

Stagnant Employees or Workplaces
Employees who have been at organizations for years without support, professional development, or effective leadership just spin in the hamster wheel. Stagnancy, while not per se abusive, is also harmful to the personal motivation of an employee and to the growth of the organization. Stagnancy, like toxicity, permeates the organizational culture and becomes an accepted norm. This norm can be so pervasive that employees don't even realize things could be different. Leaders perpetuate stagnancy when they neglect their employees or the organizational culture. A lack of attention to community needs and organizational change can lead employees to wonder if change is even possible, leading many great employees to move on. Turnover is as much of a problem as a staff that never leaves. Both are symptomatic of something gone awry and require leaders to notice and commit to engaging in a change process to fix it.

It's Not that Difficult
What I come back to time and time again, is that being a thoughtful and compassionate leader, someone who values and collaborates with their employees, is not that difficult. While many leaders articulate agreement to inclusive leadership, they do not translate that to practice. The incongruence between what is spoken and what is done is sometimes deafening. Some leaders make the choice to manage people using a "power over" approach to leadership, based in distrust or a "leader knows best" philosophy. Others still, are just absent, or so conflict avoidant that they choose to let the chips fall where they may and take no responsibility for the inevitable dysfunction that arises. 

In all these cases, someone is making a choice. It is a choice to be absent. It is a choice to treat your colleagues and supervisees with disrespect or aggression. It is a choice to avoid conflict. It is a choice to exclude your employees from decisions that affect them or the organization. How you choose to lead your organization matters.

How We Lead Matters
Leaders fall on multiple points of the management continuum, but there is no denying that how we choose to lead others has dramatic impact. In many of the examples I see or hear about, the hostility or stagnancy exists in spaces that espouse a position of social justice. The organization itself is oriented around addressing issues of marginalization and oppression externally and yet internally perpetuates some of the same attitudes, behaviors and hierarchies it tries to dismantle. Leaders infrequently want to acknowledge this contradiction. Pride, narcissism, obliviousness all get in the way. Leaders must be self-reflective and willing to acknowledge the problems to move forward and shift their organization's culture. Is this easy? No. Is it essential? Yes.

What Can be Done?
Simple behaviors like learning about your staff, their interests, hobbies, families can go a long way. Allowing flexibility or work from home can demonstrate trust. Offering professional development can ensure your staff have access to opportunities that help them grow so they don't stay in the same job for 20 years without any advancement or innovation. Reflecting on how you communicate with your staff when you are upset about something and choosing to be constructive vs. destructive. Including staff in decisions that affect them, employing transparent processes for change, communicating what and why you are deciding something in a timely manner. These are all easy to implement and yet, so often forgotten. In the latter examples, research shows that when team members are included in a process and feel informed about the how and why, they are more likely to accept an outcome even if the outcome is not agreeable to them (Hicks et al., 2008; Wolff, 2002). When folks are shut out of the decision making process or information is hoarded and slow to disseminate, the end result is often a feeling of disempowerment.

But it's Lonely at the Top...
While the adage goes something like "life at the top is lonely" because leaders have to make the "hard" decisions nobody likes, I don't necessarily agree that it has to be this way. I also don't think many leaders make the "hard" decisions. How you choose to engage in the workplace and demonstrate the value your staff brings to the organization in many ways determines how lonely you feel. There will always be conflict, and certainly it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to please everyone all of the time. Yet, through transparent leadership and thoughtful management, leaders do have the capacity to minimize the negative impact on their staff and the sense of loneliness they might feel "at the top." Again, I think it is a choice. If you lead from a place of isolation (e.g.: making decisions on your own), then the likely result is your own sense of exclusion. If you lead from a place of inclusion, you will develop a culture that includes you rather than eschews you.

Communication
Communication is at the heart of all of this. Leaders are busy, and yet they must make time for communication. Transparent, engaged, and regular communication is critical for healthy organizations. If leaders communicate with their teams, team members will engage in the process, whatever it may be. If they feel excluded, they will likely disengage because "what's the point? My opinion doesn't matter." It is a cycle that only intentional, inclusive leadership can break:

1. Staff disengage because they feel their voice doesn't matter;
2. Leadership disengages from their staff, because they see and feel the disengagement;
3. Repeat.

Recently, a colleague sent me an article in the New York Times about building a perfect team. Essentially, it arrives at the need for psychological safety and communication within teams. When these are present, teams are highly functional no matter the personalities or experience level. The article states:

"In the best teams, members listen to one another and show sensitivity to feelings and needs."

(See: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?emc=eta1)

I still don't think any of this is rocket science and so many leaders and organizations struggle. I also know there are other factors that interface with what I have stated here such as structural impediments, inequity, and burn out. Still though, I believe that if leaders strive to be inclusive, communicate openly and often, the psychological safety the New York Times article talks about (derived from research at Google) can exist. Organizations and their leaders have to lay the ground work. Managing without intentionality and compassion breeds dysfunction, isolation, damage and stagnancy. No one really wins in those cases.

Resolutions and Motivations

On a long run recently, I decided to listen to my ever increasing volume of podcasts instead of music. I went on somewhat of a podcast download frenzy last year subscribing to a variety of Ted Talks on culture and science, and interesting random things. I signed up for Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me and Hidden Brain from NPR, as well as Serial, which everyone seemed to be raving about, but I have not yet listened to.

I decided to listen to a couple of episodes of Hidden Brain, because really, who doesn't love social science research applied to the everyday..? The two episodes I listened to were on renewal and resolution and got my brain firing in all different directions. Podcasts, I learned, are a great way to pass the time on a long run (as is solitaire when on a treadmill if you can find a treadmill that does this - I did, but in Hong Kong).

One of the discussions was about new year's resolutions, their value, and why we make them. The presenters discussed research out of the Wharton School about "Temporal Landmarks." The article, "The Fresh Start Effect: Temporal Landmarks Motivate Aspirational Behavior" (2013, Dai, Milkman and Riis, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2204126) argues that there exists a "fresh start effect" that occurs after temporal landmarks. These landmarks allow us to relegate undesirable behaviors to a past version of ourselves. We tell ourselves that moving forward we can be better in x, y, z way. Temporal landmarks are not just when a new year rolls in, but birthdays, the first day of a month or week, a new job, or a holiday. Any point in time that allows us to draw a line between past and present. The authors conclude that the fresh start effect has the capacity to propel us forward and toward our aspirations in ways that at any other time in our lives we will be less successful at doing. They proposed: "that the psychological separation between one’s present and past selves induced by temporal landmarks motivates people to pursue their aspirations" (p. 3).

Aspirational motivation is powerful and can be harnessed on these temporal landmarks to assist us in getting where we want to go. However, another area of research Hidden Brain discussed connects to this fresh start effect, and perhaps influences whether our resolutions are successful. The article, "Multiple types of motives don't multiply the motivation of West Point cadets" (Wrzesniewski et al, 2014), found that possessing multiple motivations to achieve something actually limited the positive effects of intrinsic motivation. They studied the motivations of 10,000 cadets at West Point and determined that when a cadet had both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation they were less likely to persist. That is, when a cadet had an extrinsic or instrumental motivation pushing them in addition to something internal, the positive effects of the internal motivation were reduced. External or instrumental motivations could be things like family pressure, something for the resume, or prestige. The authors of this study state: "research suggests that instrumental motives, which are extrinsic to the activities at hand, can weaken internal motives, which are intrinsic to the activities at hand" (2014, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4121823/). So what does all this mean for us?

What is fascinating about these two articles and where I connected them as I ran, is that when we make resolutions, we often (not exclusively) don't really make them for ourselves. We make them because of the presence of external pressure - instrumental motivation. Whether that pressure comes in the form of a barrage of diet and gym commercials in the new year, a doctor or family member telling us we should do A, B, or C, or a belief that we are in some way not good enough because of the messages we receive from our work, social environment, or the larger culture. I wonder then, if resolutions, even though they are made as part of the "fresh start effect" set us up for some kind of failure because what we seek (our aspirations) is ultimately not 100% for ourselves? This is a rather bleak statement I suppose, because it means perhaps we should never make resolutions. And many people don't for this reason.

The risk of failure is so pronounced for many of us we don't even try. I write this still sitting in the space of hesitation of whether or not to try/do an Ironman. My internal motivation has to be there, free of extrinsic motivation, and I am not sure it is, yet. The temporal landmark of my birthday, or 2016, was not enough for me to step forward with confidence, press "submit" and harness the psychological separation from my 2015 non-IM self to my 2016 IM self. As one commenter on the Hidden Brain website quoted: "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try. (Yoda to Luke)." Is it really that simple?

The podcast finished with the recital of a poem by Elizabeth Bishop about losing that I have re-printed here. We do master the art of losing and in many ways expect it, especially when it comes to resolutions. But I think we can break through that, and focus on aspirations that are about us and not about anyone else. This way the "fresh start effect" has more power. The capacity for us to separate ourselves from who we were yesterday, last month or last year, becomes less like hiking Mount Everest (a feat we perhaps believe we can never achieve) and more like mastering the art of winning.


ONE ART
The art of losing isn’t hard to master;
so many things seem filled with the intent
to be lost that their loss is no disaster.

Lose something every day. Accept the fluster
of lost door keys, the hour badly spent.
The art of losing isn’t hard to master.

Then practice losing farther, losing faster:
places, and names, and where it was you meant
to travel. None of these will bring disaster.

I lost my mother’s watch. And look! my last, or
next-to-last, of three loved houses went.
The art of losing isn’t hard to master.

I lost two cities, lovely ones. And, vaster,
some realms I owned, two rivers, a continent.
I miss them, but it wasn’t a disaster.

—Even losing you (the joking voice, a gesture
I love) I shan’t have lied. It’s evident
the art of losing’s not too hard to master
though it may look like (Write it!) like disaster.

Elizabeth Bishop, “One Art” from The Complete Poems 1926-1979. Copyright © 1979, 1983 by Alice Helen Methfessel. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, LLC.


Here is the Hidden Brain podcast:

Can psychology teach us how to stick to new year's resolutions
NPR Hidden Brain, 1/1/16

Stop Looking Past What's Right in Front of You

Many of us find it easy to turn our heads and avoid engaging with what we may know in our heart to be "true." As 2015 drew to a close, I was sitting on the cusp of making a decision about whether to sign up for an Ironman - 140.6 miles. I have received countless encouragements from people I know and people I do not, yet, I still have not been able to get myself to the registration place to click "submit." I have to wonder where the hesitation is coming from. It isn't just that the distance terrifies me, which I think is healthy - don't underestimate the challenge. It also isn't that I don't think I could do it. I am fairly sure with solid and consistent training I could cross that finish line. So, I have been left, for months now with this lingering, but shapeless, paralysis that prevents me from jumping in.

This brings me to think about hesitation in general and what perhaps our bodies are trying to communicate to us. Hesitation most often arises in the moment of indecision as it has for me. A pull on our coat tails, keeping us tethered to one direction, unable to fully release wholeheartedly to whatever awaits us.

It seems then, that hesitation can hold us back, unnecessarily, from venturing into new territory, or new experiences. Our inner monologue telling us that difference and change doesn't feel safe. The status quo is comfortable and controllable. Hesitation precedes perceived discomfort. Yet, discomfort is the doorway to learning and growth. When we feel uncomfortable we can assess the roots of the discomfort and arrive at new learning about ourselves, our behavior, our bias.

Hesitation can also be a legitimate safety alarm, pulling us back from something that ultimately may not end well. It's the gut feeling that we are taught to follow. "Listen to your gut" we are told because it's usually right. My gut has sent those warning signs before, and I have yielded to the hesitation. Doing so, in hindsight, turned out to be the best option.

Hesitation, a representation of confusion and a crossroads. Why do we hesitate on the big decisions in our lives? This isn't rocket science of course, we take a pause, because they are big decisions that will have an enormous impact. We also may not trust ourselves to make the right decision. It's therefore sometimes not about safety or discomfort. Rather, it is about a lack of belief in ourselves.

I have read numerous Facebook memes and posts about the fact that we just entered the Year of the Monkey, and that 2016 will be marked by leaps of faith and risk taking. In fact, taking a risk in 2016, will reap rewards so the fortunes say. Should I then untether myself from the hesitation and sign up for that Ironman? It is easy to be swayed by what other people think you should do, but ultimately, and this is not news, we should do what we want to do. And the little tug of hesitation can help us see what that is, if we give time and attention to its root.  

Where I arrive at with my Ironman decision is really right in front of me. The question I have to answer is whether I want to do the Ironman not whether I can. I don't want to reluctantly sign up because it's the next big challenge, because it might inspire others, or "just because." Someone I don't know well recently asked me "Why not?" He tossed his words at me, as though he was throwing down the gauntlet. He leaned back in his seat nodding in satisfaction believing that there was no answer to his challenge other than agreement. I didn't have an answer for him. I think, though that it's the wrong question, and my hesitation has made that clear for me. Really, the question I should have a concrete and substantive answer to is not "why not?" but rather "Why should I?" Hesitation has taught me I need to be all in, make a positive investment. My lack of an answer to "why not?" and my seemingly perpetual hesitation are not reasons to take on this challenge.