For years I\u2019ve found myself observing overreactions. As a career Human Resources professional, it goes something like this\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When a person leaves a place of employment (regardless of reason), what that person was perceived to be most lacking is what becomes over-emphasized in the one who replaces him or her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, I saw an institution once who\u2019s president unfortunately found himself caught in a rather ugly moral failure. Upon his voluntary resignation, a \u201cfamily man\u201d was named his replacement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I saw another instance in which the head of the organization was believed to have been too controlling \u2014 too much power and authority all wrapped up in a singular individual. The response? After leaving, the organization decided not to hire a new person. They instead flattened the top of the organizational hierarchy, making multiple persons co-leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The scenario is not limited to corporate new hires. Note the last four presidential elections\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One aspect that unfortunately marked Pres. Bill Clinton\u2019s tenure was his infidelity. His replacement? Another so-called \u201cfamily man.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pres. George W. Bush was always so colloquial; his rhetoric was perceived as quite simple and unpolished. Who succeeded him? A candidate whose words were often eloquent and awe-inspiring.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pres. Barack Obama then was perceived as fairly politically correct. Suffice it to say that his successor is nothing of the sort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
None of the above examples are meant as criticism \u2014 merely observation. And the reality is that overreactions aren\u2019t necessarily bad. It\u2019s simply that the overreaction over-emphasizes singular aspects, thereby often creating a new set of challenges. This happens in employment, elections, and in culture itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As we watch current culture, it gives me great hope that we are willing to look at systems and and individual ideals in which we have not adhered to our declared national conviction that all men\/women\/children are created equal\u2026 that each of us are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Note each aspect of that \u2014 men\/women\/children \u2014 equal \u2014 our Creator \u2014 inalienable rights \u2014 each is significant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But where will we overreact? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
(This is key\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n When we overreact, which of the above aspects will we omit because we are so focused on what was originally most lacking?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Think with me, friends. What\u2019s an overreaction?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026 defunding the police?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026 acting as if no good came from the 4th of July?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026 casting one political party, ethnicity, or other as wholly good and its other as entirely evil?<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019ll be honest. I often judge others a little harder than I judge myself. I know\u2026 \u201cBut AR, I\u2019m my own worst critic.\u201d Yeah, I hear you. And for those of us who like to claim such, my sense is it\u2019s only true to a point.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reality is that we typically judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions \u2014 in other words, we judge others on the limited picture of what we actually see. For self, we invoke more of a sliding scale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Relevant to this post, I\u2019d like to think that I never overreact. My reactions are fully justifiable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My guess is for none of us is that always true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respectfully\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n AR For years I\u2019ve found myself observing overreactions. As a career Human Resources professional, it goes something like this\u2026 When a person leaves a place of employment (regardless of reason), what that person was perceived to be most lacking is what becomes over-emphasized in the one who replaces him or her. For example, I saw an … <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"