Being stubborn will get you nowhere
In our texts, the trait of stubbornness is often compared to idolatry, one of the worst sins. Why?
Stubbornness is likened to idolatry because it means that you’ve lost your ability to behave rationally. You’re not able to look objectively at a situation anymore. I means you have to give up being angry, thinking your way is the only way, and ignoring some of the very real consequences of what you’ve created.
Pharaoh was described as having a ‘hardened heart’ for some of these reasons. He stubbornly refused to change course and as a result, risked lives, causing death and destruction to his own people. When you hold on for the sake of holding on, you’re on the wrong path.
So, with this lens, what does being stubborn really mean in the days after the election? Over and over again, I’ve seen a stubborn refusal of pollsters, talk show hosts, political analysts, and commentators to look beyond themselves. Yes, there’s been a devastating loss experienced by the Democratic Party. But what is the response? An intractability, a refusal to do what any self-respecting organization would do in the face of let’s say, a bankruptcy, or any great loss: the death of a great CEO, a whistle-blowing employee, a strike, a walk-out, or a stock dive. These signs would ordinarily be a prompt to look inward. To not do so puts the whole enterprise at risk.
Actions need to be carefully examined which precipitated the current situation. In short, a willingness to do some self-reflection and then be able to pivot. It means giving up on perhaps an idealized view of what should have been in favor of what is.
In Mussar terms, this Cheshbon HaNefesh, an accounting of the ‘soul’, prompts questions that help move things forward. To do this properly, the ‘blame-game’ needs to be abandoned in favor of some really hard-hitting questions. Instead of looking for someone or something that is totally responsible for the loss, hold a mirror up to the decisions made that veered off the path. Afterward, and only then, would there be an ability to embark on a different road.
The self-reflection and analysis is tough and unpleasant. Dealing with truth often is. The process requires stamina and inner strength, also a lack of fear of the unknown. The questions should be many, including: What were the signs that were missed? What did we not see or hear? What assumptions did we make that led us astray? Were there hints of these problems that were ignored? In what ways were we closed in our thinking? What were we not willing to give up that ended up costing us dearly? What have we learned from this that can inform our thinking going forward? What leadership changes need to be made? What policies did not resonate and why?
The mark of successful organizations (and people) is that they are willing and able to do the hard work of reinventing themselves1. In some examples, there was a total restructuring or an overhaul. It was a difficult process that was essential in being able to survive, for the sake of its founders, its employees, and customers. We should expect no less from a political party representing the interests of millions.
It’s almost a business school playbook to study which organizations were able to do this (Apple, IBM, Sears, Chipotle, GE, DuPont, Facebook, Netflix ) and which ones weren’t (Kodak, Red Lobster, Borders, TGI Fridays, Boeing, Bethlehem Steel)—-and the reasons why. Excuses might be given, but most successful companies were able to change after looking realistically at their situation.