Jame’s definition of stress in a previous comment would seem to me to be apt if time is short there is less time for resillience and therefore less choice in whether people adapt, avoid or accept.

Most people have spent all their lives trying to be good boys or girls (a process which can be successful all the way up to the boardroom) and stay out of trouble, especially because all the adults around them seemed to go very irrational over any deviation from “normal behaviour”. This sets up emotionally charged “patterns” which restrict clear thinking and the ability to handle “new” situations.

What goes on in our minds is basically to do with whether the patterned area or the executive thinking area (the “intelligence” which so distinguishes humans) gets a look at the subject first. (many books on brain neurology etc so we’ will “pass” on the detail) When operating free of the influence of “patterns” our real intelligence is incredibly able to be flexible and come up with elegant and unique solutions or responses to any new situation. People thoroughly enjoy doing this together with each other.

“Patterns” installed usually early in life cannot be successfully overcome by just thinking harder or reading management books, but they can be weakend by the sort of identification you are discussing in this topic, and can be completley “discharged” by various counselling practices, all of which require the person themselves to have the information and initiative ( “the light bulb has to want to change”, but which are easily learned and practiced by any person (as I know from 12 years actual practice). Underestimating the strength of “undischarged patterns” and hoping that some new processes of logic or thinking will lead to intelligent change is a common mistake we (humanity) have made up until now.

In the language of this discussion I would say then that “Hardiness” equates to what I am calling flexible intelligence being free to operate, due to an absence or low accumulation of distress patterns in relation to the particular situation being faced. When flexible intelligence, good information, and a lot of experience are combined the results can creative and excellent. When a whole team of truly flexible intelligences get working together there seems to be no limit.

But you have highlighted that if we begin seeing the stress reaction itself (ie feeling stressed) as a positive stimulus we may be into thinking that ’stress’ is a good thing (and maybe locked into the unconscious cycle of belief and acceptance described).

The question then is how do you break that cycle- and make it a healthy challenge?

I really like the link of the 2 concepts and how they “help” each other. Amazing how there are things that in isolation are just stuff or words, but when linked can create something altogether more powerful.

I gather people can readily acknowledge those with high “hardiness” scores outperform other groups. What I am curious about is their thriving on stressful situations. While hardiness is defined as “the ability to embrace an ambiguous future rather than just do what is done in the past” (possibility thinking and solution focused) how might stress be viewed?

I once heard stress very practically described as “the very uncomfortable (trapped) feeling people have when they have more to deal with than they physically (or mentally) can deal with, in the time they feel they must deal with it”.

For those of us who have felt this sense of stress, I wonder at the true longevity of effectiveness of those who regularly seek out these situations, or only perform at their best under them. It would seem strange for a person to need to genuinely feel stressed in order to perform, or to create an articifical sense of stress in order to rise to the occasion.

If stress is akin to feeling like you have no way out (lack the disposition/tools/outlook to deal with your situation), having “hardiness” implies you have the disposition/tools/outlook to deal with stress. So which is it? Are the hardy fooling themselves that they are stressed, when in reality they may just be challenged?

As usual Will, you got me thinking!

Cheers James

If the A’s are the Approaches, and the C’s are the Capabilities, then the B’s must be the mitigating limits (the Boundaries) to hold the three in unity.

To Alter stressful circumstances we need a sense of Control while being conscious of our Beliefs about what we can control,

To Avoid stressful circumstances we need a sense of Commitment while being conscious of the Borders of where that commitment ends,

To Accept stressful circumstances we need a sense of Challenge while being conscious of our needs for Balance taking on only that which we can successfully manage.

There is no point taking on a challenge that throws everything else out of balance based on a mistaken belief of what we can control with a commitment to something outside of what we really care about.

Thank you - your thought has completed the trilogy (and given an example of how this space works).

Through this we find greater means of how to explore and represent the depth of the research on the dimensions of stress in an accessible way- to then allow our organisations to ‘be’ (stress free).

You have cleverly linked the A’s and C’s with an implicit call to BE (hehehe).

Laughter aside, the capability to approach progress by integrating the work of others and yield a fresh insight that is simple to grasp is a very varey matter of import. Well done.

And I concur that we must learn to break the cycle of belief (and acceptance) that “life is meant to be stressful” by taking the shorter path of understanding that “life is meant to be” and do just that.

Regards PAD