#1 ·
Is it just me, or does it feel like "emergency measures" eventually just become the new normal? I was reading about some historical shifts in governance recently, and it struck me how often the rules of the game get rewritten just when things seem to be settling down.
It always starts with a "necessary adjustment" to handle a specific situation, but then you look back five or ten years later and that "temporary" change is baked into the foundation. It makes me wonder if there's any real way to stop that kind of momentum once it starts. Once you open the door to changing the fundamental terms of how leadership works, can you ever truly close it again?
I've always been a bit skeptical of anyone claiming they need more time to "stabilize" things. To me, it usually looks like a way to dodge the natural expiration date of authority.
Do you think there's a way to build systems that are actually resistant to these kinds of incremental shifts, or is power always going to find a way to stretch its legs?
It always starts with a "necessary adjustment" to handle a specific situation, but then you look back five or ten years later and that "temporary" change is baked into the foundation. It makes me wonder if there's any real way to stop that kind of momentum once it starts. Once you open the door to changing the fundamental terms of how leadership works, can you ever truly close it again?
I've always been a bit skeptical of anyone claiming they need more time to "stabilize" things. To me, it usually looks like a way to dodge the natural expiration date of authority.
Do you think there's a way to build systems that are actually resistant to these kinds of incremental shifts, or is power always going to find a way to stretch its legs?