anatomy of an outlier

you ask most people, and you’d likely find high praise for flexibility. it’s probably easy to recall those individuals that are pleasant to work with due to their high degree of adaptability and agreeable presence. it’s likely just as easy to recall a challenge collaborating with a rather rigid personality, a my-way-or-the-highway demeanor.

so what if the outlier-ish option here is a combination of the two - a rigid backbone to the adaptable execution, a firm foundation to flex in many directions?

after all, the flexibility of muscles is only effective when anchored to a bone structure. dry bones don’t move. and a pile of muscles has no form.

we have the bone structure, the framework, the form - our vision and values. the nonnegotiables in our operating system, our purpose in life. the bone structure is our identifiable identity, the pieces of which our muscles move and interact with the world. these must be rigid, firm, established.

the muscles execute the movement - the operations, executions, modes, innovations, missions. all which serve the nonnegotiables, the bones. the daily operations may take different form, different flex, different mobility, but the vision and values have to stay firm to hold the form. the more flexibility my muscles have, the larger range of motion my bones have access to. strength and mobility put the body in motion to its corresponding functional capacity. i can stretch to unlock new ranges of motion. i can strengthen to increase power output. and it all requires density in my bones.

flexibility must also be protected and stabilized at times. if joints represent where two bones meet (loose definition, i realize) - more mobility is possible, but also more stability required. a balance of strength in opposing directions allows a joint to be trusted to withstand load. pivots and changes require strength in your stabilizing structures. movement with intention must also be movement without injury.

it’s both-and.
strength and mobility.
pivots and stability.
bones and muscles.

and labels matter.
identification is clarity.
bones, ligaments, tendons, muscles, insertions, attachments.
form, function.

what if we are labeling something rigid that might in fact be flexible? or what if we are fighting to change something we think is flexible that might in fact serve us more to be categorized as rigid? i think of the systems, environments, and circumstances we operate in. some are rigid, beyond our control - at least at the moment - so we should look to stretch and flex the muscles around those bones to make the mission move. or maybe, we’ve labeled a circumstance a “given” that could actually be rethought. what we thought was a bone structure, might in fact be a tight muscle. the muscles we thought were flexible, may in fact be unstable joints prone to injury.

so what systems are rigid? or just tight? what’s hailed as flexibility and adaptability but is effectively formless and useless? proper labeling enables proper utilization and function.

i must consider the circumstances i hold and what action is strength-inducing versus injury-promoting. because strengthening a bone is different than strengthening a muscle. stability looks different than flexibility. and yet both are required in their proper place.

labels matter.
categories help.
the form takes shape to meet function, the posture to meet the purpose.