Your Legacy is Now
Life is not a search for meaning from others, it’s about the creation of meaning for yourself.
For over 30 years Alan Weiss has consulted, coached, and advised everyone from Fortune 500 executives, state governors, non-profit directors, and entrepreneurs to athletes, entertainers, and beauty pageant contestants. That’s quite an assortment of people, and they run into the thousands. Most of them have had what we euphemistically call “means,” and some of them have had a lot more than that. Others have been aspiring and with more ends in sight than means on hand.
Alan Weiss states:
I’ve dealt with esteem (low), narcissism (high), family problems, leadership dysfunctions, insecurities, addictions, and ethical quandaries. And I’ve talked about them through the coronavirus crisis. But don’t get the wrong idea. About 95% of these people have been well-meaning, honest (to the best of their knowledge), and interested in becoming a better person and better professional. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be talking to me.
I found the equivalent of the “runner’s wall” in their journeys, where they must break through the pain and the obstacles and then can keep going with renewed energy and spirit. But runners know how far they must go after the breakthrough, be it another half lap or another five miles. There is a finish line.
I’ve found that people in all positions, even after the “breakthrough,” don’t know where they are in the race, let alone where the finish line is.
They do not know what meaning is for them. They may have money in the bank, good relationships, the admiration of others, and the love of their dogs. But they have no metrics for “What now?” They believe that at the end of life there is a tallying, some metaphysical accountant who totals up their contributions, deducts their bad acts, and creates the (hopefully positive) difference.
That difference, they believe, is their “legacy.”
But the thought that legacy arrives at the end of life is as ridiculous as someone who decides to sell a business and tries to increase its valuation the day prior. Legacy is now. Legacy is daily. Every day we create the next page in our lives, but the question becomes who is writing it and what’s being written. Is someone else creating our legacy? Or are we, ourselves, simply writing the same page repeatedly?
Or do we leave it blank?
Our organic, living legacy is marred and squeezed by huge normative pressures. There is a “threshold” point, at which one’s beliefs and values are overridden by immense peer pressure. Our metrics are forced to change.
In an age of social media, biased press, and bullying, we’ve come to a point where our legacy, ironically, is almost out of our hands.
Yet our “meaning”—our creation of meaning and not a search for some illusive alchemy—creates worth and impact for us and all those with whom we interact.
Roberta Matuson
I’m still trying to figure out why the headlines are all about extortion, with little mention of sexual harassment. Seems Letterman has done a great job of spinning this. Wonder if Bill Reilly is paying close attention.
Alan Weiss
I’m wondering why we haven’t heard from the women involved.
Danielle Keister
Aren’t we jumping to conclusions here? We don’t know the details. We don’t know that any sexual harassment has occurred. We don’t know who was involved nor what the circumstances were. We’re just the lewd public making things up in our own heads.
Plus, the guy has been decidedly single since forever. I don’t know how long he’s been with the mother of his son, but he only recently got married. He’s just a celebrity; heck, he’s just a man, not a saint. What on earth do we have to forgive him for? That he’s a man who has had sex with women? That’s crazy.
Here’s Letterman’s extortion monologue in case anyone missed it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVC3HohP8o4&feature=related
Alan Weiss
You do know the details. A boss had sex with subordinates. That’s a hostile environment. He pokes fun at the very transgressions he’s committed. You must be kidding. He’s a hypocrite. He’s had sex with subordinates. If you feel that’s fine, then your ethical compass isn’t aligned with true north.
Danielle Keister
How do you know he had sex with his subordinates? That it was harassment and not consensual? Where did I miss those details?
That’s a bunch of BS… my not judging him to have done anything wrong (at least not without knowing the entire REAL story) in no way indicates that my compass isn’t aligned with true north.
Alan Weiss
He admitted having sex with women who worked for him. That constitutes harassment: sex with people over whom you have managerial control. What’s wrong with you? He’s admitted to this. And you don’t address the point about his extreme hypocrisy: This is the very thing he pokes fun at others about. Now he does it. Maybe you think there’s nothing wrong with this, that’s your prerogative, but I think your compass is out of whack, sorry.
Danielle Keister
How interesting to see you edit your original comment and delete mine. That’s says something to me, Alan.
And speaking of hypocritical (and I’m sure you will feel compelled to delete this as well), I seem to recall you chastising others often about ad hominem attacks when you, yourself, don’t seem to be above them.
I must say I’m disappointed. But that of course if of no matter. We all know, since you make a point of it quite often, that what others think is not of much interest to you.
Danielle Keister
There’s nothing wrong with me. What’s wrong with you?
I watched the same monologue. He didn’t admit to having sex with subordinates. He admitted to “having sex with women” and women that worked there. When did he say they were subordinates? When did he say he coerced them? We don’t know the true facts. All we know is that he was poking fun at an extortion attempt.
Beyond any of that, if anyone was sexually harassed, it’s incumbent upon the victim to bring claim. That’s what we have the justice system for. Granted, it may not always work well, but that doesn’t make extortion acceptable.
Roberta Matuson
Danielle,
David Letterman is Chairman of WorldWide Pants. http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/107/107309.html
That makes everyone that works for him a subordinate, which as Alan points out is harassment.
As part of my practice, I am often asked to conduct investigations of harassment in the workplace. In this case, we do know the true facts as Letterman has admitted having sexual relationships with employees. Doesn’t matter if he is married or single. This is different than the Bill O’Reilly case, where Bill denied this ever happened with the producer that charged him with harassment. That case was rumored to settle in the millions.
Roberta
Alan Weiss
I didn’t delete anything! What the heck are you talking about, and why are you so vehement in defending Letterman?
If he didn’t do anything wrong, why is he apologizing all over the place, including to his wife, since this occurred before the marriage? Why is he doing that if it was fine and dandy?
But why are you so angry about this bizarre episode? And stop accusing me of fantasies: I have not deleted a thing here, nor substituted anything. I’m allowing you to rant, because you’re doing more damage to your position than I ever could!
I don’t mind a good debate, but you’re the one who is taking this on some kind of personal mission. It’s incumbent upon the victim?? You have a very different world view of behavior and of hypocrisy than I do, it’s a simple as that.
Danielle Keister
Wow! I am shocked and saddened. You are a liar, Alan. Maybe no one else will know it, but I now know it.
First, I’m not defending Letterman. I don’t know what he did or didn’t do. That absolutely can’t be clear to anyone based on his monologue. What I’m defending is the idea that people shouldn’t rush to judgment on things they simply don’t have all the true and complete facts about. How on earth can you condemn someone based on nothing more than a monologue? And who cares if he’s a hypocrite? He’s not the pope and he’s not the president.
And by the way, I hate to break it do you, but he IS a comedian after all. Of course, he is going to poke fun at others as well as his current situation. That’s his JOB.
You most certainly did delete my original response. You know it and I know it. When I first posted, it was 9:06 pm PT (my time). About an hour and a half later, you responded at 1:17 am ET (your time).
Since I was sitting right at my computer, I responded with the 5th comment, except that the time I originally posted it was about 10:34 pm PT and this is what was on the screen.
What it looks like from here is that you decided to change your strategy. Instead of censoring, you decided to re-edit your comments and re-add mine back into the thread (you’ll note that all my comments after #5 are now in your own time zone instead of mine, which is 3 hours behind you) in an attempt to make me look bad and you better.
What I find bizarre is someone I thought of as a mentor and hero stooping to such juvenile, pedestrian behavior because the commentary didn’t agree with his (and perhaps showed him to be a bit smaller minded than he would prefer).
Oh, and it’s 9:12 am Pacific Time now where I am 😉
Alan Weiss
I think you’re emotionally disturbed. I deleted nothing. I don’t care enough about this debate about David Letterman to even begin to tell you how overwrought and hysterical you are. Repost what you think I deleted. I did NOTHING, because this isn’t important enough, nor is your ranting.
I’m in California on business. Calling me names and accusing me of lying is pretty pathetic, but you seem absolutely irrational over Letterman. I didn’t delete this, did I? Or do you want to visit the world clock in cuckoo land?
Simon
Danielle,
I think you may have missed the point.
Alan asked, was he concurrently having illicit relationships with his own staff members?
If this is the case, this is hypocrisy! Not to mention, it is more likely than less likely to be sexual harrasment! Perhaps not ethically (depending where you stand on this issue) but definitely by generally accepted definition.
Don’t really want to keep this debate going, just thought it needed clarifying.
Cheers.