This quote comes from one of my favorite podcasts, the Peter Attia Drive, a podcast focused on health science and longevity.
In this episode, they were discussing accumulated results regarding insulin and insulin resistance.
Thankfully, I’m not insulin resistant, but I am working on improving my metabolic health and weight. As I’m now in my second month of using a continuous glucose monitor, and having conducted some self-experiments, I can see the effects of the above quote in my own body.
For example: I participated in a coke challenge, where we had a coke after fasting compared to a coke after fasting followed by walking for half an hour or more. Walking improved my glucose response by 5 points on a 10-point scale (from a 2 to a 7). Here’s another way they say it in the podcast episode notes:
I’m continuing to work with a trainer a couple times a week, doing a fun activity at least once a week, and am moving (walking, hiking, biking, etc.) almost every day. I particularly get moving after having a meal that would be a bit higher in carbs. It makes a significant difference on my results.
To explain “to your tolerance”: we are all different in our hormonal setup (insulin, cortisol) as well as our muscle mass/distribution, both of which are major deciders of how much our body will burn glucose (and use glycogen) versus store it as fat (as triglycerides in adipose tissue).
So their point there is that if we are getting good exercise, good muscle but not getting good metabolic results, then we also can limit simple carbs (especially fructose, which has particular effects beyond glucose) to get to where we want to be.
This is really promising for preventing or reversing the issues listed, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and other metabolic disorders.
Today we’ve got another 3-part quote. All of these arrived in my Readwise review today, and they tell a story.
The third quote here is an important follow-up to the first two.
The reign of Christ does not mean that Christians take Caesar's place in ruling over others. Rather, we are called to embody another way of living together: bound together with love & service rather than power & violence.
This is great advice for many behavior changes, not just procrastination. (Make the healthy food visible, put away distractions, place practice music sheets out, etc.)
Here’s where I’d take a little issue, however:
Environment and habit change ishow we change ourselves.
Willpower is limited, situational, and varying. The way we make lasting change is to exercise willpower when it is strong in order to set ourselves up for success when our willpower is diminished.
When we do that, we keep taking actions we planned to take, building up habits and reinforcing our sense of identity as someone who is the kind of person we’d hoped to be. This is how change endures.
It’s there something you can change in your environment this week?
I'm part of a tradition (Anabaptism) that has a long history of pacifism and has collected the stories of how they were murdered due to their faith (it's a giant book and not a great read, but you can still find copies).
Also, I live a pretty comfortable life. I grew up in a wealthy country, didn't experience serious health conditions, and have not had to worry about if I would be able to find my next meal. I had access to good education. I haven't been harassed, harmed, or neglected due to the color of my skin. And most importantly for this topic, I grew up in Christendom, a part of the world where Christian belief has been a dominant force in public opinion and even in governance.
It's in these areas of Christendom where I am surprised (and frankly, embarrassed) when Christians talk about being "persecuted". Christians in Christendom often read Bible stories and see themselves in the narratives as the Israelites enslaved in Egypt, or the early Christians under Rome. But what we must realize is we are more likely to be on the side of Pharaoh, Herod, or Caesar.
When you dig into it what "persecution" these Christendom-Christians are facing, it usually ends up being one of two things:
Social consequences for conservative ideology and/or for bigotry
An underlying fear that we are moving into a post-Christendom world
Neither of these are persecution. Let's talk about them in order.
Social Consequences
To understand this one, we need to step back a bit.
One of the problems with Christendom is that Christianity syncretizes with the government, with the dominant political beliefs, the dominant economic order, and/or with nationalism. Christians begin to conflate being part of a party, ideology, or nation with being a Christian. We can end up working as hard (or harder) for those beliefs than we do trying to follow the Lamb.
Specifically, far too many Christians in Christendom have an unhealthy (and frankly, heretical) confusion of social conservatism and Christianity. They attempt to wield the power & violence of the state to control non-Christians' personal beliefs and actions, most egregiously and notably in issues of sexuality. This isn't the gospel, and it's not behaving like the one they proclaim to follow (who specifically refused power-over temptations when Satan put them to him!). And when people react to this controlling (and often bigoted) behavior with condemnation, social sanctions, or defensive legislation, it's not "persecuting" the Christian. The Christian was the aggressor, here.
Post-Christendom
It's true, many parts of the world are on the move from Christendom to post-Christendom. (Note: this is partly due to Christians acting as pretty terrible representatives of the good news, as I alluded to earlier...but that's a whole other post). In Post-Christendom, Christianity has a waning influence on public opinion and governance, as a plurality of voices emerges or a new perspective becomes most common.
This is unsettling for Christians who enjoyed (whether they realized it or not) being in the seats of prestige and power. But as the saying goes, "When You're Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression" In other words, losing privilege is not the same thing as being persecuted.
Ok, But What About Real Persecution?
If a Christian should suffer real persecution, the gospels and epistles offer us instructions and hope:
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you
Rom 12:14 Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse.
1Co 4:12 When we are verbally abused, we respond with a blessing, when persecuted, we endure
Heb 10:33 At times you were publicly exposed to abuse and afflictions, and at other times you came to share with others who were treated in that way.
2Co 4:9 we are persecuted, but not abandoned; we are knocked down, but not destroyed
Gal 1:23 They were only hearing, “The one who once persecuted us is now proclaiming the good news of the faith he once tried to destroy.”
...and many more
Jesus and early followers of the Way were very clear about not returning evil for evil. In fact, the church has often grown the most in places and times of persecution!
While we don't desire persecution, the duty of a Christian is to follow the third way when encountering it, to bear witness to shared humanity, to goodness, and to a God who loves all people.
"what Kim did for Ops & DevOps in the Phoenix project, he has continued for product development in this work"
Both of these books use narrative to demonstrate the move to agile ways of working and devops transformations within an auto-parts selling business.
These five ideals are very helpful for looking at ways to enhance a technology practice.
—
Here’s where I’m going to "think out loud" again. As I read these, I realized they’d make a better framing for how I’ve been approaching some challenges my team faces at work. I’ve been communicating with my manager using the perspective of "accountability without authority or responsibility", and while that’s true, the Unicorn Project ideals might be an even better lens by which to view the problems.
Let me work through them to see what we are doing or could do in each area.
Locality and Simplicity
This is the core issue, as I’ve recently been thinking about it. My team relies on data, processes, instructions, and approval for almost everything from another team (and primarily one team). Work comes in from the other team, work goes back to that team. This disincentivizes problem ownership by either team, as things get "tossed over the wall". Further, because of the back and forth, there are steps that don’t necessarily add value.
To solve these, we need to create local ownership and reduce waste & complexity. Instead of there->here->there work, we can improve this in one of the following ways:
here->here->there: meaning that my team sets the direction, rather than receiving it, but the other team still manages the result
there->here->here: meaning that my team still receives the direction, but has more capability to finish the work on their own
there->there->there or here->here->here: meaning that one team has full ownership for direction, results, and problems for an area of work
For us, the most appropriate short term answer is here->here->there, with a potential move eventually to a true locality where one team manages something all the way through the lifecycle. I’ve been advocating for this two-step approach, but now have a different way to talk about it.
Focus, Flow, and Joy
We have a culture of meetings. This is especially true for our New York office (where my boss and my peers are originally from). During covidtide, this has ramped up even further. Added to that, my team is working with a great number of stakeholders (often working with with many leaders and over 250 internal customers, each), has many sources of incoming requests, and encounters many "squirrels" caused by hot topics or VIP perspectives.
Altogether, those equate to very little time for focus or deep work. That results in less satisfaction and joy as people feel like they are constantly juggling instead of achieving momentum through wins.
We’ve got a few irons in the fire on this, too:
"No Meeting Wednesdays": we instituted this recently, and while not perfect (due to stakeholder meetings and increased interruptions from people who know we are "free"), it helps there be the chance for blocks of time for focus
"Ways of Working" agile alignment: I’ve been proposing that we get all our work visible under one mechanism, so that we can better manage priority, work-in-progress, etc. It would also help to have requests come in a common way, reducing interruptions. We’ve got buy-in now to get some agile coaches working with our broader org on a group transformation.
Using collaborative tools: Many interruptions can go away if we have standard means to keep one another up-to-date or make decisions. I’m helping push adoption of these ways. (Kanban boards instead of status meetings and inquiries, asynchronous work out of the same document rather than a meeting for committee-editing, decision-records and next-actions captured in writing, etc.)
Improvement of Daily Work
There isn’t a lot additional to say here, as so much of it is dependent on the above two areas. If my team doesn’t have much ownership of their work, nor the time to focus on changes, it’s very difficult to focus on daily improvements.
Instead, I try to make up for some of this deficit by spending a lot of my time on this, looking for ways to help the team. Creating clarity. Creating or sharing resources that make things easier. Promoting the internal sharing of best practices, wins, and lessons-learned. Cutting waste. Eliminating blockers. Etc.
Psychological Safety
The idea of psychological safety is this: Team members have to feel that it’s ok to speak up, that their concerns won’t be dismissed and they won’t be retaliated against. Team members have to feel that it’s ok to learn, make mistakes, clean up after themselves, and grow; that they won’t be penalized for trying something new.
It wouldn’t be appropriate to say much here (as it could affect psychological safety!), but I will say that I seek to promote psychological safety by being transparent, authentic, and non-defensive. I look to give opportunities for people to stretch themselves in a safe manner. I aim to make sensitive constructive comments in private and heap praise in public.
Customer Focus
We can think about customer focus in two ways.
The first is the most important: the end costumer of the product or service. Do we know what they need, and is our work ultimately serving them? Or are we creating waste and doing pet projects?
The second is the internal customer, or stakeholder. This one is easy to overlook, especially if a team isn’t used to thinking about having customers, which is an all-too-common occurrence in the technology world.
To help with this, what I do is to advocate for customer and stakeholder perspectives up front and every step along the way, both in my team and for the teams where we are the internal customer.
Who will use the product or service?
What do they need?
How does that inform our requirements?
Is somebody getting their perspective and feedback?
Do you need to get their buy-in for the solution?
Is there an easy way for them to give you feedback and see that you are doing something about it?
etc.
If your org has a product-owner type role, this helps a great deal!
There’s this tendency in modern conversations of justice to look at everything as zero-sum, winner-or-loser, exploiting-or-exploited.
It’s been exacerbated by celebrity figures who push this line of thinking, as well as by advertising-driven social media algorithms picking “winners” in virality wars.
But we have to do better than that. We have to want a better world for everyone. We have to look at how improvements can make things better overall.
We don’t get there simply by being anti-. We don’t get there by treating others as enemies to be defeated. Rather, we can look to others as potential co-conspirators ready to tackle challenges together.
One way to step out of the enemy-making view is to look at a level level above the individual. What is the mood of the group? What is the spirit of the organization? What is the faith of the locality? What is the tone of the structure?
You can mix and match these words, too. The Christian Bible talks about the “principalities and the powers”. German philosophers talk about “the zeitgeist”. You may have another metaphor.
However we think about it, before we go after people, let’s take a moment to think about the overarching system affecting the problem. What powers are at work, and with that in mind, how can we work with others to make things better?
If I go into an challenging discussion just trying to get my way, I’m not helping the situation. If I go into a challenging discussion acting like I care about the other person’s perspective, I’m still not helping the situation. It’s only when I actually care about their perspective that we can find a wise path forward.
Are there discussions you’ve been avoiding? Do you have the capacity to care about their perspective? Do you have courage to have the talk?
.png)
.png?disposition=attachment)
