I see two parts into this discussion:

1) When to hold the line (choose a hill to die)

2) What's the impact of holding the line (was it worth it)

Imho the first depends of the context (the hill being defended). Values (personal/institution foundations), goals (personal/institution aspirations), and points (milestones to reach goals).

Values, for as long as they remain values, are lines to be held at all cost (hills to die for). Goals are lines that must be held at all cost, but across space and time. In other words, one that I would retreat if I must, but would return to it as soon as possible, and if necessary hold the line. Points I would never hold the line. Those are certainly not worth dying for.

Now the impact of holding the line has paradoxically very little to do with the act itself, and more what was prepared and cultivated prior to that action. If hold the line was perceived correct by those that saw the action, then it become a tipping point for change. But it was an isolate action that did not come from a long history of clear actions, then its meaning is lost.

King Leonidas delay action and final act of holding the line was quite meaningful because of what happened before it and what triggered because of it. On itself and isolated, it would be useless.


Expand full comment

It’s a move that must be carefully implemented. If you’re always on the edge of resignation or execute the move multiple times, is it the organization or is it you?

I enjoyed your post very much—keep writing.

Expand full comment