There's an old adage that says that it's a man's duty to support his family, no matter what. Example: You're a coal miner in West Virginia. As such, you expose yourself to black lung disease and god-knows-what-other-horrors. You get sick periodically during your relatively short life, hospitalized even, not able to work. Still, as soon as you are able again, you pull yourself up by those coal dust-caked bootstraps and shuffle yourself back down into that mine.
You are lauded for your efforts, for your dedication, for the level to which you sacrifice yourself. You are taking care of your family, putting bread on the table. So you stick by your family to the end. YOUR end, that is. You took the only job in town and you kept on working it until the day you died. Now your family is without you, not to mention your livelihood. Congratulations!
Cake
Instead of insisting on such a sorry existence, you might have considered taking just one day off, cleaning yourself up, finding a way to locate a different job. You might have found a job that was clean, that would let you live a long and full life. But you never did this. You stuck it out instead.
Does this whole plan of action make any sense at all? Where is it written that taking the easiest job to find, not bothering to search for something better, is the way to go? What would be so wrong for a coal miner to reason, "Well sir, if I go to a job every day that kills me prematurely, how will my family survive after I'm gone? What kind of benefits will those mine companies grant my family? And how do I know how long they'll keep their promise?"
And then there's this thinking: "What about the long, slow, ugly illness I'll contract that'll put undue emotional, not to say financial, strain on everyone I love?"
The late shock comic Sam Kinison used to do a routine about people starving in the desert of Ethiopia and how we were making a big mistake by giving them more food. Instead, he insisted, we should be "giving them luggage!"
"Help them get out of there," he would rant, "don't just keep living and starving in a land where nothing will grow. There's no food here, nothing grows here, nothing's going to EVER grow! If you really want to help these people out, take... them... to... where... the... food... is!"
Recent research by two PhDs suggests why such seemingly sensible reactions are not taken. People by and large are prone to staying put where they have been born or find themselves, they report, even when staying is "antithetical" to their health, well being, and chances of prosperity.
"They fall for the 'Sunk Cost Fallacy,'" explains Hal Arkes, PhD, Ohio State University and Peter Ayton, PhD., City University in London, referring to their published findings. . "This means that any investment justifies further cost." Interestingly, "lesser" organisms such as dogs, mice and ants are more likely to cut their losses when faced with impending failure, Arkes and Ayton observe. Unlike humans, they behave "as rational beings should," trying to maximize future benefits and minimize future costs.
Would a "lesser" being spend a second more than necessary in the dank, choking coal mine air if there were a way of getting out? Would a coal-miner's canary, given the choice, stay down there amid the toxic fumes if it had a choice?
Think about this the next time you're feeling trapped in your job. Are you fretting that you can't leave because of all the years you've been with your employer, or the time and money you invested in getting your degree(s)? Instead, think these thoughts: I've an obligation to give my family (and myself) the very best deal I can find. And time's a wastin'. Better get on with finding it.
Are Coal Miners Responsible Human Beings?
Ken Lizotte CMC is Chief Imaginative Officer (CIO) of emerson consulting group inc. (Concord, MA), which transforms consultants, law firms, executives and companies into “thoughtleaders.” This article is an excerpt from his newest book "Beyond Reason: Questioning Assumptions of Everyday Life".
Visit ==>www.thoughtleading.com for more info.