Connect with us

News

DAVIDSON: How Well Do You Bounce Back From Adversity?

Having resilience is fundamental to dealing with upheaval in our professional and personal lives.

Jeff Davidson

Published

on

During these past 12 months, it’s fairly safe to say that we each have faced varying degrees of adversity. Resilience as been described as the ability to bounce back from adversity. Having resilience is fundamental to dealing with upheaval in our professional or personal lives. Why? Quite simply, those who have resilience tend to flourish!

Resilient people are able to establish a balance – they believe they’ll succeed; they sharpen their focus on the tasks at hand, they stay loose, and they roll with the punches. They maintain orderliness and self-awareness, largely to avoid becoming overwhelmed and confused.

Although resilient individuals are as vulnerable to the anxieties of change in business as anyone else, they’re able to regain balance quickly, stay physically and emotionally healthy, and remain productive when confronted by confusing or gloomy situations.

Most Setbacks are not Forever

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

When next to nothing is going right, resilient individuals still manage to figure out how to get back on track. They apply such ingenuity to daily tasks, long term projects, group or team relations, or problems with the boss. If they lose a client, they’re willing to undertake the rigorous assessment as to why. If something’s going wrong on a project, they jump right in to see why. They consider the possibilities, take each one and follow it through for whatever insights may emerge.

Resilient individuals are adept at managing sudden, significant, and complex change with minimum dysfunctional behavior. Their capability can be a marvel to behold. Rather than shrink from controversy, they’re more likely to dive into the fray. They take a stand-up role, admitting where and when they were wrong, if that be the case. They assess the choices they made that lead to the result and what other choices they could make to achieve a more desirable outcome in the future.

When resilient individuals find themselves boxed in on all sides, they don’t get down or feel sorry from themselves, at least not for long. They’re willing to record their feelings, brainstorm, or even clean out the file cabinet, knowing that such activities can be therapeutic. Perhaps most vital, they determine what they can accomplish right now, today. They know that the act of getting things done, in and of itself, generally proves to be an uplifting experience, however small the deed.

By identifying, observing, and then incorporating the behaviors of resilient people, it’s possible to change your own behavior to better deal with the world around and within you. So, who in your workplace is great at getting things done, seems to roll with the punches, and doesn’t come unglued in the face of setbacks? That’s the person you want to emulate.

Temporary Arrangements

While resilient types have or develop flexibility and know when to roll with the punches, in many instances they are better than average at overcoming attachment to a place, a piece of equipment, a method, or even a business philosophy. They seem to understand that, particularly in the workplace, virtually all arrangements are temporary.

In any case, as a lot, resilient individuals don’t seem to be as flustered by bends in the road. If they’re thwarted in some aspect of a project, they make forward progress in others. They use what they have to get what they want.

News

Stephanie Grisham Makes Wild Claims About ‘Secret Meetings’ Ahead of Jan. 6th

The clear-headed among us will recognize this nothing-burger for what it is, however.

Published

on

Not everything is a spy novel, or a Hollywood blockbuster.  Not every little political machination in our nation is some sort of clandestine and seismic event.  This is something that we all must remember during the hyperbole-laden headline-mongering that the January 6th committee is looking to drum up.

The group’s very existence appears to be hinged on the idea that Donald Trump is a wannabe dictator of some sort who tried to take over America 12 months and 2 weeks ago.  They appear ready to figuratively die on this hill, and they have no qualms with taking the absence of knowledge and fashioning it into something sinister – much like the conspiracy theorists that they love to deride so much.

For instance, there are now headlines swirling around the mainstream media that tell of “secret meetings” that Trump was having just ahead of the attack on the Capitol – the subject and substance of which is undeniably unknown.

Yet still, these are presented as insidious incidents that somehow prove something that they’ve been looking to prove for a long time…despite our complete lack of knowledge regarding the actual facts of the matter.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham told the House committee investigating the Capitol riot that former President Donald Trump had secret meetings in his residence in the days running up to January 6, The Guardian reported.

Two sources told The Guardian that she told the committee that Trump held the meetings, and that only a few of his aides were aware of them.

She said she was not sure exactly who attended but identified Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and the White House chief usher Timothy Harleth, as two people who scheduled and directed participants to the meetings, The Guardian reported.

The infotainment industry’s sources claim that Grisham’s testimony was “more significant” than expected, but there is nothing unusual about the sitting US President having meetings in which not every single solitary person in the White House is included.

Nonetheless, Grisham’s nothing-burger continues to gain traction in the media.

Not everything is a spy novel, or a Hollywood blockbuster.  Not every little political machination in our nation is some sort of clandestine and seismic event.  This is something that we all must remember during the hyperbole-laden headline-mongering that the January 6th committee is looking to drum up. The group’s very existence appears to be hinged on the idea that Donald Trump is a wannabe dictator of some sort who tried to take over America 12 months and 2 weeks ago.  They appear ready to figuratively die on this hill, and they have no qualms with taking the absence of knowledge and fashioning it into something sinister – much like the conspiracy theorists that they love to deride so much. For instance, there are now headlines swirling around the mainstream media that tell of “secret meetings” that Trump was having just ahead of the attack on the Capitol – the subject and substance of which is undeniably unknown. Yet still, these are presented as insidious incidents that somehow prove something that they’ve been looking to prove for a long time…despite our complete lack of knowledge regarding the actual facts of the matter. Former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham told the House committee investigating the Capitol riot that former President Donald Trump had secret meetings in his residence in the days running up to January 6, The Guardian reported. Two sources told The Guardian that she told the committee that Trump held the meetings, and that only a few of his aides were aware of them. She said she was not sure exactly who attended but identified Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and the White House chief usher Timothy Harleth, as two people who scheduled and directed participants to the meetings, The Guardian reported. The infotainment industry’s sources claim that…

Continue Reading

News

Donald Trump Gets Bad News from SCOTUS Regarding January 6th

The Democrats just gained a whole lot of 2022 and 2024 ammunition.

Published

on

In their pursuit of political points, the January 6th committee has exuded a nonstop barrage of actions taken at the expense of former President Donald Trump, generally believed to be in the interest of stymying his plans for the 2024 presidential election.

Their attacks have fairly transparent of late, subpoenaing anyone and everyone who had contact with the former President in and around the date in question, and even some who had nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol at all.

This week, the group scored a rather major win in the Supreme Court, which will allow them access to a trove of documents from the Trump White House.

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a blow to former President Donald Trump, rejecting his request to block release of White House records being sought by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The court’s order paves the way for the release of records from the National Archives. The records could shed light on the events that led to the riot by Trump supporters protesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, which was won by Democrat Joe Biden.

In its decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that the question of whether a former president can claim executive privilege need not be answered in this case, because a lower court had already decided.

And they didn’t beat around the bush.

“Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the court said in its order.

There is little doubt that this access will only cause the scope of the already-controversial investigation to widen, and allow the Democrats a plethora of new angles from which to launch their politically-focused onslaught.

In their pursuit of political points, the January 6th committee has exuded a nonstop barrage of actions taken at the expense of former President Donald Trump, generally believed to be in the interest of stymying his plans for the 2024 presidential election. Their attacks have fairly transparent of late, subpoenaing anyone and everyone who had contact with the former President in and around the date in question, and even some who had nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol at all. This week, the group scored a rather major win in the Supreme Court, which will allow them access to a trove of documents from the Trump White House. The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a blow to former President Donald Trump, rejecting his request to block release of White House records being sought by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court’s order paves the way for the release of records from the National Archives. The records could shed light on the events that led to the riot by Trump supporters protesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, which was won by Democrat Joe Biden. In its decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that the question of whether a former president can claim executive privilege need not be answered in this case, because a lower court had already decided. And they didn’t beat around the bush. “Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the court said in its order. There is little doubt that this access will only cause the scope of the already-controversial investigation to widen, and allow the Democrats a plethora…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week