Compared to what?

I'm about to take two weeks off. Real time off—not "working from a different location" off, not "I'll check email in the morning" off. PTO. Away. Done.

It's the first time in a while. Before my current job, I was on my own for three years. And when you work for yourself, the lack of rest isn't a mystery. I was running three roles simultaneously—sales, service, product delivery. There was no coverage, no "let someone else handle it." I knew it was a problem. I just couldn't solve it without stopping the business.

Now I work for a company. I've been here for just under a year. The balance is more than decent. I have boundaries, a team, a role that's defined. By most measures, the problem has been solved.

So why does facing two weeks off feel like the first time I've exhaled in years?

I've been measuring against the wrong thing.

The favorable comparison

For three years, my baseline was unsustainable. When I moved into a healthier situation, I measured the improvement against that. And by comparison, everything looked dramatically better. Because it was.

What I never asked was whether "dramatically better than unsustainable" was the same thing as "actually sustainable." The comparison was so favorable I never thought to question it.

Now I'm wondering whether I've made the same mistake with the vacation itself. I waited close to a year to take a real break—and now I'm taking a big one. Two full weeks. It feels significant, almost like an event. But should I have been taking smaller breaks throughout the year instead? Stepping away before the pressure accumulated to the point where two weeks felt like an exhale? I don't know. I clearly didn't recognize the need six months ago. That's part of the problem.

I wasn't choosing a reference point. I was just comparing against the worst version and mistaking the result for an answer.

A measurement error that looks like an answer

Companies do this all the time after a difficult stretch. A reorg. A failed launch. A quarter where nothing worked. Everything that follows gets measured against theat low point. The next quarter looks like a recovery. The one after that looks like momentum. And maybe it is. But when you're inside it, recovery and "better than the worst version" look the same. How often does anyone stop to check whether the improvement has actually reached where it needs to be, or just reached a place that feels good relative to where things were?

The data isn't wrong. Things are better, and the improvement is genuine. But treating the worst version as your baseline isn't the same as asking what the right baseline actually is. That's difficult to catch because the narrative it creates is true —"we've turned the corner," "the culture is so much healthier".

Those statements can all be accurate.

They're just not the whole picture.

It comes back to one of my favorite questions: how do you measure success? 

Sometimes the harder question is whether the definition of success itself needs to change. 

When a true narrative stops the next question

In Narrative Myopia—the quietest threat to alignment, I wrote about organizational stories that begin true and gradually stop getting tested. The story keeps getting repeated. It still sounds coherent. But nobody's checking it against current reality anymore.

The version that lasts the longest is a narrative that's right enough. "Things are good" is accurate. So is "we've made progress." Those aren't delusions. They're conclusions that come from a flattering comparison—and because the conclusion is defensible, nobody asks the follow-up.

Compared to what?

I've been telling myself "things are good" for close to a year. And they are. Good job, decent hours, a role that makes sense. All true. But that's been landing as a conclusion when it might be more honest as a starting point. Things are good—compared to the three years before. Whether that's the right comparison is a question I hadn't been asking.

Berkson's Bits

If you are looking to influence or persuade someone, YOU are not the most important person in the conversation.

What I'm Listening To...

I’ve always had eclectic taste when it comes to music. You’ve seen me share a bit here. This recommendation by a good friend keeps popping up on My Supermix on Youtube Music. The artist is a superb guitarist who reminds me a lot of the progressive rock of my youth. Here’s Ner Ner from Guthrie Govan.

The vacation isn't going to tell me whether I need more rest. I already know the answer to that. What I'm curious about is whether I come back with a different reference point. Whether enough time away gives me contrast—something to measure against that isn't the worst version of the last four years.

I'm writing this before the break, not after. I don't know what the other side looks like. Maybe the reference point shifts. Maybe it doesn't and I have to figure out what that means.

I do know that "things are good" kept me from asking "compared to what?"

Looking forward to continuing the conversation...

Alan