Chapter 9 of Kolp & Rea (2006), the author begin by discussing free will and the subject of choice in terms of prudence in character. With the subheading discussion of imprudence then as the authors outline ignorance, neglect, denial and willful imprudence the subject of choice begins to nag at me further. They state the “in much of life and business not choosing is not an option” (179), and it is within the grey areas of complex life situations that individuals define themselves as prudent or not, based on their willful and free choice of behavior and action.
This makes me first declare that I believe that not choosing is an unspoken option here and further can have much more powerful ramifications. Consciously deciding on inaction can at times have much more profound effects on individuals, families or systems. I think of a family dealing with the aging of a family member. The aging family member, possibly grandma or grandpa, is slowly beginning to lose the ability to care for him or herself. The prudent option is to take measures to protect the person, however this sometimes has more powerful unintended consequences on the psyche of the person. So no action is made. This is not due to ignorance as the family is fully aware of the health problems of the aging member. This is not due to total leadership neglect either, as many measures may have been instituted to help pick up the slack. Possibly tasks have been delegated, weekly grocery shopping, filling the pill containers weekly, or the neighbor boy is hired to mow the lawn instead. However, the prudent choice is still being ‘unchosen’.
Some blame might fall in the denial category, as possibly the family is not taking into account the full extent to the health problems- however the problem is not going unexamined hinting that to me, the gravity of the problem is not being denied its existence. Only enacting of a choice is being denied. Finally, willfully imprudent leadership is not totally accurate either, as there is no real way to fully distort the reality of the aging person, short of entirely disavowing the existence of the person in question.
Literally, the fault is lying here in the profound effects of non-action, of not making a choice when a choice must be made. Small, short-term resolutions are present but no all-encompassing and prudent solution has been found. The system is stuck. So, is the conclusion then, that action taken can only be seen as such when the action is focused on remedy of the entire toxic system, and not just small pieces that do not effect the entire outcome? Aren’t these small wins like a sort of disavowal of the larger problem- or can change only happen on a small-scale basis so that little by little small changes lead to large accomplishments? In either case, non-action and fleeing the obvious choice seem most dangerous to leadership and to progress.
Prudent: Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense; careful in regard to one’s own interests (American Heritage College Dictionary, 1997).
Given this excerpt from the dictionary, your analysis sheds some light on the not-choosing strategy as an effective choice. In the situation you describe, the prudent course of intervention may be exactly as you suggest: small incremental steps of building trust between younger family members and their aging grandparents. In their evaluations of their grandparents’ situation, do they exercise good judgment in what they allow them to continue doing? Do they use common sense in determining how, when, and what to say to them as their younger, soon-to-be caretakers? How does one establish and maintain the role of trusted guide without compromising their dignity?
Prudence looks to the future, hedges its choice of action in the present against potential consequences in the future. It’s a gut-feeling course of action. It’s an educated choice, a prediction or forecast based on experience, intuitive knowledge, past practice, or, as in your case, a desire to build trust over time through the not-choosing choice of monitoring the situation. Ultimately, it is founded on a desire to do what’s best.
I thought that I had posted a comment in response to this post, however, it is not showing up. Forgive me if it shows up and this sounds redundant.
I agree with your assertion that inaction may be a most dangerous choice. Kolp and Rea(2009)state that “chronic neglect…is a form of carelessness…and careless leaders become dangerous” (p. 183). An example of inaction that I have seen all to often, is failure of leaders to carefully plan for the impacts of major change on their employees and their clients. Often a decision to change a system or redesign a program is made without input from those who will be directly impacted. This sets up a system where there is frustration and discontent after the change has occurred and much of the negative feedback is related to the lack of planning and time invested in preparation for the change. The danger of inaction in this case may be that it undermines the success of the implementation of the new sysem or program.
I think that complete inaction in this situation would be irresponsible (ignorant, neglectful, in full denial and willful imprudence) . . . but that is not what I view is happening. I agree with Chris that starting with mitigating steps IS taking action and IS a decision. It’s just one that is done more slowly while wading into the complicated waters of retaining end-of-life dignity while keeping an eye on safety. The challenge with many of life’s hard choices such as these is that there is no known “right” answer. Therefore, the best we can do, if prudent, is be aware, take care, face facts and make the best choice possible for all involved. There will most likely come a time in this scenario when a harder, bigger change will become necessary, but that time will remain subjective and only become more clear as the journey unfolds.