I have never been good with middle grounds. I like things clear. Black or White, Zero or One, True or False. Maybe that is why computers made sense to me before many other things did.
A machine does not care about your intention, something either compiles or it does not, a condition is met or it is not. A system responds or it fails, is that simple and there is peace in that.
Real life is not built that way. Most things don't work in absolutes ~only the sith~. Most decisions are not straight forward. Most conversations do not end with a perfect answer. Almost everything important eventually becomes the same boring sentence:
"It depends." And I hate that sentence.
Not because it is wrong. It is usually right and that is the problem. It is the responsible answer, the mature answer. The answer people give when they understand complexity and context.
But sometimes “it depends” becomes a hiding place.
- A way to avoid choosing.
- A way to avoid committing.
- A way to stay close enough to an idea to feel involved, but far enough from it to avoid responsibility.
That is the part I struggle with. I do not like doing things halfway.
I do not go out often, I know, shocker. But when I do, I want to actually go all the way out. I do not want the light version of going out. I do not want to dress up, drive somewhere, eat quickly, and go back home before the night has even started.
If we made the decision to go, then let’s go. Not because every night has to become legendary. Because once I cross the line from “no” to “yes,” I want the yes to mean something.
I know not everyone operates with the same intensity. Sometimes people are tired. Sometimes the correct decision is to keep it simple. I understand that. But this says something about me: I do not just dislike indecision, I dislike partial commitment and that shows up in the way I work too.
I think that every idea deserves obsession. Some ideas should die early. Some projects should wait and some problems are not worth solving right now.
But when something does matter, I think it deserves more than polite agreement. At work, I have seen good ideas get trapped in the indecision. A project appears with an opportunity that is real, with business value that is clear. Everyone agrees it makes sense, everyone can see the potential and then... nothing moves with enough force.
Not because people are lazy, that would be too simple, the problem is usually quieter than that: The idea has agreement, but no owner. It has visibility, but no engine.
It has support, but no one willing to carry the uncomfortable part: leading it, defending it, organizing it, and pushing it when attention moves somewhere else. That is how good ideas die without anyone officially killing them.
A good idea can survive disagreement. Sometimes disagreement makes it stronger. What it usually cannot survive is passive agreement. I saw this happen recently with a project I still believe in.
The opportunity was there from the beginning. Some people saw it and raised awareness, others agreed with existence of the opportunity but it took months before someone truly stepped forward and carried the change with the force it needed... and now the work is urgent.
That is the cost of delayed commitment. The work does not disappear while people decide who owns it, it waits, then it comes back with less time, more pressure, and fewer options.
Ownership is not having the idea. It is staying with it after it becomes inconvenient and when nobody owns the weight, it shifts by itself (Usually onto the person who cares the most).
That is how someone becomes the unofficial owner, translator, driver, firefighter, and eventually the bottleneck. Not because they wanted control, but because everyone else left the responsibility unclaimed.
I cannot be support, developer, strategist, business expert, product owner, and change leader all at the same time. Even if, from the outside, it sometimes looks that way and that is why I care so much about ownership.
Not ownership as a title. Not ownership as a corporate word people put in presentations. Real ownership. The kind where someone says:
This matters.
I will move it.
I will make the trade-offs visible.
I will not let it stay in the comfortable middle forever.
Of course, the danger is rigidity. Being all-in does not mean forcing your intensity onto everything. That is not leadership. That is ego.
The goal is not to eliminate gray areas. It is to bring full presence into them, to accept complexity without becoming passive, to understand nuance without losing direction, to stay flexible without becoming vague.
That is the balance I am trying to learn. I still prefer clear lines. I still like yes or no. I still trust action more than endless discussion. But the real world is not asking to become less intense. It is asking to aim that intensity better, the things that do matter deserve more than half-energy.
If a project is worth doing, I want someone to own it.
If an idea is worth defending, I want it to survive beyond the meeting where everyone nodded.
And if it is not worth that level of presence, maybe the answer should have been no from the beginning.
For me, the lesson is simple, even if applying it is not:
- Do not confuse agreement with commitment.
- Do not confuse nuance with hesitation.
- Do not confuse balance with half-energy.
Sometimes the most honest thing you can do is choose fully. Yes or no. In or out. All in, or not at all.
