ILNews

Quality of Life: Making significant life changes with purpose

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

If you have ever considered making a major life change, you know that it isn’t easy. Sometimes it seems next to impossible. There are times, however, when significant changes are necessary in order to move forward with your life. Because all of us will be faced with making transitions at some point in the future, here are some tips that might help with initiating and following through as you make life adjustments.

There are five steps that can be helpful as you make life changes. First, develop a vision of what is possible if you make the change. While it may sound a little “out there,” it has been proven that visualization can help to turn dreams into reality.

Second, acknowledge that change is scary. Virtually any change involves not only facing the unknown, but also letting go of the familiar. This can be terrifying sometimes — and often is so scary that it keeps people from making a change that, in the long run, would be much better for them. So, it is important to weigh the risks against the potential benefits. Compare the potential payoffs of the change with the personal cost of maintaining the status quo. What is the worst thing that could happen if you try to make the change? What is the best thing? What is the worst thing that could happen if you keep things as they are? What is the best? This type of assessment can be very helpful as you maneuver through life’s transitions. It may be helpful to enlist the help of a close friend, family member, or counselor to assist you with this analysis. Don’t isolate yourself in this process because there may be alternative courses of action or outcomes that you wouldn’t think of, or consider, if left to your own devices.

Third, don’t “over analyze” the situation. OK, I just told you to do a risk/benefit analysis and now I’m saying don’t over analyze. Attorneys are so accustomed to analyzing situations that there is some chance that you will get bogged down in the analysis stage and never move on to the action stage. If you come up with too many possible scenarios and outcomes, you will effectively paralyze yourself and keep yourself from taking any kind of action.

Fourth, consider the steps necessary to making the change. Acknowledge that some people may not understand or may be hurt by your actions and determine how to make the change with the least amount of fallout if possible. Write down the steps you plan to take so that you can chart your progress and have a feeling of accomplishment as you move closer to your goal. Realize that you might experience “growing pains” as you initiate the changes, and try not to let those pains keep you from making changes that could improve your future.

Fifth, don’t allow yourself to be blinded to other options if during the change process you come across information that makes the change seem unreasonable, or if it ceases to be feasible. It may not be an either/or situation. There may be compromises or alternatives that you could pursue that could serve a similar purpose to your original plan. Fluidity is often a necessary part of the change process. It may not happen as quickly as you had hoped, or the change may wear a different face than you had initially anticipated. This is not a reason to abort the mission entirely — just stay open and flexible to modifications to your first plan. A fallback option does not mean that you failed. It means that you are prepared for any eventuality.

Remember to stay optimistic and enthusiastic. This can be hard, but if you remind yourself that you are doing the right thing and your actions are taking you to a fresher, better place in your life, you can keep your enthusiasm for the task. Although frightening at times, change can lead you to a new and better life.•

__________

Jonna Kane MacDougall, an Indianapolis attorney, is assistant dean for external affairs and alumni relations at the Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis and a former law school career services director. A professional career/life coach, MacDougall can be contacted at (317) 370-4361 or via e-mail at whatsnextforyou@comcast.net. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT