The way of describing a situation has a big impact on its outcome. Nat Eliason describes how political consultant Frank Luntz coined the term 'climate change' to replace 'global warming' during the Bush administration, re-framing a lot of the public discourse on the subject. Words are -as we know- mightier than the sword; they move minds and therefore direct action.
We earlier dipped into the false dichotomy between 'money' and 'meaning' in our work life. Describing the situation as an 'either/or' limits our options, as we fail to see the combinations that are not mutually exclusive.
In his piece, Nat applies this same thinking to the term 'work-life balance', which also implies a sort of equilibrium, a balance between two opposing sides. Like the solution Evans and Burnett came up with, Nat is in favour of seeing a mix of elements that do not contradict, but complement each other. He likes the elements Anthony Gustin uses for his yearly reviews:
"Physical Health, Mental Health, Spirituality, Creativity, Relationships, Family, Travel, Fun, Finances & Work"
Nat started thinking about all of his activities to include more of each of these buckets:
"I also find that the long-term enjoyment of activities depends on how many of the various areas they can integrate in a meaningful way. Fun activities that support your physical and mental health, creativity, and relationships, tend to be more enjoyable over long periods than fun activities that cost you physical and mental health. Time with your family is much more enjoyable if you incorporate fun, work, creativity, and fitness, instead of seeing it as taking away from those things."
Think about it: where do you feel you need to make choices? And what possibilities would open up if you did not have to choose?