Paradoxically, the only way to stay in control is by accepting that one isn’t in control.

Once this idea is accepted, it becomes possible to anticipate without the necessity to predict.

Once one starts to anticipate, some elements of order appear amidst a possible sense of chaos. Adjusting oneself to the anticipations made becomes a way of performing that, having developed some competence, creates a feeling of being in control.

The lived experience will be made of situations in which the anticipation and adjustment led to the desired result and others where it didn’t. The difference between both invites the opportunity to learn and grow one’s competence.

So far so good.

In a world in which science has become a major factor not only to establish growing knowledge but also to explain events, a hope has developed itself.

It’s the hope that the same rules apply to all sciences. But also, the hope that what is called knowledge today is enough to predict outcomes based on one’s understanding of a situation and a chosen action.

It enabled the creation of a multitude of management and leadership theories. Which in turn leads to an abundant literature on how things should be done.

It’s a setting that easily leads to a sense of guilt whenever applying the given suggestions doesn’t lead to the desired outcomes. And one that leads to a feeling of being in control when things work out as expected. When satisfaction is based on the latter, it may easily happen that the sense of guilt continues to come along when things don’t work out.

It’s how the dichotomy of being in control and having lost control stays alive.

Once that dichotomy has taken over, it becomes difficult to make a leap of faith and let go of the assumption that one can be in control of the outcome. It is as if there was nothing to gain from not knowing the outcome and everything to lose from failing.