Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rachel Wheeley's avatar

Wonderful Polly, as always. We are all building ourselves out of little bricks of your wisdom, every day.

OP, you are not a bad person. You think you are a bad person. Truly bad people don’t think that. Ever.

Pigeon's avatar

I feel I was placed on this earth (and to renew my Ask Polly subscription) to give you insight. I, too, have struggled obsessively with the same question obsessing you, this question of "do you deserve to fail," and we'll get to that.

But first, you did ask some easy factual questions: "But will I ever shake the guilt of the last few years?"

Absolutely, in less time than you think! Remember the thing people most consistently get wrong about their own minds is that we estimate bad events AND GOOD ONES will affect us for much longer than they actually do. (Google this!)

I'm like you, a high-achiever with some big mental health/executive function blowouts in my past, and I have moved on. I still KNOW I let people down, but that inspires me to be better today instead of causing me pain. It actually gives me a lot of gratitude and self-love. It's human to make mistakes and it's an honor to be human. We are lucky.

"Or the reputational damage that I’m not even sure is real or just in my head... or it’s real for some people, but does that matter in the grand scheme?"

Our mammalian brains are programmed boil down our sense of what every individual person thinks of us into single number or impression, and then base our mood off that impression, with a very strong recency bias so recent events affect that calculation more than distant events.

So your mental snapshot of your status is wounded. You can get a more real-world answer to this question if instead of vague, over-arching "reputation" you think about the actual individual relationships involved and the people who actually know what happened. Remember some of those people will be charitable. Some have had their own struggles, and empathize. All are bound by factors that make it less likely they'll talk about your issues with anyone who doesn't know you--the desire not to "burn bridges" (big in most industries, applies to them as well as you) and also simple boredom and forgetfulness. They'll move on. They're not thinking about you NEARLY as much as you are.

So no, my guess is this won't have much impact, besides you not being able to ask your old colleagues for professional recommendations. We've all got people out there who didn't have the best experience with us, and people who did.

But back to the question that's obsessing you. You're stuck ping-ponging between two visions: "I was really struggling and that was the best I could do" vs "I was lazy and I deserve to fail." Instead of ping-ponging forever between these two dipoles, I like to ask:

ARE THOSE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS?

WHAT IF NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS IS TRUE?

WHY ARE THEY RELATED?

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE EITHER/OR?

I, personally, think neither of those things are true. I don't think it's true that you couldn't have done anything differently, I think you can and will do things differently next time. It sounds like you already have ideas about that.

Buy why does the possibility that there were other options available to you AUTOMATICALLY mean you're morally wrong? what if you had options, and the one you chose was right? What if the one you chose was morally neutral? What if not every choice IS either right or wrong?

Let's explore that. You could have dropped out of work when you noticed burnout coming on, but you chose not to. Is that not your right to choose? Who ELSE should choose, if not you?

Why did you choose not to take time off? Because your work did not have a flexible time off policy for mental health? Is it wrong to keep working because your workplace does not make it possible for you to take a break? When I put it that way, does it sound wrong?

When you started messing up at work there were choices too. You noticed your mental health was spiraling terribly. You probably decided to not do certain aspects of your job because those aspects were psychologically painful and you thought they would make your mental health worse. Is it wrong to decide not to do something because it's very painful? Is it wrong to turn in a sub-par performance because you believe a better job performance would destroy you? Why are you so sure that's wrong?

Is it not the right of every human to avoid intense psychological pain? Why, on earth, would "avoiding terrible pain" be wrong?

Is it not the right of every human to DECIDE how good we want to be at our jobs, since I am very confident no one lived or died based on your job performance?

If in fact you weren't "really struggling," why would that AUTOMATICALLY mean you are "lazy" and "deserve" to fail? Those are subjective moral judgments. Those are up to you. You get to decide what your morality is.

It can be the case that you'll do better next time, that you are a good person AND that the people you frustrated or let down at work are ALSO good people. THEY are the ones who get to decide if they, personally, would work with you again or want to be friends or would write you a recommendation letter. That's actually THEIR right to decide, not something you can calculate for them, so stop trying.

Look: because we live in competitive capitalism we get taught this value system where hard work = good = you deserve to succeed = you will succeed. And avoiding pain = bad = you deserve to fail = you will fail.

But that's just PURE SORCERY. That's stoning a witch and waiting for your harvest to improve.

You ARE NOT ASSURED a successful life if you work hard or an unsuccessful life if you don't, that's just something our parents ingrained in us because they HOPED it was true. And of course, NO ONE LIFE IS EITHER 'SUCCESSFUL' or 'UNSUCCESSFUL." That's just another subjective value judgment.

The moral lens of who deserves what is A DIFFERENT QUESTION from the question of what steps you can take now to improve your life, take better care of your mental health, and do better at work. Because deciding whether or not you're "lazy" will not help you answer those questions.

Honestly, try it. Let's say you know for sure: you were "lazy" and you "deserved to fail" at that job. What would you do if that was true? How would it help your next move? Would it?

If you think it would help to decide, THEN DECIDE. Put a number on it. How wrong was it? On a scale of one to genocide? A 1? 0.5? Decide what your moral responsibility was in that situation, what your options were, and take a different option next time.

And when yourself STUCK ON THIS SAME QUESTION, stuck in indecision between "incapable of better" and "morally to blame", STUDY THE FALSE BINARY YOU ARE TRAPPED IN. STUDY THE BARS OF THE CAGE.

Get as specific as you can about that lens you're placing on the world, since it is ONLY a lens.

5 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?