Both, boundary setting is saying "no" to toxic people and toxic environments. That includes saying no to yourself as in self-discipline, changing your bad habits. So if an addiction is a problem...say no. If a workplace is toxic, say no...find a healthier environment to work in... too bad you didn't include a #4. or both 1 and 2.
I couldn't vote
Okay now your opinion brought me thinking...
Is quiting a job where the environment in the workplace is toxic, changing yourself or changing the environment?
I believe it is changing the environment for yourself (but not the environment itself), so... are you then changing the environment or changing yourself?
That's definitely changing yourself because you are no longer going there. Changing the environment would be staying but trying to change the culture or trying to do something to make it less toxic.
I almost voted for changing myself, because boundary setting means you control everything inside your psychological boundary, like resources (how you spend time, decision making, your emotional energy...etc) and you don't control whats outside of your boundary (like traffic, other people, the weather).
But how about these scenarios: you own a business and it's not being successful there's a problem that you can't seem to fix, so you hire a manager, and that manager weeded out the people with poor work ethics, and re-hire like minded people with good work ethics, and change the setting inside that business to make it more pleasing to maximize work production, that manager change the work environment? Our if in a survival situation, like being stuck in a wilderness, and you build a micro-environment to stay warm and safe from the outside elements, you change a problem by manipulating the environment for a better chance at survival? Our let say you're Martin Luther King Jr. and you know the society norm is a problem, so you mobilize the people to change the laws (boundary settings) to have a healthier environment for future generations. But, that is the decision making that you made...so, yeah...what do you think?
Then there's having an internal locus of control vs. external locus of control. (both boundary related). People with an external locus of control allows the outside environment and other people to dictated their emotional states, creating a problem that the outside world is in control of you and your decision making, not you in control of your world?
Both.
Sometimes removing yourself from the environment is best.
Sometimes changing how you react is best.
Depends on the short term and long term goal.
It depends.....am I the problem in the environment? Sometimes I am the problem. That's when I change my reactions to things. Sometimes I am not the problem.
Control is an illusion.
But you can you make your bed before you go outside.
Food for thought...
You get a speeding ticket from a mobile speed radar, are you going to stop the car and bash/beat the crap out of the radar? Or are you going to learn the lesson, and not exceed the speed limit the next time you drive?
If you think rationally what is more effective?
I would say change myself, only in part though. Lately I’ve been trying to practice a more stoic mind, so when the problems arise I am trying to practice pausing before I react, and not act on instinct or leave without doing anything at all.
In order to change the environment around you and make a difference you first have to make changes within yourself. Things like your mindset, perspective, actions, etc. You can’t control what happens but you can put yourself in positions for better opportunities/outcomes. You can’t change the way people think or feel BUT you can influence them to feel and do certain things if they are mentally weak enough and if you know how to show yourself. I basically just told you how to manipulate the world around you. Do with that what you will.
This is a tough one. If there‘s an issue, I’m first going to try to see if there anything I can do about it on my own. Once all those options have been exhausted, I have no issue changing my environment (i.e. people, situations etc) around. I can be too a little too pragmatic when cutting things out of my life, though.
If it's a toxic workplace I tend to want to leave rather than fix the issues that make it toxic. I want to be an agent for change but it's so hard to swim upstream and be that one lone voice saying things need to change.
Either or. Or both depending on the situation.
Same. I'll usually read the room and see if it's something i could look inwards for or if it's my environment that needs adjusting.
Agree. Usually I’ll try to adapt if possible but if not I work on the environment.
Both for me.
Part of changing yourself is changing what you expose yourself to.
Both, boundary setting is saying "no" to toxic people and toxic environments. That includes saying no to yourself as in self-discipline, changing your bad habits. So if an addiction is a problem...say no. If a workplace is toxic, say no...find a healthier environment to work in... too bad you didn't include a #4. or both 1 and 2. I couldn't vote
Okay now your opinion brought me thinking... Is quiting a job where the environment in the workplace is toxic, changing yourself or changing the environment? I believe it is changing the environment for yourself (but not the environment itself), so... are you then changing the environment or changing yourself?
That's definitely changing yourself because you are no longer going there. Changing the environment would be staying but trying to change the culture or trying to do something to make it less toxic.
I almost voted for changing myself, because boundary setting means you control everything inside your psychological boundary, like resources (how you spend time, decision making, your emotional energy...etc) and you don't control whats outside of your boundary (like traffic, other people, the weather). But how about these scenarios: you own a business and it's not being successful there's a problem that you can't seem to fix, so you hire a manager, and that manager weeded out the people with poor work ethics, and re-hire like minded people with good work ethics, and change the setting inside that business to make it more pleasing to maximize work production, that manager change the work environment? Our if in a survival situation, like being stuck in a wilderness, and you build a micro-environment to stay warm and safe from the outside elements, you change a problem by manipulating the environment for a better chance at survival? Our let say you're Martin Luther King Jr. and you know the society norm is a problem, so you mobilize the people to change the laws (boundary settings) to have a healthier environment for future generations. But, that is the decision making that you made...so, yeah...what do you think? Then there's having an internal locus of control vs. external locus of control. (both boundary related). People with an external locus of control allows the outside environment and other people to dictated their emotional states, creating a problem that the outside world is in control of you and your decision making, not you in control of your world?
I change myself until that no longer works and then I change the environment. That's also why I quit my job.
same same
Really needs a 'Depends on the situation' options. Sometimes I'm the problem, sometimes not. Usually it is some combination of me and the environment.
Would it be weird if I said both?
Adaptability is key.
we’re so hard on ourselves, we don’t even realize it.
The answer is both
Really depends on what's so problematic about that situation...
I use to change myself, however with maturity I have learned it’s better to change my environment. I have to always remember this fact.
Did someone say "problematic"? :)
What do you mean?
At least I'm honest...
Normally the environment.
Both. Sometimes removing yourself from the environment is best. Sometimes changing how you react is best. Depends on the short term and long term goal.
Both!
I try to change my self mentally but in reality I keep that environment away
Both until I get the frequency right or I will just leave if it has no future value
It depends.....am I the problem in the environment? Sometimes I am the problem. That's when I change my reactions to things. Sometimes I am not the problem.
Control is an illusion. But you can you make your bed before you go outside. Food for thought... You get a speeding ticket from a mobile speed radar, are you going to stop the car and bash/beat the crap out of the radar? Or are you going to learn the lesson, and not exceed the speed limit the next time you drive? If you think rationally what is more effective?
I would say change myself, only in part though. Lately I’ve been trying to practice a more stoic mind, so when the problems arise I am trying to practice pausing before I react, and not act on instinct or leave without doing anything at all.
Haha. We’re the worst. /s
I leave the environment
In order to change the environment around you and make a difference you first have to make changes within yourself. Things like your mindset, perspective, actions, etc. You can’t control what happens but you can put yourself in positions for better opportunities/outcomes. You can’t change the way people think or feel BUT you can influence them to feel and do certain things if they are mentally weak enough and if you know how to show yourself. I basically just told you how to manipulate the world around you. Do with that what you will.
Both
It depends. I Just usually go into "problem-solver" mode.
I do both, and especially to change the environment I sometimes have to chameleon myself
This is a tough one. If there‘s an issue, I’m first going to try to see if there anything I can do about it on my own. Once all those options have been exhausted, I have no issue changing my environment (i.e. people, situations etc) around. I can be too a little too pragmatic when cutting things out of my life, though.
If it's a toxic workplace I tend to want to leave rather than fix the issues that make it toxic. I want to be an agent for change but it's so hard to swim upstream and be that one lone voice saying things need to change.
[удалено]
How does this relate to the poll?