“Not every relationship is built on genuine care; some last only as long as we are needed.”

Sometimes we are just needed.

Not everyone who is with us in life necessarily values ​​us. Some people are only around us as long as they need us.

When the need is gone, the tone changes, the distance increases, and the importance that once felt so real disappears.

This reality certainly hurts, but it also teaches us an important lesson: do not link your value to the need of others. Our value is much greater than when someone remembers or forgets us.

The people who truly value you are not only with you in times of need, but in all situations.

“Sometimes, we are needed, but not truly valued.”

— Written by Rabia Naeem

When People Need Us, but Don’t Truly Value Us was originally published in Midform on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Warping into outer space,
Beaming up and down.
Ambassadors to every race,
In Federation gown.

Energize, atomic core!
We’re interstellar bound!
Our mission prime: ET found,
Where no one’s gone before!

Klingons cloaking,
Kirk is joking,
Spock is telling time.
Galactic balls of acid dust,
Paradox, love and trust,
Weekly stellar crime.

But wait, Kirk fans,
I hear a voice!
It’s faint, but coming through.
Scotty, beam me up, old chum,
I’m waiting here for you.

Aye, aye, Captain,
Up you’ll come.
Will Spock be coming, too?

That friendly brogue in Scotty’s voice
Could only come from earth!
No alien in that Scottish rogue — 
A terra firma birth!

Sailing through the ports of time,
On woof and warp it flies.
Circling holes black as coal,
The good ship Enterprise.

Its mission my adventure,
My star bound friends its crew.
Each voyage I’m indentured — 
This ship is my home, too!

If I were Captain of
The good ship Enterprise.
And alien ships were up above — 
The sound of battle cries!

Scotty, beam us up! I’d yell,
Then turn to face my crew.
Aye, aye, Captain,
Give ’em hell!
We’re waiting here for you.

The original Star Trek is still my favorite.

Beam Me Up Scotty was originally published in Midform on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The peculiar ability of modern organisations to agree on everything and accomplish remarkably little

In the end, everyone agrees.

The discussion has been constructive. Different perspectives have been considered. A few concerns have been raised, acknowledged — perhaps even appreciated. Nobody has been particularly difficult. The atmosphere is positive.

Two weeks later, the same problem is there.

Incompetence is beside the point. In fact, a lot has been accomplished and everyone may have been working extremely hard. But towards what?

Agreement is not a decision. A decision is not a commitment. And a commitment is not necessarily a result. However, in corporate language, they frequently travel under the same name: minutes of the meeting.

When the minutes are issued, a certain sense of collective pride is difficult to conceal. Different perspectives have been reconciled. Common ground has been established. The room is left with a sense of reassurance: progress has been made, and so salary has been earned.

Consider a team discussing the introduction of a new reporting system.

Everyone agrees the existing solution is inadequate. A common approach would be preferable. They have even agreed on the technology.

Naturally, a few minor details have been left out, such as who will pay for the implementation, which requirements will be abandoned when they conflict, which department will own the system, and who will have the authority to resolve disagreements.

These questions are crucial, so they deserve a separate discussion. In the meantime, this one can be declared a success.

Agreement of this kind is particularly attractive because it allows people to preserve relationships without necessarily sacrificing alternatives. Making a decision is less considerate. It closes possibilities, creates winners and losers, and exposes somebody to the possibility of being wrong.

Agreement, by contrast, is an excellent arrangement for maintaining harmony. It allows everyone to be simultaneously right.

Suppose the group has gone further.

It has chosen a solution. The minutes record the decision. The presentation is updated. An action appears in a spreadsheet.

Job done. The problem is solved. Or at least something remarkably similar to solving it has happened.

A decision becomes operational only when somebody possesses the authority, resources and responsibility to turn it into a result.

Here we encounter another corporate curiosity: the distinction between completing a task and achieving an outcome.

A supplier has been contacted. A request has been submitted. The relevant stakeholders have been informed.

Every action is now marked as complete.

Unfortunately, the supplier has not delivered. The request has not been approved. And the stakeholders, having been thoroughly informed, remain in disagreement.

The organisation has achieved an impressive collection of completed tasks surrounding an unfinished result.

The spreadsheet, naturally, looks excellent.

The division of labour is one of the greatest achievements of modern organisations. Adam Smith would have been very proud. He might, however, have wondered who was responsible for ensuring that all this divided labour eventually produced something.

A problem can be fragmented so successfully that nobody remains accountable for solving it.

The engineer calls it an integration problem. The manager calls it a lack of ownership. The person waiting for the result is currently looking for a shorter expression. Probably less polite, but more precise.

Making decisions means accepting that not every objection will be satisfied. And somebody may eventually be held responsible.

Postponement offers an appealing alternative.

A problem that could have been solved in several ways in July may offer only one expensive and unsatisfactory solution in October.

The organisation has not avoided risk. It has simply arranged for it to arrive later, probably in somebody else’s department.

The manager who refuses to decide may reduce their personal exposure while increasing the exposure of everybody else. No particular stupidity is required. Merely a reasonable concern for one’s professional future.

Of course, a manager who ends every discussion after five minutes may simply be replacing indecision with stupidity. Some objections need time. Some disagreements prevent disasters.

People learn how meetings work. They learn which disagreements can safely be expressed, which decisions are likely to be postponed and how much personal exposure comes with making a commitment.

Nobody needs to announce that indecision is now company policy. It is sufficient to make postponement relatively safe and responsibility comparatively expensive.

Eventually, people adapt.

An entire organisation may consist of intelligent, conscientious professionals acting rationally, while collectively achieving remarkably little.

There is a simple test for every meeting: can anyone explain what happens next, who has the authority to make it happen, what remains unresolved, and when the result will be checked?

If nobody can answer those questions, then clearly the meeting was very useful. Perhaps it was even enjoyable.

What did you say? No decision has been taken?

The next follow-up is already on the agenda.

Everyone Agreed. Nothing Happened. was originally published in Midform on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.