Ever more so we tend to see the stoic-like characters mainly from the male perspective but from my point of view every person at the intersection of being a minority including women have had to adapt to circumstances similar to these in different contexts so crisis management becomes identity and get stamped by resilience when in reality the survival mechanisms keep us constrained and limited in a paralysis of never-ending barrage of craziness that we have to survive and manage for everybody else at the cost of our nervous system.
I think that's an important extension. You're pointing to something the article only touches on indirectly.
The mechanism isn't unique to war, corporate life or Thomas Shelby.
Any environment that repeatedly demands vigilance, emotional containment or constant adaptation can produce the same pattern.
The details differ. The underlying process doesn't.
What interests me is the moment those survival strategies stop being responses to an environment and quietly become the way we understand ourselves. That's when adaptation becomes identity.
Perhaps that's why I keep coming back to the distinction between gratitude and permanence. We can honour the adaptations that helped us survive without assuming they must define the rest of our lives.
I am fascinated by them too. Part of why I became fascinated by resilience is that my own life has required constant adaptation. I'm neurodivergent, chronically ill, and have spent much of my life navigating overlapping expectations of family, culture, and caregiving. Those experiences eventually led me to build a clarity system for myself and to explore these questions through writing. Thank you for engaging and exchanging ideas with a chronically exhausted fellow writer! 🤣
Thank you for sharing that so openly. I think you've captured something important.
The adaptations themselves aren't the problem. They're often remarkable achievements.
The difficulty is that, when they've served us for long enough, they can become invisible. We stop seeing them as adaptations and start seeing them as who we are.
I suspect writing is part of that process for both of us. It creates just enough distance to ask, "Does this still belong to today's weather?"
Wishing you strength for the writing, and for the subtler work of deciding what deserves to come with you into the next chapter.
You nailed it about resilience in organizational leadership. I've experienced 2 acquisitions, one from the acquirer and the other as the one being acquired. Acquisitions create a massive change environment from both sides. The leaders who were able to see those environment changes for what they truly were were the ones who survived the organizational transformation. The leaders who held in firmly to their old way of operating or who tried to embrace and things exactly as the other side does ended up burned out and struggling, sometimes to the point of creating artificial crises. What I have learned is that an acquisition creates a third environment that's a blend of the original two organizations, leaders have influence to shape that new environment, create adaptations for it, and then help the organization evolve
Great insight. I like the idea of the acquisition creating a "third environment". Perhaps this tangentially links to "third space" theory if only to highlight the importance of "environment".
It reinforces something I've been thinking about re how we often treat adaptation as reactive.
And yet leaders also have the opportunity to become architects of the next environment.
In that sense, resilience isn't just responding well to change. It's helping shape the conditions others will eventually need to adapt to.
Yes, exactly! In some scenarios leaders have a massive opportunity to shape the environment for the entire organization. And unfortunately, I've witnessed many times when the leaders tried to recreate an environment they were comfortable with rather than contributing to an evolution.
Great job, Peter! You reminded me of Stephen Covey’s emphasis on “urgency addiction.” The rescuer archetype gets high on his/her ability to jump into the deep end and save the drowning victim. The need may become so acute that the rescuer starts pushing people in…. All at the expense of doing what is important.
I really enjoyed this. My curiosity kicked in thinking about crisis vs resilience, and I feel this is pretty spot on. I like the lens you present for both of them, and the idea that humans may be great in a crisis, though not resilient. And, resilient, however not great in a crisis.
I think about how someone would handle a situation, jumping in to help in the moment, a crisis versus someone who has endured a long health battle, or difficult time and be able to adapt and bounce back and keep going.
Question.. "Create adaptations that remain long after recovery". My thoughts also popped up the idea of crisis AND resilience together.
Why: When folks, me for example, endure years of surgery, traumatic health moments (cancer diagnosis, emergency rooms, etc.), does the idea of being able to handle crisis and being able to stay calm, having clarity and focus align with this idea.
We can have the ability to handle crisis and be resilient in the same moment, and long after recovery?
Your comparison between resilience and competence made me think about how strength is so often associated with capability and the power to do, when there’s also power in not doing.
I write about resilience through the lens of lupus, autoimmune disease, and chronic illness, exploring how adaptability to change invites us to redefine what strength really means and your essay resonated with me.
Your experience resonates. I imagine you have quite a lot you could add!
One of the things Stoicism taught me is that strength isn't just the capacity to endure. It's the freedom to respond appropriately to the conditions we're actually in.
Sometimes that means persistence. Sometimes it means rest.
Sometimes it means letting go of a way of surviving that no longer belongs to today's weather.
'Resilient' and 'good in a crisis' get used interchangeably, but @Peter Ashby Smith makes a case that they're almost opposite skills. Shelby doesn't survive Peaky Blinders because he's at peace with the world; he survives because he's built for the fire.
Excellent read, Peter. I've caught myself calling people 'resilient' when what I actually meant was that they're terrifyingly good in an emergency, which, as you point out, isn't the same skill at all. Crisis competence can even work against long-term resilience if it trains you to only feel alive under threat. Curious whether you think crisis-competent people can retrain toward genuine Stoic equanimity, or whether the two are almost trained in opposition to each other. Just thinking out loud over here.
This is a special piece Peter 🤍 My own background came to the forefront as I read and asked the question how am I utilizing the tools and skills gained through healing from trauma in the most efficient manner in todays work for the tomorrow I am advocating for.
The reference you use with Peter Shelby is fantastic. I saw his character become reduced to a sense of desparation to maintain his relentless reputation of power and control without realizing that through relentless pursuit of power and control he lost his own purpose, meaning and value for himself in the process. He isolated himself believing he was meant to carry it all which meant suppressing his own grief, loss and connection with loved ones. Thank you for this perspective.
Great work, Peter! This really made me pause and reflect on my own journey. I especially appreciated the distinction between crisis competence and resilience. Thank you for giving me something to think about.
Ever more so we tend to see the stoic-like characters mainly from the male perspective but from my point of view every person at the intersection of being a minority including women have had to adapt to circumstances similar to these in different contexts so crisis management becomes identity and get stamped by resilience when in reality the survival mechanisms keep us constrained and limited in a paralysis of never-ending barrage of craziness that we have to survive and manage for everybody else at the cost of our nervous system.
I think that's an important extension. You're pointing to something the article only touches on indirectly.
The mechanism isn't unique to war, corporate life or Thomas Shelby.
Any environment that repeatedly demands vigilance, emotional containment or constant adaptation can produce the same pattern.
The details differ. The underlying process doesn't.
What interests me is the moment those survival strategies stop being responses to an environment and quietly become the way we understand ourselves. That's when adaptation becomes identity.
Perhaps that's why I keep coming back to the distinction between gratitude and permanence. We can honour the adaptations that helped us survive without assuming they must define the rest of our lives.
I am fascinated by them too. Part of why I became fascinated by resilience is that my own life has required constant adaptation. I'm neurodivergent, chronically ill, and have spent much of my life navigating overlapping expectations of family, culture, and caregiving. Those experiences eventually led me to build a clarity system for myself and to explore these questions through writing. Thank you for engaging and exchanging ideas with a chronically exhausted fellow writer! 🤣
Thank you for sharing that so openly. I think you've captured something important.
The adaptations themselves aren't the problem. They're often remarkable achievements.
The difficulty is that, when they've served us for long enough, they can become invisible. We stop seeing them as adaptations and start seeing them as who we are.
I suspect writing is part of that process for both of us. It creates just enough distance to ask, "Does this still belong to today's weather?"
Wishing you strength for the writing, and for the subtler work of deciding what deserves to come with you into the next chapter.
🙏🙈🫣🤗 Back to hyeroglyphs it is! 😆
You nailed it about resilience in organizational leadership. I've experienced 2 acquisitions, one from the acquirer and the other as the one being acquired. Acquisitions create a massive change environment from both sides. The leaders who were able to see those environment changes for what they truly were were the ones who survived the organizational transformation. The leaders who held in firmly to their old way of operating or who tried to embrace and things exactly as the other side does ended up burned out and struggling, sometimes to the point of creating artificial crises. What I have learned is that an acquisition creates a third environment that's a blend of the original two organizations, leaders have influence to shape that new environment, create adaptations for it, and then help the organization evolve
Great insight. I like the idea of the acquisition creating a "third environment". Perhaps this tangentially links to "third space" theory if only to highlight the importance of "environment".
It reinforces something I've been thinking about re how we often treat adaptation as reactive.
And yet leaders also have the opportunity to become architects of the next environment.
In that sense, resilience isn't just responding well to change. It's helping shape the conditions others will eventually need to adapt to.
Yes, exactly! In some scenarios leaders have a massive opportunity to shape the environment for the entire organization. And unfortunately, I've witnessed many times when the leaders tried to recreate an environment they were comfortable with rather than contributing to an evolution.
Divine timing as I've just picked back up on the show after 4 years and do resonate with Shelby.
I see the difference and this was genuinely helpful. Thank you for differentiating this so well. It felt like a therapy lesson in a way. Lol
Very well done!
Thank you, Katy. That's lovely to hear.
One of the things I hoped the article might do was replace self-judgement with curiosity.
So many of the habits we criticise in ourselves once solved a very real problem.
The question isn't whether they were wrong, but whether they're still solving today's problem, or yesterday's.
The ability to step back and make that determination on what serves you best is a gamechanger.
🤝
Amen to that!
Great job, Peter! You reminded me of Stephen Covey’s emphasis on “urgency addiction.” The rescuer archetype gets high on his/her ability to jump into the deep end and save the drowning victim. The need may become so acute that the rescuer starts pushing people in…. All at the expense of doing what is important.
Thanks, Steve. I hadn't made the Covey connection, but it fits well.
The moment that interests me is when crisis stops being something we manage and becomes the environment in which we feel most valuable.
That's a dangerous shift because urgency no longer just rewards the behaviour. It starts reinforcing the identity.
I really enjoyed this. My curiosity kicked in thinking about crisis vs resilience, and I feel this is pretty spot on. I like the lens you present for both of them, and the idea that humans may be great in a crisis, though not resilient. And, resilient, however not great in a crisis.
I think about how someone would handle a situation, jumping in to help in the moment, a crisis versus someone who has endured a long health battle, or difficult time and be able to adapt and bounce back and keep going.
Great read!
Thank you, I appreciate the comment.
I like your health example because it highlights something subtle.
Enduring a long illness can build extraordinary resilience. But it can also create adaptations that remain long after recovery.
That's the distinction I'm trying to get at.
The question isn't whether the adaptation was valuable. It's whether it still belongs to today's weather.
Question.. "Create adaptations that remain long after recovery". My thoughts also popped up the idea of crisis AND resilience together.
Why: When folks, me for example, endure years of surgery, traumatic health moments (cancer diagnosis, emergency rooms, etc.), does the idea of being able to handle crisis and being able to stay calm, having clarity and focus align with this idea.
We can have the ability to handle crisis and be resilient in the same moment, and long after recovery?
Great topic! I love this.
Your comparison between resilience and competence made me think about how strength is so often associated with capability and the power to do, when there’s also power in not doing.
I write about resilience through the lens of lupus, autoimmune disease, and chronic illness, exploring how adaptability to change invites us to redefine what strength really means and your essay resonated with me.
Your experience resonates. I imagine you have quite a lot you could add!
One of the things Stoicism taught me is that strength isn't just the capacity to endure. It's the freedom to respond appropriately to the conditions we're actually in.
Sometimes that means persistence. Sometimes it means rest.
Sometimes it means letting go of a way of surviving that no longer belongs to today's weather.
We’re on the same page.
'Resilient' and 'good in a crisis' get used interchangeably, but @Peter Ashby Smith makes a case that they're almost opposite skills. Shelby doesn't survive Peaky Blinders because he's at peace with the world; he survives because he's built for the fire.
Excellent read, Peter. I've caught myself calling people 'resilient' when what I actually meant was that they're terrifyingly good in an emergency, which, as you point out, isn't the same skill at all. Crisis competence can even work against long-term resilience if it trains you to only feel alive under threat. Curious whether you think crisis-competent people can retrain toward genuine Stoic equanimity, or whether the two are almost trained in opposition to each other. Just thinking out loud over here.
It's great to hear you've been wrestling with the same question!
I think the key difference is flexibility or adaptability.
Crisis competence narrows us to one environment.
Stoic temperance should expand that range.
We don't want to become less capable in a crisis, but just as capable amidst stability, ambiguity, recovery and peace.
That's what I'm trying to capture with the idea of a "Resilience Range".
Thanks for responding; I sincerely enjoy your work. Flexibility or adaptability, that's helpful. I go chew on that for a bit.
One of the best points in this piece: being good in a crisis doesn't always mean you're resilient. That's a distinction more people should think about
Thanks, Petar.
What I've realised is that crisis competence is often rewarded because it's visible. There's a hollywood-like panache to it.
Resilience is a bit quieter, showing up in knowing when to stop using yesterday's strengths and start building tomorrow's.
This is a special piece Peter 🤍 My own background came to the forefront as I read and asked the question how am I utilizing the tools and skills gained through healing from trauma in the most efficient manner in todays work for the tomorrow I am advocating for.
The reference you use with Peter Shelby is fantastic. I saw his character become reduced to a sense of desparation to maintain his relentless reputation of power and control without realizing that through relentless pursuit of power and control he lost his own purpose, meaning and value for himself in the process. He isolated himself believing he was meant to carry it all which meant suppressing his own grief, loss and connection with loved ones. Thank you for this perspective.
Thank you. Beautifully put. I think that's what makes Shelby so compelling.
His tragedy isn't that he developed extraordinary survival mechanisms.
It's that he could no longer imagine a life that didn't rely on them.
Perhaps one of the hardest parts of healing is recognising that we can be grateful for yesterday's adaptations without carrying them into tomorrow.
Great work, Peter! This really made me pause and reflect on my own journey. I especially appreciated the distinction between crisis competence and resilience. Thank you for giving me something to think about.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
Given your background in finance, I wonder if the same pattern appears in investing.
The habits that help us survive one market cycle don't automatically prepare us for the next.
Sometimes our greatest strengths become the assumptions we're least willing to re-examine.
Perhaps that's where resilience begins, not in abandoning our strengths, but in refusing to let them become our identity.