If it ain't a fit, quit
How two very different stories about the prioritization of mental health can end up meaning the same thing.
“How could it be considered honorable of me to continuously have laid in wait for the next opportunity to kill unsuspecting persons, who, more often than not, are posing no danger to me or any other person at the time” - Daniel Hale, former intelligence contractor at National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
“...mental's not there." - Simone Biles, US Olympic gymnast
In the same week, the news cycle has carried two distinct stories involving people choosing their mental health over the advancing of American interests. Daniel Hale and Simone Biles both chose themselves.
Enjoying this? Who gave you permission to be happy? Give someone else permission to smile, forward the email to a friend or share it on social media. And, if you’re new here, subscribe for more.
In 2019, Daniel Hale was charged with disclosing national intelligence info and theft of government property. The charges stem from Hale exposing secret, unaccounted American drone killings in Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalia, to the press.
For Daniel Hale, it was his conscience that plagued him. Oftentimes, the drone strikes wound up killing not only the targets, but bystanders and sometimes children and US citizens. In providing his rationale to a judge, Hale attributes the PTSD and depression he experienced to abetting and viewing the strikes.
As a defense analyst helping to carry out these strikes, Hale’s work ostensibly went towards serving American interests in the Middle East, however confusing and shapeless they may be.
Simone Biles—who I can refer to henceforth using only her last name because she’s just that famous—conversely, was tasked with augmenting US soft power by way of her prolific abilities in gymnastics. Owing in large part to her mental health, Biles pulled out of the US Women’s team finals and the individual all-around competition.
Both Hale and Biles were tasked with representing their country, thanks to their decisions both weakened the US’s position against its desired outcomes.
The use of hard power—military might—in part powers the brand of the American military. America’s defense spending dwarfs all other nations worldwide, which serves not only military might, but military marketing power. The use of military power isn’t merely an end of itself, it’s also a means of broadcasting the ability to use that power and what the consequences of being on the wrong end of that power are. This is especially true in the context of drone strikes, whose implicit threat is you can get vaporized no matter where you are and no matter where the US military actually is.
When Hale outed America’s illicit drone strikes, he also revealed US strategies and positions, which, according to the military, weakened its advantage against its adversaries.
Biles weakened America’s projection of power by virtually ensuring through her non-participation that the US wouldn’t win gold in the team gymnastics event, ending the teams’ gold streak that dated back to the 2012 Olympics. Along with the FIFA Men’s World Cup, the Olympics are the most watched event globally. America’s dominance in the Olympics doesn’t just represent athletic prowess, it represents the effective allocation of resources—money, nutrition, science—towards success. By not winning, America’s soft power—its ability to shape people’s opinions without coercion, its ability to bolster and amplify a positive image of America at home and abroad—is slightly weakened.
With Hale and Biles, one’s interpretation of their actions rests mainly on whether you believe America’s projection of power through athletics and military might are worthy ends. As drone strikes run counter to most international laws and norms, as well as morality at large, and since athletics aren’t a reflection of anything besides mostly population size and GDP per capita, it’s safe to say the actions of Hale and Biles should be applauded.
The actions of both were the subordination of brand goals for the betterment of the individual. The paradox is that in doing so, Hales and Biles exercised their individual liberties in pursuit of better lives, a core tenet of what it means to be an American. Both cases represent a reconsideration of the internal calculus that comprises an individual’s participation in a brands’ purpose. Rightly so, Hale and Biles assigned heavier weighting to the mental health effects which would arise in pursuit of brand purpose.
Biles’ and Hales’ actions are high-profile answers to the question of: “what if what I’m working on just isn’t as good or as important as I’d thought?”
“This Olympic Games, I wanted it to be for myself.” - Simone Biles
They certainly aren’t the first people to ask themselves this question, and both are facing unpleasant consequences resulting from their decisions. Hale is facing years of jail time. Nonetheless, the publicity of each respective decision brings welcome scrutiny to the importance of self over brand, especially when a brand’s goals and your own aren’t in alignment.
Read This Next
The Daily Coach’s aim is to provide a daily, hands-on approach to becoming a better leader. Whether you’re an executive, teacher, or parent, everyone is a coach. With the help of some unique wisdom as well as an action plan to tackle your day, The Daily Coach aims to be an inspiration in your email inbox each morning. Subscribe here.
