Quarter-life Crisis – an issue not to be ignored!

We have all heard of / read about mid-life crisis – a transition of identity and self-confidence that can occur in middle aged individuals. However, we don’t really give much thought to a similar issue that concerns people in their 20s and 30s – Quarter-life Crisis.

A quarter-life crisis is when individuals in their 20s or 30s find themselves in situations of uncertainties and anxieties – be it related to career choices, debts, independent living, or relationships. According to a research published by The Guardian, way back in 2011, quarter-life crises affect 86% millennials, who have reported feeling bogged down by insecurities, disappointments, loneliness and depression. While traditionally these issues might have seemed trivial or something all young adults have grappled with for years, today these issues seem more real and ones that cannot be ignored. 

One might wonder what has changed from young adults wondering if they will experience a quarter-life crisis to when will they experience a quarter-life crisis. Why has quarter-life become such a phenomenon? In today’s fast paced world of ‘perform or perish’, young adults are under constant pressure to prove themselves – either to their parents, peers, bosses or even their own selves. This is a time when people are the most social and are constantly striving to “fit in”, however, the society we are currently in, is wrestling with several inequities, especially with individuals becoming more and more excluded and isolated. When individuals are faced with such a situation so early on in their lives, a crisis is inevitable. 

While there are several articles about the downside of quarter-life crisis, I want to discuss the upside. As opposed to mid-life crises, a person is confronted with a quarter-life crisis much earlier on in life. While a mid-life crisis can turn a person’s life into a whole new direction or threaten a person’s identity, a quarter-life crisis can in fact help a person decide on a new direction, that may in turn open up more or better avenues. As human beings climb up the societal or career ladder, their position takes precedence over anything else. On the other hand, individuals in their 20s or 30s don’t have much to lose since they are just starting out. 

People fear making mistakes – at any age, and this is only natural. However, there is another way of looking at the consequence of making mistakes. If one doesn’t make mistakes, they won’t learn. And making a mistake early on in life and learning and growing from it will ensure better judgement later on, which can go a long way in shaping a person’s identity and individuality. This leads on to another interesting upside of a quarter-life crisis, that is, it teaches a person to be more patient with themselves. Realising one’s mistake and understanding the importance of growing out of it takes time and this tests a person’s tolerance and willingness to change or improve. 

While it is never too early or too late to introduce changes in life, it is always a good idea to make changes when young to ensure happiness and satisfaction in the long run. At an age when there is no burden of responsibilities, it is much easier to let go of things in exchange of something better. This is also a time that allows people to dabble in several different things to understand their real areas of interest and expertise. By doing something one doesn’t like or finds difficult, they are in fact trying to understand out what they can or like to do. 

Parents and society play an influencing role in shaping a person’s identity. As a result, a person in their 20s has grown up to act on other people’s expectations, all stemming from their own personal experiences. However, when faced with making their own decisions, they have to rely on their own instincts and priorities. Going through a turmoil at this stage can help the person re-evaluate their priorities, which could open up more opportunities.     

Given the parental support and guidance received when growing up, the sudden entry into the “big bad” world can be frightening for many. However, it is just a rite of passage and everyone goes through it. How one confronts it is what matters. In a nutshell, a quarter-life crisis is all about how a person shifts into the society and through a mid-life crisis a person shifts out of society to become their own person. While at one point nothing might seem to go right, this time is helping shape an individual and bracing them for the future.

Cuban Missile Crisis – winning through ‘Diversity of Thought’

I recently met someone who shared my passion and approach to history and it got me thinking about a book I re-read recently – Thirteen Days: A memoir of the Cuban missile crisis by Robert F. Kennedy. As news of the Cuban revolutionary and politician, Fidel Castro’s death came out, I was obviously reminded of the Cold War period, especially the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. As a History student, I have often stated how the Cold War was my most favourite period in history – to study of course! And to learn about the events gone by more as a story than just chapters in the syllabus made it all the more interesting. Having studied about the above mentioned event at school and university, I was relatively well versed with the happenings, but with so many articles being published after Fidel Castro’s death, I wanted to revisit history, hence, Robert F. Kennedy’s memoir.

Thirteen Days is Kennedy’s account of the Cuban Missile Crisis between October 16 and 28, 1962. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a 13 day dangerous confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and was the closest the two superpowers came to nuclear conflict, following the discovery of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, a mere 90 miles away from Florida. Robert Kennedy’s account describes the meetings held between the then US President and his brother, John F. Kennedy and his Executive Committee, a team assembled by the President to handle the situation between the two nations. At the time of the crisis, Robert Kennedy was the US Attorney General and a member of the National Security Council. Given his position in his brother’s Executive Committee, Robert Kennedy had access to the happenings – first hand. This book offers interesting insights into a crisis that brought the world to the brink of a massive nuclear war. The book is a blow-by-blow account of what ensued over those 13 days and gives readers a peak into how President Kennedy, along with his group of advisers, worked on the best response to the Soviet actions in Cuba. In a TV address on 22^nd October, 1962, President Kennedy notified his fellow Americans about the presence of the missiles and explained his decision to order a naval blockade around Cuba and made it clear the United States’ position to make use of military force, if necessary, to the contain Soviet Union’s actions. However, a big crisis was averted when the President accepted the Soviet leader, Nikita Krushchev’s offer to remove the missiles in exchange for the United States’ promise to not invade Cuba.

One might wonder why I am writing about the Cuban Missile Crisis after so many years… When I read the book the first time, it was to get another insight into what happened during those 13 days and how the two nations came so close to waging a nuclear war, but ultimately managed to avert it. My intent while reading the book again was solely to revisit the period since so many opinion pieces were getting published post Fidel Castro’s death. However, this recent reading gave me a very different perspective – how diversity of thought and experience helped President Kennedy and his Executive Committee wade through the crisis.

As someone who thinks of Diversity and Inclusion every waking hour (It’s my profession!), this perspective is of great interest and importance, especially now where the future of diversity is not what one thinks but how one thinks. While reading the book, I realised how President Kennedy built a diverse group of advisors and drew from their varied perspectives and background to deliberate over all the possible alternatives. Robert Kennedy provides us with a detailed account of the discussions that took place, what actions were taken or not taken and what the Executive Committee members’ views were as the discussions progressed. Given the vivid description of the happenings, the reader can easily imagine the pressure situation the President and his Executive Committee were put in. While the President was looking at a peaceful, non-military solution, several members of his Executive Committee were of the view that military force was the best way to keep the Soviets at bay. How the President considered all views before making a decision, helped the United States avert a big disaster.

It is interesting to know how this approach stemmed from the catastrophe caused about 18 months before, during the Bay of Pigs Invasion on 17^th April, 1961, when President Kennedy supported a rather ill-conceived covert operation to unseat Fidel Castro. The Bay of Pigs Invasion was a military invasion of Cuba undertaken by a CIA sponsored paramilitary group. With Cuba’s close geographical proximity to the United States, the rise of Fidel Castro’s communist government was a big threat to a capitalist United States. However, the invading force was defeated by the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces within three days.

This incident heightened tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union and was a significant event of the Cold War period. President Kennedy’s role during the Bay of Pigs Incident has often been criticised and he is said to have made a decision without a consensus. Psychologist, Irving Janis describes such actions as “groupthink”, a psychological drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses dissent and appraisal of alternatives. Groupthink occurs when a group “makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgement”. A group that is affected by “groupthink” ignores alternatives and tends to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group can be vulnerable to think alike when members come from similar backgrounds and the group is shielded from outside opinions.

Having adopted this approach during the Bay of Pigs Incident and facing an embarrassing defeat, President Kennedy realised a different approach had to be adopted when the United States discovered Soviet missiles in Cuba. Unlike the covert operation during the Bay of Pigs incident, an operation that President Kennedy had inherited from the Eisenhower administration, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the President stayed informed throughout and was firmly in control of facts and decisions. He reworked on his strategy that involved getting diverse viewpoints, thus stimulating debate, exploring options and letting the best plan win. Having an Executive Committee that was made up of people who were diverse and far-ranging in their political orientations presented the President with a wide spectrum of voices.

President Kennedy’s approach back in the 1960s resonates very well today, when organisations are emphasising on diversity of thought, which focuses on realising the true potential of people, by appreciating the potential promise of each person’s unique perspective and different way of thinking. Leaders must accept there’s not just one right way to get things done and to be truly innovative and inclusive, companies have to focus on harnessing different viewpoints and opinions. Having people with broad experiences and exposure to different ideas will help organisations in the long run.