To be the head of foxes or the tail of lions? Is there a third option?

Not long ago, I had a conversation with a very capable woman. She has two engineering degrees and works at an Israeli development center of one of the leading companies in the world. In her previous job, she also worked at a development ,center of one of the world's leading companies. And she is frustrated. One of the reasons is the feeling that the people she works with are in OK, but no more than that. They don't challenge her enough, and she really tried. Maybe they are less ambitious, maybe less intelligent, not clear. But it's clear enough that their values and behaviors are different than what she would have liked to see.

Maybe she can be the leader who will change and take the group forward? She tried but it didn't work and now she is much more interested in advancing professionally than dealing with a managerial challenge.

Among her roles she does research and there are not many people in the group she can talk to about it. She is always solving problems, and there are very few colleagues she can think and ponder with. She also works in collaboration with one of the researchers from the global development organization abroad and two professors from Israel.

When I asked her what it was like to work with more research people from the global organization, she shrugged her shoulders and said she wasn't sure if it was better to be the "tail of a lions" or the "head of the foxes". But we had already discussed it and she didn't want to be the "head of the foxes". So I asked: Do you think you are not as qualified as the researchers abroad? She thought about it and said that maybe she is qualified. She thought she was as good as them, and that if she hadn't been wondering until now, she would start her doctoral studies. She enjoyed the opportunities she had to work with researchers from the center abroad very much, and this was definitely a place where she could find herself.

We opened a new option, or rather, we refined the definition of the second option. No longer just lions, but also lionesses among lionesses. The next step is to think of how to make it happen. One tip in this particular case is to travel as much as possible to be with the researchers and scholars she wants to work with. There is still no substitute for physical meetings, not only with researchers and scholars but also with the international community to which they belong. Physical meetings at meetups, meetings face-2-face at the International Research Center, random chats at the Research Center, and professional consultations that are part of the work there.

When I asked BETA.OPENAI (chatGPT's mother) if there was a third option, she said that (3) it was possible not to belong to either of the two groups. The advantages of the option are autonomy and freedom from the hierarchy, the disadvantages are isolation and responsibility. I hesitated and asked if there was a fourth option. I got a non-trivial answer (4) that it is possible to bridge between the two groups and it is interesting to create the connecting bridge. Option five? (5) It is possible to build an

entirely new group, but it is very difficult. Option six? She came back with (6) to maintain neutrality and not to belong. It seems like as you are getting tired, so is she.

It's just an example of how difficult and tedious it is to ponder between two inaccurate options. If you are considering two options and pondering a lot, there is a chance that redefining the options can change the perspective and create new options. So is there a third option? Yes, almost always. In this case it appears we have found option 2.5 :-)