The Ham and Eggs Dilemma

rethinking commitment in the age of self-care

As we—the royal—strive for personal growth and well-being, we often encounter seemingly contradictory advice.

▪️ We're encouraged to prioritize self-care and draw boundaries in Sharpie!

▪️ We're told to carpe every diem and live life to the fullest!

As someone who has long prided herself on mastering the art of saying no, I recently found myself questioning whether I‘d taken this skill too far. Wondering if my well-honed ability to protect my time/energy had inadvertently closed me off from potentially enriching experiences.

This introspection was triggered by an unexpected (or perhaps unsurprising considering my love for trash TV) source: a re-watch of Grey's Anatomy. While watching an episode from the show's third season, I came across a metaphor that sparked me to think about my views on commitment and involvement.

The "ham versus eggs" analogy.

The premise is simple: In the context of a breakfast plate, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

🥚 The chicken contributes eggs, a renewable resource that doesn't require significant sacrifice.

🐷 The pig, however, gives everything—its life—to provide the ham.

This culinary analogy offers a powerful perspective on how we approach opportunities in life.

Are we willing to be like the pig—fully committing ourselves to a cause or connection?

Do we prefer to be like the chicken—participating without full immersion?

It all reminded me of Brené Brown's oft-quoted line If it's not a hell yes, it's a no!! which has become a rallying cry for many seeking to simplify lives and avoid half-hearted commitments.

While this approach has its merits it feels, for me, like a vast oversimplification of the complex nature of being human.

For me the beauty of the ham and eggs analogy lies in its acknowledgment of different levels of involvement. It reminds me there exists value in both full commitment and partial participation. It allows for a flexible approach to decision-making, one that affirms the validity of soft yeses and the potential for growth in situations that don't immediately inspire fervent enthusiasm.

You and me, we're like ham and eggs. I was the chicken. I was involved, but now I'm committed. I’m ham.

George O’Malley

Here’s the thing though, what about instances where we're intrigued, excited even, but not q u i t e ready to jump in? Enter my concept of the hell maybe! – a middle ground that acknowledges enthusiasm while preserving the right for further consideration.

For me the hell maybe! is not indecision masquerading as interest. It's an enthusiastic openness to possibility, coupled with a healthy dose of pragmatism.

It's saying, I'm genuinely excited about this prospect, and I want to explore it further before committing. This approach allows me to engage with intriguing opportunities without the pressure of immediate, all-or-nothing decisions.

For instance, a new friendship might not immediately feel like a hell yes! experience, but a hell maybe mindset allows me to invest time and energy getting to know someone, recognizing the potential for connection while acknowledging meaningful relationships develop gradually.

Similarly, a new career opportunity might inspire a hell maybe: excitement tempered with the need for consideration of how it aligns with my long-term goals and values.

Thanks to the inimitable George O’Malley, rather than viewing decisions as binary, I now ask myself:

In this situation, am I willing to be the ham, would I prefer to be the eggs or is this a 'hell maybe' that deserves further exploration?

Now you.

• Do you tend more toward the all-in-HAM or the participation-EGGS when making most decisions?

• Have you experienced the power of a HELL MAYBE! response?