Security Is an
Illusion
The thing you are protecting is not safety. It is predictability, and somebody else controls the off switch.
Ask anyone why they stayed somewhere longer than they should have, and security shows up in the answer.
The job was secure. The arrangement was stable. It was not exciting, but it was safe, and safe was worth something.
I want to look carefully at what that word is actually pointing at, because I do not think it means what people think it means.
Predictability is not the same as safety
When people call something secure, they almost always mean it is predictable. They know what next month looks like. There are no surprises on the calendar.
That is genuinely valuable and I am not going to argue otherwise. But notice what predictability depends on. It depends on external conditions holding steady, and on other people continuing to make the same decisions they have been making.
Which means every bit of it can be revoked without your input. The market shifts. Someone above you makes a call. The company gets acquired and the arithmetic changes, and none of that has anything to do with how well you did your job.
You did not have security. You had somebody else’s intention to keep things the same, and you called it security.
The part that costs more than people realize
Here is where it gets more uncomfortable, because there is good evidence that the arrangement people are protecting is already charging them.
Sarah Burgard, Jennie Brand and James House tracked more than 1,700 American adults across two nationally representative longitudinal studies, over periods of three to ten years, and separated the effect of worrying about job loss from the effect of actually losing a job.
Persistent perceived job insecurity predicted worse self-rated health and more depressive symptoms than actual job loss and unemployment did. In one sample it was a stronger predictor of poor health than smoking or hypertension. Burgard’s explanation of why includes a phrase worth holding onto: ongoing ambiguity about the future, and the inability to take action unless the feared event actually happens. Worth noting that the literature is mixed, some studies find unemployment worse, and Burgard herself called for better data. Read the study.
Read that middle phrase again. You cannot act until the thing you fear actually arrives.
That is the trap precisely. The version of security most people are protecting keeps them in a holding pattern where the threat is real enough to be stressful and vague enough to be unactionable. So you carry it, and you carry it, and you never do the thing that would actually reduce it.
You did not have
security. You had
someone’s intention
to not change it.
Two things people call security
External
The job, the arrangement, the routine holding steady.
Owned by somebody else. Can be removed without warning or explanation.
Does not improve over time. It only persists until it does not.
Protecting it requires avoiding risk, which means avoiding growth.
Internal
Knowing you can handle what shows up.
Owned by you. Nobody can take it in a reorganization.
Compounds. Every hard thing handled makes the next one smaller.
Built by taking measured risk, which is the same thing that produces growth.
Only one of those actually behaves like security. The other one behaves like a lease.
The reframe
Real security is not knowing what will happen. It is trusting yourself to handle what does.
That sounds like a nice line until you sit with the practical difference, which is significant.
If your security depends on conditions staying stable, then every change is a threat and you will spend your energy trying to prevent change. That is exhausting, it does not work, and it quietly rules out most of the things that would move your life.
If your security is a track record of handling things, then change is just the next thing. You do not need to know what is coming, because the question you have already answered is not what happens next. It is whether you can deal with what happens next.
How you actually build it
The good news is that this is not abstract. Internal security is built the same way any evidence-based belief gets built.
You already have more of it than you are counting. You have handled every difficult stretch you have been through so far, and you probably credit most of it to luck or timing rather than to yourself. I wrote about that discount in the piece on surviving your hardest days.
And you add to it in small, private ways. Every promise you keep to yourself when nobody would know is a deposit in the same account, which is the subject of the article on keeping promises.
Neither of those requires you to quit anything or make a dramatic move. They just require you to stop outsourcing the question of whether you will be okay.
Move the security inside
- Name what would actually happen. If the thing you are protecting disappeared, write out the real sequence. Not the feeling. The steps. Most people have never done this, and the specifics are almost always more manageable than the dread.
- Build one thing that is not dependent on it. A skill, a relationship, a side capability. Not to leave. So that staying becomes a choice rather than a requirement, which changes how you show up while you are there.
- Count the hard things you have already handled. Specifically, in writing. That list is the only evidence about your capacity that is actually about you.
- Take one risk small enough to survive. Internal security is built by doing things without a guarantee. Start at a size where the downside is genuinely fine, and let the record accumulate.
What this is not
I want to be careful, because this idea gets used to push people into reckless decisions.
None of this is an argument for quitting a job you need, ignoring real obligations, or treating other people’s dependence on you as an inconvenience. Stability has genuine value, particularly when other people are counting on you, and there are seasons where protecting it is exactly the right call.
The argument is narrower than that. It is that external stability should be understood for what it is, a useful arrangement that somebody else can end, rather than mistaken for actual safety. And that if the only thing keeping you in place is the belief that leaving would be unsurvivable, that belief is worth testing rather than obeying.
The question underneath it
Most people who are stuck are not really asking whether the new thing would work out.
They are asking whether they would be okay if it did not. And they have never answered that question directly, so it sits there in the background generating a vague dread that makes staying feel obvious.
Answer it. Not optimistically. Honestly, in specifics, on paper.
Most of the time the answer is that it would be hard and you would handle it, which is the same answer as every other hard thing in your life so far.
What people call security is usually predictability, which depends on other people continuing to make the same decisions. Research found persistent job insecurity predicted worse health than actual job loss, partly because you cannot act until the feared event arrives. Real security is a track record of handling things, which nobody can revoke, and it is built by taking risks small enough to survive.
Keynotes and
workshops.
Chris speaks to companies, associations, healthcare organizations, and teams on ownership, resilience, and helping people reach their full potential. Every program is built around your audience and your goals, and the impact is designed to continue after the room clears out.
Response within one business day
The Comfort Ceiling Assessment
Find where you have settled without meaning to, and where the biggest opportunity to grow actually is. Free, and it takes a few minutes.
You Are Capable of More
Ten principles and a no-excuses playbook for becoming the person you know you’re capable of being. Launching August 13, 2026.
Do something with it.
An article can name the thing. These are what move it, and all of them are free.
Break the Barrier
Seven barriers, each with the reading, an exercise from the book, and something you can print. Start with the one that sounds like you.
Find Yours →The Ten Principles
The framework this is all built on, in four movements. Each one has a page of its own and a worksheet you can print.
See Them →The Comfort Ceiling Assessment
Twenty five questions across five areas of your life, scored, showing where comfort is quietly making your decisions.
Take the Assessment →The Free Tools
The Framework, the Playbook, the worksheets, the challenge. Free to read on the page or print and keep.
See Everything →Run It With Your Team
Four workshop formats you can run yourself, from one hour to ten weeks. Every word you need, and a workbook for each seat.
See the Formats →More, in your inbox.
Ownership, discipline, and growth, straight from Chris. Only when there is something genuinely worth sending. No fluff, unsubscribe anytime.