Hmmmm today’s dictionary word is centimetre.
I reckon someone who grew up knowing centimetres and kilometres and the like has it easier than one like me who grew up with feet and inches and had to convert to centimeters.  Like I know I am about 5 foot 8 inches.  I have no idea what that is in kilometres.
I have a pile of tools handed down to me from my dad.  He was into carpentry having worked in a timber yard all his life.  He started out sweeping the office and ended up a manager in another town.
He used to work on big projects at home.  Merril jokes that some of the tools were great for building an ark.  I do remember him building a shed and moving it into place on rollers.  It was huge but he worked out a way to move it into place.  I was impressed.
The thing is though although I have them, they are in imperial rather than metric.  When it comes to nuts and bolts often they are just a different size than what is used currently.  They are not interchangeable.  I need to use one or the other and mostly go with what is current as I can easily get more when needed.
Some things like plainers, spit levels, and plyers and the like are ok no matter the item or distance.  Like spirit levels.  Something is either level or it is not.  Yet the tape measures I have at best give both inches and centimetres.  That is handy as much built was built before centimetres were considered.
What I have done with some of the smaller items is arrange them as museum pieces.  That is, I display them. 
A number of other tools just sit.  And sit.  And sit.  I have never used them but have kept them.  We are at the stage of “why?”  We are happy for them to go to a good home.  But accessing and sorting them is on our “to do” list.  It is closer than it ever was but nothing has changed as yet.

Well this is a fist.  It is the first time ever I am writing on the question always asked at the end of a James Clear email.  The email is called 3,2,1.  He normally has 3 quotes from himself, 2 quotes from others, (this week is William Shakespeare and Steve King – a graphic designer not the author) and 1 question from him.
The question this week is “what can you eliminate this week?”
That is prefaced by this (and it is what I am thinking about.) “Elimination solves many problems. For one, you won't have to do the thing you eliminate. But also, you free up time, attention, and resources to do a better job on what remains. Before trying to be more productive, be more ruthless about what gets cut.”
I have found from personal experience this is the way to go.  I have been among the many who have had trouble saying no.  As far as I can see there are at least two reasons for this.
Firstly many are well meaning and want to help.  I remember someone saying to me if they see a need they just fill it.  I strongly disagreed with him as I reckon that is the quickest way to burn out I know of. Naturally the head of an organization is responsible to fulfill obligations.  That to me is a great reason to check before committing to any obligation, and to put guard rails around it ,so it is known exactly what is being committed to.
The second reason commitments are so often made is what I call the “superman” syndrome.  So often I have seen (and I have done it) a commitment to too much.  Here is often a belief that I can do many many things.  At times it is just a matter of committing to too much.  No one was built for work 24/7.
This seems to particularly hit when someone commits to something when up and highly motivated. No matter who it is, no one is up and motivated 24/7.  Sometimes it is obvious the the commitment is an over commitment (and even when remaining motivated, rest is needed).
Why I like the email question is I would rather do one thing well than many things poorly.  I am a work in progress but this is coming home to me like never before.  There may be many jobs to do, but not every job is mine to do.

A champion team often beats a team of champions.
I remember seeing that years ago when the Broncos players and coach were on State of Origin representative duties.  Craig Bellemy was in charge of what were called the “baby Broncos.”  They were not expected to beat teams that played first grade regularly.  Yet they did.
I also saw this when I was playing competition table tennis. Often individuals which were not as highly ranked as their opponents would beat them in doubles.
I asked myself why.  I felt I knew why in part but looking into things there have been additions to my thinking I reckon are relevant.
Chief among them are the team leader.  They always look out for and inspire others.  To me that is one of the great strengths of Bellamy.  He often takes no names and turns them into champions.  One site likens the difference in leaders as the difference between a sheepdog and a wolf.  A sheepdog protects while a wolf prays on the week.  A sheepdog looks out for the “we” rather than just the “me.”
I saw this in Rhyse Walsh and the Broncos when they beat Melbourne to win the premiership.  Walsh was not the captain but he was a leader.  Walsh to me played like he believed they could win.  It seemed to inspire those around him.  I cannot think how often I have seen a player do something sustained in the face of seemingly overwhelming opposition, that has inspired others to collectively do what it takes.
What I personally love about the “we” rather than “me” mentality is that it makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts.  What shines rather than individual brilliance is the brilliance born of a shared goal competently pursued.  A working together to produce a desirable outcome rather than the shining of individual brilliance.
An individual may shine but the context is one of sharing rather than highlighting an individual.  I think of team pursuit in bike riding.  Often one leads and turns are taken to give the others a rest.  The brilliant individual may be used at the end but the team lays the foundation.
I love teams.  It means I do not need to be the best in history.  I just need to focus and put 100% into what I am doing, along with my teammates and look out for them.  We may not be the best there is but together we can achieve more than we ever could as individuals.