I’ve noticed that many of my clients tie the word “responsible” to money.  According to our culture, our past and our internal critics (gremlins), above all we must be “responsible” with our money.  Sometimes when I’m going through a new client’s Discovery form I find that word repeated so often that it amazes me. 

So what does “responsible” really mean?  Amongst other definitions Webster includes under responsible:

·      expected or obliged to account, answerable, accountable

·      able to distinguish between right and wrong and to think and act rationally

·      readily assuming obligations, duties, etc.; dependable, reliable

Doesn’t sound like much fun, does it?  And of course money has to be serious, doesn’t it?  Hmmm.  Let’s see. 

If money were a person we might want it to be collaborative, respectful, easy, understanding, even flexible.  What else do you want in a relationship?  Trust? Honesty? Humor?  Many things.  We actually want many things from our money. 

But I really don’t think we truly want the dictionary definition of “responsible” from money.  I think we want money to with us, helping and supporting us.  We want it to be conscious and flexible.  We want it to be able to respond.

What if “responsible” could actually mean “able to respond”?   How might that change how we think about money?

Ka-ching

Shell