HELENA WILSON

Time moves as it always has—normal, expected, required. Then suddenly, life becomes a vapor. Gone. Not slowly. Not gently. Just gone. Whether expected or not, someone you love has passed away. Now what do you do?

You begin to ask questions that do not have answers:

• What do I do with the love I still have?
• Where do I place the conversations I did not finish?
• Who am I now without them here?
• How do I live when part of me left with them?

This is the moment grief begins.

Grief, defined by Merriam-Webster as deep sorrow caused by loss, is more than a moment of sadness. It is an emotional, mental, and spiritual response to losing someone or something meaningful. It is the process of carrying love, memory, and absence while learning to live forward.

Emotionally, grief may feel like overwhelming sadness, longing, or emptiness. Mentally, it can bring confusion, reflection, and constant remembering. Spiritually, it is the soul learning how to carry love without physical presence.

Grief is one of the most personal journeys a person can experience. It does not follow a timeline, ask permission, or look the same for everyone. Grief is not asking you to forget. It is asking you to learn how to carry love, memory, and loss differently.

The struggle with grief is that two realities exist at the same time: they are gone, yet your love for them remains. Your mind understands the loss, but your heart still reaches for them. You cannot see them, but you can still feel their love, influence, and presence. You remember, but you cannot touch the memory.

That is the struggle.

The struggle with grief is not just about losing someone you love; it is about learning how to live in a world that has changed.

It often includes:

• Missing conversations that will never happen
• Wanting one more hug
• Replaying the last moment
• Feeling guilt for moving forward
• Feeling stuck while the world continues
• Smiling in public while hurting in private

Some people carry grief silently. They continue working, caring for others, making decisions, and showing up daily. From the outside, they appear strong. Internally, they carry memories, emotions, and questions that never seem settled.

Grief does not mean letting go of love. It means learning to hold love differently.

One of the hardest parts of grief is that life continues. Responsibilities remain. Decisions still must be made. People still depend on you. Somehow, you must learn to function while carrying emotional weight.

The struggle with grief is not about finding closure. It is about finding peace within remembrance.

While grief may never fully leave, comfort can still grow. Hope can still exist. Rest can still come. Love never truly ends; it simply changes form.

Grief is not passive. It wrestles.

Much like Jacob in the Bible, who wrestled through the night and refused to let go until he received a blessing, grief grips you in a way that demands engagement. It is exhausting, persistent, and deeply personal.

Jacob did not walk away the same—he walked away changed and marked.

That is what grief does. It leaves an imprint. You do not enter grief and exit as the same person you were before the loss. There is a shift—sometimes subtle, sometimes undeniable.

The struggle is not about winning or losing. It is about enduring the tension between holding on and learning how to live with what has been taken.

Like Jacob, you may find yourself saying, “I will not let go,” not because you are strong, but because the weight of love refuses to release its grip.

Grief does not always give answers. Sometimes, its only offering is transformation: a new way of seeing, a new way of carrying love, and a new identity formed in the tension between loss and life.

Grief leaves a mark that is not always visible—but deeply felt.

Like Jacob, who walked away with a limp, grief changes how you move through life. You still go forward, but something in you has shifted.

You love differently.

You see time differently.

You hold moments more carefully.

The mark of grief is not just pain; it is evidence that love existed—and that it has changed form, not disappeared. Though separated physically, love, memory, and connection remain.

Grief creates two realities at once.

There is the reality of absence: the person is gone, no longer available, and no longer within reach. Their presence is removed from the natural world.

Yet something of them still remains. They linger through memory, influence, and emotional presence. You cannot see them, but you can still feel their love, influence, and presence.

This tension is the struggle.

Love holds connection, while loss imposes separation and distance. The body recognizes they are gone, but the heart still responds as if they are near. The mind recalls conversations, laughter, and shared moments—yet the hands cannot reach them.

You remember, but you cannot touch the memory.

Grief is like smoke. You can see it, but you cannot hold it. It fills the space—visible yet untouchable. In the same way, the person’s presence seems to linger, but there is nothing physical to grasp.

One reality acknowledges separation; the other preserves the bond.

This is the struggle with grief: being separated in body while still connected in heart.

Attachment and detachment can be understood as a chasm—a deep separation that cannot be crossed.

On one side stands attachment: love, memory, and connection.

On the other stands detachment: absence, distance, and physical separation.

Both exist at the same time, yet the divide remains.

The natural eye cannot see beyond this world, and they are now far beyond our reach. No amount of longing can close the distance.

This is what makes grief so complex. You remain connected to someone who now exists beyond your reach. Love does not disappear, but the ability to interact does.

The relationship still exists—but it has changed form.

Like standing at the edge of a great divide, you can look across through memories and emotions, but you cannot step across. The connection remains visible, but the separation remains fixed.

Grief lives in that space between what remains and what is no longer physically present.

Grief makes us conscious of loss, but reflection invites us to see death differently.

Death can feel like subtraction—something taken from within our grasp, leaving hurt, emptiness, and unanswered questions. Yet from another perspective, it is also transformation.

Like baking a cake, the ingredients by themselves are separate—some sweet, some bitter, some difficult to accept. The process is not always pleasant. It requires mixing, pressure, and heat. But in the end, something new is formed—whole, complete, and meaningful in a way the individual ingredients never were on their own.

From a spiritual lens, death is not only an ending but a passage. To experience eternal rest, there must be separation from the body.

While we grieve because our loved one is no longer present, we can also consider that they may now be at rest—free from pain and fulfilled in ways we cannot yet see.

Love makes us want to hold on, but wisdom reminds us that every life has its own journey, timing, and destination.

So how do we cope when something is taken from within our grasp?

We continue living while carrying both attachment and detachment.

We remember without trying to hold onto what is no longer physically present.

We love without needing possession.

We allow pain to soften into reflection.

Grief does not disappear, but it can change shape.

In time, hurt becomes memory, anger becomes understanding, and emptiness becomes space for gratitude.

We must also learn to move forward and adjust to what has changed.

It is okay to cry.

It is okay to feel down for a while.

Grief deserves acknowledgment.

But we cannot remain there indefinitely. Life calls us forward.

Gradually, we adjust to a new normal—a life shaped by love that once was and connection that remains. The person is no longer physically present, yet their impact continues to live within us.

We are all passing through this world, each running our own course until time is called.

Perhaps the hope within grief is this: what feels like loss to us may be peace for them. What feels like separation now may one day become reunion.

Until then, we continue forward—adjusting, remembering, and living—marked by love, shaped by loss, and strengthened by the understanding that connection does not end; it continues where sight cannot follow.

Author’s Note:

This reflection is part of a larger work in progress titled The Struggle with Grief. The upcoming book will further explore the journey of loss, attachment, detachment, and learning to live in a changed form. This article serves as an introduction to a deeper conversation to come.

The complexity of large organizations lies in their many moving components. Every outcome, whether successful or challenging, is shaped by a combination of decisions, missteps, adjustments, and continuous learning. Despite this complexity, organizations share a common goal: to perform at the highest level while delivering value and satisfaction to those they serve. To achieve this, organizational processes must continuously evolve toward best practices.

One of the most critical areas requiring ongoing evaluation is the hiring process, particularly how organizations identify, develop, and advance the leaders who already exist within their workforce.

Modern recruitment has advanced significantly, incorporating artificial intelligence, automated screening tools, and psychological assessments designed to identify the “ideal” candidate. These systems aim to improve efficiency and reduce bias. Yet an important question remains: how often does the hiring process misjudge potential? Many organizations have experienced situations where a selected candidate does not remain in the role long-term due to misalignment with expectations, culture, or job demands. This reality highlights an important truth: no hiring process is flawless. No system guarantees perfect outcomes.

Within this evolving landscape, a critical paradox continues to emerge. Organizations invest heavily in professional development programs, leadership training, and educational resources to strengthen their workforce. These initiatives signal a commitment to employee growth and internal advancement. However, when employees actively engage in these opportunities, positioning themselves for progression, yet are consistently overlooked during the hiring process, a disconnect becomes evident. Development should not function as a symbolic offering; it should serve as a strategic investment in the organization’s internal talent pipeline.

One contributing factor to this disconnect lies in the screening process itself. Recruiters serve as the initial gatekeepers of candidate selection, often relying on structured criteria to identify qualified applicants. While this approach promotes consistency, it can also create a gap between recruiter screening and hiring manager expectations. Internal candidates may possess many of the required qualifications, along with institutional knowledge, demonstrated performance, and commitment, yet fail to advance because they do not meet every listed requirement. In practice, many candidates, both internal and external, meet most qualifications but are filtered out prematurely. As a result, organizations risk overlooking individuals with strong potential for growth and leadership, only to later revisit the same talent pool when positions must be refilled.

The cost of this misalignment extends beyond individual hiring decisions. It impacts organizational performance, financial resources, and employee morale. Internal candidates who repeatedly apply for opportunities and receive “not selected” or “not moving forward” notifications may begin to disengage. What should represent career progression instead becomes a source of frustration. Over time, this can lead to decreased confidence, reduced motivation, and, ultimately, turnover.

Additionally, organizations may unintentionally create inefficiencies by prioritizing external hiring without fully leveraging internal talent. External candidates often require more onboarding, training, and time to adapt to organizational culture and systems. Meanwhile, internal candidates already understand workflows, expectations, and the organizational mission. From a business perspective, failing to utilize this existing knowledge can result in increased costs and slower integration.

There is also a broader competitive implication. Employees who take advantage of tuition reimbursement, leadership programs, and professional development resources become highly marketable. When these individuals are overlooked internally, they may seek opportunities elsewhere, allowing competing organizations to benefit from investments made by their previous employer. In this way, organizations may inadvertently develop talent not for retention, but for external transition.

For internal candidates, the hiring experience itself can shape perceptions of organizational culture. When positions remain posted long after an application has been submitted without interview selection, it can raise questions about alignment between development efforts and advancement opportunities. While rejection can be discouraging, it can also serve as redirection, guiding professionals toward environments where their contributions are more fully recognized and valued.

This is where leadership plays a critical role. An organization’s true commitment to internal development is not measured solely by the resources it provides, but by the opportunities it creates for employees to apply and advance what they have learned. Leaders must work collaboratively with recruiters to ensure that hiring practices align with internal development strategies. This includes recognizing potential alongside experience, valuing institutional knowledge, and intentionally creating pathways for internal mobility.

When internal development and hiring practices are aligned, organizations strengthen retention, improve morale, and build a more sustainable workforce. They cultivate leaders who already understand the mission, culture, and people they serve, reducing the learning curve while enhancing long-term performance.

Organizations must ultimately ask themselves a critical question: Are we truly building talent pipelines, or are we unintentionally overlooking the very leaders we are developing?

The future of effective hiring is not solely about identifying the best talent externally. It is about recognizing, investing in, and advancing the talent that already exists within.

The issue is not always a shortage of talent; it is often a failure to recognize and advance the talent that already exists within.