Your Job is (not) Important

There are two ways to look at the world of work. One says that your job is important, and the other says that it's not. By "job" I mean whatever activities you engage in on a regular basis which require you to perform tasks for which you are paid based upon the time you spent—one way or the other. For all but a fortunate few, this is something you would not do for free, because you do not necessarily enjoy it—being "work" and all.

We spend most of our waking hours engaged in these activities which earn us money to pay for the rest of our lives (the happiness parts). The question is whether our jobs are important or not. Either might be true, depending on your specific case. Without any real thought, it is easy for a person to assume his job is important simply because it is an important source of income for him. Or conversely, it is easy to assume that one's job is unimportant, simply because it does not come with a title or other recognition.

But whether your job is important or not depends greatly on its actual impact. You're either changing the world or you're not. You're either growing a future for yourself and your family, or your digging yourself into a rut. Strangely, these two views pretty much come from the same source. The actual importance of your job will be the long-term decider both for the impact you have on the world for good, and the future you will grow for yourself and your family.

Because we tend to see only what is most readily visible, the "gold bars," corner offices, and other symbols of rank can be used in large organizations to create the illusion of importance. A position might appear important, and everyone might believe it is important...however, consider whether the quality of work done in the position changes anything. If either a virtuoso or a buffoon fills to position, does it change the fate of the organization?

It should be noted that in many corporations (and other organizations of similar structure) that the answer to this question is designed to be a resounding "no!" The old school way of doing business is to assume you're a buffoon until proven otherwise. Therefore, most of the power is placed in central positions like the CEO, et al. In these positions, it matters, but only to the fate of the company. If the company isn't making a great deal of change in the world, than neither is the CEO.

Ultimately, it is important to remember that our jobs are only as important as we make them. Whether or not your company is keeping you down or lifting you up, it is up to you to do important work. If the powers that be don't like what you're doing, then perhaps its not the place for you. Don't marry the job, marry the work.

Ob Petere

"Competition" is an interesting word. It's also a charged word. While it doesn't have a lot of definitions, it does have a lot of surface applications that can be confused with different meanings. It can also be used to justify actions or lack of actions, in certain contexts. It can be fun or it can be serious. It can build up an organization or tear it down.

Probably the most common usage of the word is in reference to the "friendly" competition of athletics and the like. The second, then, comes in describing a commercial concept. In both cases, competition implies that some person (or group) is winning and another is losing. To win a competition, one must simply rank better than the opposition during officially measured trials. Therefore, the goal of competition has become the defeat of the opposition.

I am only a novice when it comes to linguistics, but a quick search of the word "competition" reveals that it comes from the Latin, "competere," which means "to strive for"—from "com-" meaning "together" and "petere" meaning "aim at, seek." While the word came to mean "rivalry" in late Latin before entering the English vocabulary, its early meaning did not include the concept of opposition. As you can see, it included a prefix which means "together."

The idea of striving for something together seems rather alien in our contemporary culture. More commonly we think in terms of striving against someone or something. This mentality about competition has shown itself historically to motivate improvement on all sides. There hardly seems like any point to playing sports if it isn't to defeat the other teams. To do so, the players must improve themselves—both as individuals and as a team.

The same advantage applies to the commercial sense of the word. Historically, nations that allow businesses to complete generate more innovation and subsequent prosperity than those that either do not allow free enterprise, or highly regulate it. The reason is the same as it is in athletic competition: for anyone who wishes to run a successful business (win the competition), there is pressure to improve the quality of the goods and services he provides.

Unfortunately, the mentality of striving against (or "obpetere" with "ob-" meaning "against") the competition tends to promote practices which are not conducive to prosperity, even if they technically count as winning. Basically, I mean endeavoring in any pursuit—legal or illegal—which handicaps the competition. This ranges from outright sabotage to lobbying for laws that favor your business other others.

It's cheating. It's destructive, degenerative, and wrong.

Instead of focusing on beating the competition, people who endeavor for success should focus on creating value, ignoring the competition. It may be that looking back at the competition periodically is important for success, but confusing success with simply being better than the next guy will never allow you to reach your full potential. It is far more important to the world that you (or anyone seeking success) develop the mentality of "striving together."

In other words, competition serves the primary function of democratic growth, wherein the participating populace is collectively inspired and motivated to improve the whole. It is not because we are forced or brainwashed into improving the whole, but because we stand to gain both recognition and monetary reward for ourselves from winning an honest competition. The operative word here is "honest."

If the primary focus is on creating value, then rewards are given for reaching this goal, not cheating others out of it.

Emergency Leadership

As with anything, the topic of leadership can be split and subdivided any any number of ways, but if we look at the multitude of environments which catalyze leaders, there are basically two types of leadership. The first, is emergency leadership, and the second is—drum roll please!—non-emergency leadership.

Emergency leadership is whenever a person stands up in the face of disaster and says, "Let's do this." I use the word "disaster" loosely here because the most obvious examples—in news media and fiction, say—are disasters. Whenever there is an earthquake, a flood, a fire, a plane crash, a train crash, a terrorist bomb, etc, certain people stand up and say, "Let's roll!" However, less public examples include late bills, traffic jams, broken copy machines, and marital spats.

Emergency leadership so often takes center stage in media because, for one, leadership of any kind is rare, and two, fixing a disaster looks so heroic. Tales of heroism have long been an important mainstay to the storytelling tradition. Stories of disaster and the brave men and women who led the people out of the darkness are as easy to relate for the teller as they are to envision by the listener. And they pass along portable lessons which are inspirational and valuable in less obvious crises.

The trouble with focusing solely on emergencies, as mainstream media tends to do, is that it teaches to—and therefore re-enforces—a reactionary paradigm. Many, if not most, emergencies are the result of too little proactive leadership—or non-emergency leadership. As Stephen Covey says in "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People," most people focus on tasks that are "urgent"—whether or not they are important.

Proactive leadership is preventative maintenance. Many of the tasks performed are not heroic or glamorous, even though they are important.

In their quest for success, many ambitious people fall short of their potential because they seek the recognition that comes with heroically putting out fires. While putting out fires is certainly important, fires (even figurative ones) cause permanent damage which stunts growth long-term. Fires also take more time and energy to put out than sparks, and so reactionary leaders tend to waste valuable resources needed to prevent fires in the first place.

Despite popular opinion, the problem is not caused solely by "greedy hotrods." Many people simply lack the mental ability to recognize tasks that are important, but not urgent. It's not that they are stupid, just unlearned. Abstract concepts start with concrete examples, which is why stories of emergency leadership is so pervasive. It is important to grab a hold of an example, such as Jack Shepherd, from my favorite TV show, LOST.

Being a doctor, he reacted to the plane crash with the use of his expertise, and gained the position of leader, even though he didn't want it. However, his reactionary style continued long after the crash, when the survivors had settled into a sort of lifestyle—or "normalcy." Jack goes on to orchestrate acts of defiance against the other people on the Island who presented themselves as a threat.

Though he eventually learns to bide his time, he never really learns to be proactive. Interestingly, it is Sawyer, the "bad boy" of the survivors' camp who goes on to learn about being proactive. In a memorable scene, he tells Jack about Winston Churchill, who he says "read a book every night, even during the Blitz." His point is not far from Covey's 7th Habit, "Sharpening the Saw." Or in other words, preparing for the unknown.

Once you understand the principles behind the first type of leadership, it is important to dig deeper in order to get better at preventing the disasters that are within your area of influence. Once the disaster is over, the war brought to peace, and the fires put out, it is imperative to understand what went wrong so we can change our habits before they lead to another disaster. In so doing, we save a lot of time, energy, and even lives.

A Big Comfortable Tree

Personal development media is about pushing your limits and expanding your capacity and abilities. By identifying weak points and blind spots, then learning to work with or around them, we maximize our potential for success in whatever area of life we choose to focus. Inherently, this process requires that you "get out of your comfort zone." In other words, it is impossible to grow if you seek comfort over growth.

However, when dealing with people outside oneself, it is very important to be likeable. Fundamental to likeability is being comfortable to be around. If you're uncomfortable with yourself, it shows. Worse, it has a tendency to make other people uncomfortable, too. When this happens too often, you destroy your ability to be likeable.

So the first question you should ask yourself about success (after "what is success to me?") is "how do I remain comfortable outside my comfort zone?" Fortunately, there is a difference between the internal comfort that makes you easy to like, and the external discomfort you have to endure in order to expand your capacity. The only challenge remains in learning to identify that difference.

Internal comfort comes from understanding yourself, then channelling your strengths. Learning which projects to tackle—and which to ignore—based upon your own personal passions and weaknesses is empowering. When you start to make headway with this process, you will naturally increase your self-confidence. When you increase your self-confidence, you become more comfortable with yourself—and more comfortable to be around.

Once you understand your unique State of FITness (or FITstate), you will be better able to manage the frustration created by pushing your external comfort zone. As I have illustrated before, a FITstate is the naturally defined balance of relevant elements, which are combined in harmony to enable the highest climb with the most stability. Like a healthy tree, the higher the reach, the broader its expanse can be—based upon the given nature of that particular tree. The broader the expanse of "branches" fed by strong "roots", the greater the possibilities for a fulfilling life.

Like a tree, our expanse of possibilities is stunted by an insufficient root system or poor soil, as well as by the available space in the canopy. However, unlike the tree, we can change our root situation, and in doing so, fairly negotiate for more canopy space and resources by which to fuel that new potential growth. This process is inherently painful because we naturally draw the boundaries of our comfort zones at the point where we decide the pain is "unbearable." Roots are not easy to replant, nor is it easy to push new branches into unexplored territory.

However, when something you passionately want requires actions that are outside of your comfort zone (your existing expanse in the canopy), the pain can become more bearable. This is because things you are passionate about carry their own reward in the journey. You are more willing to fail—a necessity for learning—along a path to what you feel is a worthy goal, than you are along a path to something you are lukewarm about.

Once you know what you're passionate about, you will know what to invest your time in. You never "spend" time on your passions, you "invest" time in your passions. If you are truly passionate about something, then even the failures are blessings, because you are interested enough in the project to find the lesson in the failure and try again. This perspective eliminates much of the frustration that comes from falling short of a goal on a path you're simply lukewarm about. When you avoid frustration, you remain comfortable with yourself. When you avoid external discomfort (pushing limits), you become frustrated and uncomfortable with yourself.

So how about it? Would you like to be a big, comfortable tree?

Celebrate You

Whenever a greeting card holiday rolls around, I can't help but write posts about the frivolity of industries based on them. This time, I think I'll switch it up a bit. Valentine's Day might mean a burst of candy sales and restaurant reservations, but because it is a minor holiday, much of this is actually done out of love.

In contrast with Christmas, which I believe is driven by family obligation more than genuine love, Valentine's Day is easily ignored by those not in the spirit. Sure, you run into the candy displays, and your kids have their parties, but it's rare when someone is pushed into a Valentine's Day party who doesn't want to go. No, people largely choose to celebrate the day when they feel they have something to celebrate.

Which brings me to my topic: Why are there so many people who don't have anything to celebrate?

I've been happily married for five years, but I remember hating Valentine's Day. I wanted someone to spend the day with, but lacked prospects. The traditionally male role of finding a mate weighed heavily on me, and the day had a way of rubbing it in.

Being a man and an introvert, I struggled with performing the tasks of my "duty." I wasted enormous amounts of energy on planning, rather than doing. Here's the part where I'm supposed to offer the advice to just do it, and if you're an extrovert, that's exactly what you should do (man or woman).

However, if you are an introvert, the advice is somewhat different. It is not in your nature to do the asking. By the same token, it is also not in the nature of your ideal mate to be asked. If an introvert forces himself into a dominant role for the purpose of winning a mate, he will only win a mate that compliments that role. Going forward, he will be forced to maintain a counterfeit role, or abandon the relationship.

While there are aspects of the human heart that coincide with gender, personality traits are not sex-linked. This confusion is caused by the media's tendency to typecast the sexes through over-simplification of the human condition. Consequently, there are many of us that end up feeling like misfits or freaks, when we are actually perfectly healthy individuals.

Love is finding common ground, often between complete opposites. If you're comfortable with who you are, and you know what you stand for in life, then you'll "magically" attract people that compliment you—including, but not limited to, a traditional romantic relationship.

The reason so many people feel lost on Valentine's Day is because they don't understand themselves. It's okay if you're not suave, if you're just not. In relationships, your level of discomfort speaks louder than any gimmick used to make you seem better.

Jamie Klueck
theFITmedia.com

Portable Lessons

I've used this phrase before when describing the importance of Truth in Fiction. However, by its very nature, a portable lesson is something that can be learned anywhere. When I first started studying success principles, I was like most people. I didn't understand how one thing related to another. I laughed at the concept that business principles had anything to do with raising a family.

It is true that many businesses are run by tyrants whom we would never want to have as patriarch of a family, but it is also true that many families are run by tyrants whom you would never want as a boss. On the flip side, it is a reality that there are both families and organizations run by people of integrity. In both cases, the lessons of one are easily transferrable to the other. The lessons a father learns from raising his children apply to leading a team of people, and vice versa.

The reason this is true is that all people respond the same to basic principles, regardless of gimmicks, that's why they are basic principles. Helping people identify these and pattern a life-habits after them is the very essence of the Liberal Arts, and why the study and discussion of them is such an important lost practice. Today's management/positional leadership culture is all about the gimmicks and strategies of getting people to do what you want, how you want it, when you want it. However, people want respect, they want to feel appreciated for their contributions, they want the freedom to pursue things they feel are important, and they need the time and space to do it in.

This runs perfectly counter to the dictatorship paradigm most management schools teach, and so media creators developed "solutions" in the form of endless gimmicks, tricks, bribes, and work-arounds. Endless patches to the human psyche by way of propaganda have brought us to the place in time where we believe that tyranny is the path to success in business, while avoiding relationships at home, is the path to success. We actually believe that one organization is different from another. The adage "people are like snowflakes" is true enough, but organizations are all the same. If you can't treat your son or daughter the way you treat your employees without repercussions, chances are you aren't really escaping those problems at work either.

Hence, portable lessons. Because of our complex culture, many of us work in organizations where it is difficult to perceive the total impact of our actions. Short of restructuring the organization tomorrow to allow more interaction between levels in a massive hierarchy, the solution to this problem is to simply look to areas where the impact of human relations is more apparent, then port those lessons to the workplace to give you a better handle on developing your influence and likability. Short of having a solid relationship, turn to the classic books.

These portable lessons are few and timeless. There is something to be said for the techniques of your industry or organization (even if its a family), but without a deep understanding of connecting principles which lead to integrity, you're doomed to make the same mistake in every single relationship you have in life—and that's a waste.

Quality, Not Quantity

There is a big difference between being long-winded and having a lot to say. Long-winded people—and I'm guilty of this—tend to fill up space with words and content that are empty. People who have something to say don't waste a minute of your time conveying their message. Media today seems to err on the side of long-windedness.

It's a classic case of quantity over quality. Proliferation tends to get more attention because it is so visible by its very nature. However, every individual or organization has a limited capacity for creation. To be extraordinarily prolific in words is to be extraordinarily deficient in content.

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -Macbeth, William Shakespeare

Shakespeare saw the same thing in his day. As I understand it, plays at that time suffered from the overuse of "special effects" and battle scenes which were meant to captivate audiences but were merely gimmicks, adding little to the story. Today's movies, television, books, and music all suffer from the overuse of time-consuming, value-deficient, "filler" content which represents an attempt to expand mediocre (or good, but brief) ideas into saleable media products, based upon what has worked in the past. In their rush for market share, executives kill the golden goose.

The context of the quote also suggests Shakespeare understood the parallel between people's labor for success and the quality of the fruits of that labor. The character, Macbeth, had just learned of his wife's death, and is articulating (not "proliferating") how brief life is. Basically, this quote encapsulates the moral of the play. Macbeth realizes that his untimely rush for power and prestige ultimately became is undoing, whereas he was destined for success even if he had not rushed it.

Most people don't even attempt to be a success, much less go too far. However, those that do push for greatness, often tend to swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. Aside from the well-publicized tendency of driven people to cause direct harm to others, a more insidious and pervasive tendency exists. In a push for success, many people undermine the integrity of their projects simply by cutting corners and "padding" sparse content, rather than waiting until their idea reservoir is legitimately full.

The more solid the foundation—the significance part of the project—the more likely people are to discuss what you're doing with others. The more discussion, the more likely you'll get viral spread. Filling up space with long-windedness may be the quick way to get some attention, but if you have to work at keeping your audience, you'll never get a break.

The Mystery of Selfishness

Selfishness is a concept that surprisingly sees a lot of debate. Of course, it is a loaded term with which only a few would choose to be willingly associated. Those who choose to call themselves selfish and laud its virtues—such as Ayn Rand—undoubtedly reject its negative connotations. On the other side, the word is used by altruists and hypocrites alike as mud to childishly sling in the faces of people who are not so fearless around the word as others.

In this way, it is one of the chief "weapons" used in philosophical debate among today's media. I don't agree with everything Ayn Rand says, but I appreciate her willingness to own an empty, derogatory term. To be sure, selfishness—and all things linked to its roots—is an inseparable part of the human experience. In itself, it is neither good nor bad, but a fact to be taken under consideration. Interestingly, it does not follow the set rules that either side wants to believe it does.

The so-called "Right Wing" believes in the motivational power found in selfishness. They understand that it is an irrevocable fact of humankind, which is better to work with than against. However, they often ignore its weaknesses in favor of its strengths. On the other hand, the "Left" sees selfishness as public enemy number one. They wish it could be bred out, regulated into obsolescence, or forced into submission. They believe in altruism and that a perfect society is one where people serve the whole.

Both these perspectives are accurate, but each only half-true. It is true that many people in many cases actively pursue their own selfish interests, and that rewarding productive behavior encourages productive behavior. Many, but not all. It is also true to say that a society of individuals who each sacrifices his self-interest for the good of the whole would prosper long term. The problem is that, in reality, no one is a purist. One might be a purist for a period of time (or even a lifetime) but this is a rare happenstance and will never be the rule.

As a drive, selfishness always falls short of what would cause society to prosper. Despite what many believe, most people reach an equilibrium at work. They get to the point in life where money satisfies enough desires that taking on more effort is not worth it. People don't run all the way to millionaire just for the money—they do it because they have a vision, something pulling on their hearts. They see a change to help others (altruism) and they chase it, and indeed, that is the only way one gets to be nouveau riche.

But as for the heart, charity has to be something special. When a government program, special interest group, or other similar organization distributes funds to people, it isn't charity—it's entitlement. Most people don't feel compelled to give back to these organizations, they just want more support. It's one of the stranger sides of selfishness. When people are given money for being something they had no control over, they generally don't appreciate it as a gift. To ignore this fact, and to build an organization upon status distribution is to create slaves to your organization.

Seek to understand selfishness, and moreover, how it is manifested in each individual you meet. Work with it, rather than against it, but never assume it is a mechanical push-button, because it will let you down at a critical moment.

Ode to the Appreciator

I think many people get lost in trying to be in a band because they like music. However it isn't necessary to be in a band if you like music, only to help your favorite band succeed. Perhaps a music appreciator would find his fit in the promotion of music rather than in the creation of music.

Part of the problem with the music industry, as I understand it, is that there is a war between the developers and the promoters. (In the lingo of FITmedia, these are the musicians and "studio execs", respectively.) Most artists want both the freedom to do what they do AND the support of a major label. These major labels, however, know how to run a business, and want the freedom to shift their assets accordingly.

As such, they tend to want to micro-manage the artists in their network. As with any large-scale orchestration, it is easy to lose sight of the pieces, and treat unique entities in a generic way. When this happens, greatness—which is often unconventional—becomes undernourished and dies. They manage artists generically, and they get only generic art.

Or worse, they incite a rebellion, which they spread in the name of freedom of expression. I've always found it strange that large media companies perpetuate their own stereotype by spreading art that criticizes the very methods they use to manage their business. Even stranger is that they do not seem to learn from the critiques of their own media content.

The content itself perpetuates this as part of the culture when outside viewers see the critique and perceive the label's actions to be hypocritical though conversely successful. And so, newcomers learn about this struggle, and separate into bipartisan factions: business vs. art. The result is a cancerous spread of venomous themes, which thwarts the dreams of many would-be artists and music promoters.

Instead of destroying the asset that a major label can be to artists, or giving artists unlimited license to lyrically tear down the organization, it seems to me that another asset should be tapped: the Appreciators. More than just fans (even überfans), appreciators are driven by a desire to be productive.

They want to contribute in a big way, but the only way that is apparent is to start a band—to create media. I for one, am an appreciator of music, and toyed with the idea of starting a band several times. However, I soon realized that I would rather get paid to promote the band than to be on stage myself.

Appreciators understand their bands because they are also fans, and so they can much more effectively promote their bands to other potential fans. It is also a two-way street: the appreciators can more effectively communicate business ideas to the bands they are close to. So if a band (or artist) is a small group of developers, then there ought to be a corresponding group of promoters. How these groups interact would be influenced by a larger group of appreciators who would be close enough to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

If major labels incentivize this sort of activity, they can fix the gap of animosity and waste that has been dug between the two sides, and allow the fans to lift the artists they believe in to greatness, while generating a public forum for how to be appreciated. With this information, rookie artists can learn from others' best practices and improve their content until it reaches its highest potential.

Groupthink in the Internet Age

"No matter how hard people tried to interact only with like thinkers, no matter how hard they worked to keep their children free from diverse views, neighbors nearly always ruined this Utopian scheme." -Oliver DeMille

One would think that in the age of the internet, where avenues for connection and communication are increasing almost daily, that the rough edges of human nature would be quickly spun smooth by deeper understanding among the populace. If there is anything one desires to know, it is written down somewhere on the internet. There are millions of blogs which cover anything a person might be interested in, and numerous mainstream social networking sites through which to find the perfect match.

Unfortunately, the ability to access limitless information does not guarantee that limitless information will be accessed. So, in fact, the opposite of what one might suppose to be true in theory, is actually true in reality. The problem is fear of change, resulting in an aversion to contrary information, stemming from an unwillingness to change oneself. When nothing changes, the illusions of stability and security is easier to believe. It is comforting to be in equilibrium, so we naturally desire to remain blissfully ignorant of information contrary to our perceived balance.

Therefore, given a library of limitless information, most people will automatically seek out information that is in accordance with what they already believe, and reject or avoid information that is contrary to their beliefs. The internet also makes this process very convenient. In the interest of speeding information to the individual on the "information superhighway" numerous strategies for previewing or filtering possible information exist. The result is that instead of a blending effect on public awareness, deep divisions are created as groups master the ability to draw new readers, viewers, players, etc.

Without real interaction, virtual interaction gives a person a "safe" way to avoid all deeper understanding. It is impossible to confront someone online. Prior to this virtual world, people physically lived together in communities. Simple fact, I know. Consider the implications of this, though. The actions or decisions we made in our lives had to take in to account our neighbors. If some charlatan tried to pass off a scam on the community, it was likely that someone who's proven himself more trustworthy would call him out. In the virtual world, however, the charlatan can effectively exclude those "naysayers" from the group altogether.

So without self-mastery or self-leadership, the individual tends to get sucked into groupthink. A charismatic leader who knows his beliefs well, can easily lead a herd to the slaughter. With self-mastery, however, the discovery of new information requires a decision to accept or reject based upon the level of truth contained therein—rather than on a momentary feeling. In order to avoid being "swept away", someone seeking self-mastery would proactively seek out challenging new information in order to make a rational decision before it is presented with emotional fervor.

Like many things worth doing, people still need a self-interested reason to do them. No one becomes passionate about challenging information overnight. The question is: what is on the other side of confusion for you? What would your life be like if you were enlightened?

Cheating on Your Project

To achieve success at anything, focus is an absolute must. If you're an artist or an entrepreneur with a great idea, chances are you tend to discover and/or attract other great ideas. This is a double-edged sword.

On one hand, you know you will never run out of ideas. This gives you the unshakeable belief that you will eventually succeed with enough effort. Never do you fear an idea that fails, because there is always another path to be taken.

On the other hand, every great project has points when it seems hopeless. Having an unlimited reserve of good ideas (and even great ideas) makes it very easy to justify cheating on your project. You know the one you swore on your life would take you to the top?

Did you mean it when you thought it? Is it really over? Is there no salvaging it? Yeah, your project is not only your brainchild, it's also your husband/wife!

First you have to court it to learn if it's right for you. Fall in love with it for sure, but also learn everything you can about it. Don't get seduced. Second, armed with passion and understanding set the commitment in stone to finish what you started!

Eventually, you will be able to see the boundaries. Then you can have intimate friends on the side. Never mix up the natures of your respective relationships (in either case). Until you see the boundaries, you need to keep friends (and intake other projects) that themselves understand, respect, and enforce those boundaries which you cannot see.

In relationships, as with projects, success does not come from hopping from one to another at the first sign of trouble. It comes from putting all your eggs in a basket you understand and love, then guarding the basket with your life. No matter the problems.

November '10: The Month in Posts

This was a difficult month for me. A recent move left me without internet for more than two weeks! I subsequently (and shamefully) got out of the habit of writing for this blog. Fortunately, other projects are in the works which did get more of my attention during this lapse in blogging. This may actually be a blessing in disguise. Forced to take leave from my duties here, I was given a much needed break from what might have become a habitual grind. Of course, this could also be a problem (see subsequent post).

Anyway, here the the highlights from what was posted.

"Hoarders" - November 5, 2010

I recently emptied out a storage unit after two years. That's two years, during which I made maybe three trips there to get something out. So the point is, it probably could have burned down, and I would have been no worse for the wear. There are infinite, good excuses for keeping the stuff: some clothes for charity, which never quite made it there; a couple shelving units, which could come in handy; old baby stuff... oh, the memories! (read more)

Television Revolution, part 1 - November 11, 2010

The very businesses which were responsible for the financial futures of millions, rushed to get their products marketed to the masses via television commercials. This heavy reliance on sponsors shaped the content of the television medium, pushing it gradually into a mechanism that attracted (even developed) the perfect audience. Not only did it applaud the company man when it talked about work, but it applauded the consumer when it talked about play. (read more)

The Last Choice - November 26, 2010

There are times in every person's life when he or she is presented with a choice that amounts to a life-changing decision. There are many more times, when a person faces the little decisions that either expand his choices or narrow them into the big ones. There is, however, only one time when a person chooses never to make another choice. (read more)

Apathy and Complacency - November 29, 2010

Whenever a conversation turns onto the subject of the world's problems, the favorite cause is nearly always how selfish and greedy people are today. This is merely an unthinking stock answer with which few would ever consciously disagree. Certainly, greed is a problem in the world, but to assume that it is the problem shows a lack of understanding of mankind. (read more)

Apathy and Complacency

Whenever a conversation turns onto the subject of the world's problems, the favorite cause is nearly always how selfish and greedy people are today. This is merely an unthinking stock answer with which few would ever consciously disagree. Certainly, greed is a problem in the world, but to assume that it is the problem shows a lack of understanding of mankind.

Truly problematic selfishness and greed revolve around the will to hurt others for one's own gain. However, like what we might call "pure evil", it is rare among humans, who—in my understanding—are as incapable of pure evil as they are of perfect goodness. The widely publicized pirates, smugglers, and con men net relatively few "benjamins" when compared to the ocean of dollars lost to apathy and complacency.

With so many opportunities to connect, collaborate, and create, the twin sirens of apathy and complacency are the real cause of many problems. Apathy is a lack of enthusiasm or concern, and stems from the root of selfishness. However, unlike greed, which still maintains a sense of enthusiasm for personal gain, apathy lacks mobility. It then blossoms into complacency, which is a smug sense of personal accomplishment—I have enough, I'm satisfied.

It is no wonder that thinkers like Ayn Rand profess the virtues of selfishness. Compared to the shrinking prosperity caused by the lack of ambition in a populace, the mobile force of selfishness and even greed can be shown to create an upward spiral. Unfortunately, it is one based upon hostility and animosity, and is therefore plagued with cancerous relationships.

A person operating from a standpoint of selfishness tends to become frustrated by a lack of support which stems from the attitude inherent to selfishness. It is difficult to win honest support for what appears to be a selfish cause, and so these selfishly ambitious people face a choice to give up (become apathetic and complacent) or just manipulate people into going along with them (greed).

Not that I lay the blame solely on the people, but if we were neither apathetic nor complacent, there would be no motivator for the selfishly ambitious to cross the line into greed. I can't discount the existence of people who are malicious of their own accord, but most people tend toward what is easier and so resort to harming people only when no gentler opportunity presents itself. The goal is not to be greedy, the goal is to have things. In the absence of apathy, everyone would climb as high as they could, create millions of jobs, and smash all the world's problems with innovative solutions and teamwork.

The trouble is that a great many of us have been taught by school, the media, and peer culture that to be ambitious is always a sign of greed. Therefore, decent people are compelled to give up their ambitions in order to maintain their honest natures in the eyes of the world. This is a waste. Most people, if they really search their hearts, would have to admit that they have big dreams they'd like to bring to reality. These people would likely be enthusiastic about bringing a host of friends along for the ride.

If everyone could just get enthused about helping everyone else succeed, we'd all avoid greed and turn the economy around in a heart beat. But it seems a warm heart is missing.

The Last Choice

There are times in every person's life when he or she is presented with a choice that amounts to a life-changing decision. There are many more times, when a person faces the little decisions that either expand his choices or narrow them into the big ones. There is, however, only one time when a person chooses never to make another choice.

This can come at any time. It can come early in life, or it can come late. I believe that it begins very early, but that the capriciousness of youth refuses to commit to the "last choice." However, life wears on us. Our responsibilities wear on us. What others expect from us and what culture imposes on us take a cumulative toll, and eventually, we become susceptible to the allure of giving up our independence.

There are three paths that can be taken here, though the third is tremendously hard for the individual to see, and even harder to explain to another. The first—and easiest—is to simply make the last choice. That is, to give in to all that is demanded of you without personally prioritizing, planning, and sacrificing. The second is to run from the choice and to do—as nearly as you can—the exact opposite of what is demanded of you. This, again, is done largely without any personal prioritizing, planning, or sacrificing because it is merely a negative reaction which is dependent on the same demands. It is not true independence.

The reason that I say the third path is hard too see and explain is that it entails a personalized mixture of these two previous paths. It is neither conformity nor non-conformity. It is also not "individualism" which I once would have called it because that word excludes all notions of teamwork, which is often necessary. The third path is simply the will to keep making choices and the desire to make the right ones, dependent only upon one's own well-defined (and continuously refined) vision of his ideal life.

It is a lot of work being present for your own life. However, if you want to have any amount of real peace and happiness, being proactive is essential. At first, it may seem like you are fighting battles left and right just to stay on the path. It may seem that you are giving up a great many opportunities for fun and pleasure. Actually, you are—at first.

However, anyone who has made the choice to keep making choices will tell you that the minor skirmishes and amusing diversions—as they become—shrink in comparison to the great things in life that can only be achieved by staying on your personalized "straight and narrow." Certainly you will need a mentor (or many) to keep you on that path. You will need to intake the right information and ever broaden your perspective. You will need to be able to let go of the past and endeavor to continuously improve. And you will have to think for yourself. It is worth it. So make THAT your last choice.

"Hoarders"

There is a show on A&E called "Hoarders," and I highly recommend watching at least of a couple episodes. It is similar to "Intervention" which is a surprisingly compassionate "reality show" about severe drug and alcohol abuse cases, which tells the addicts' stories, then provides an intervention to get them help. "Hoarders" follows a similar format, but focuses on a condition called "compulsive hoarding."

This condition could not be more literally named. In severe cases, its victims hoard so much stuff in their homes, storage areas, and even yards, that the mess becomes a very real hazard. Not only does it make most of the house inaccessible and unsightly to guests, but it poses a tripping hazard (especially on stairs), a fire hazard, and invites vermin which can easily hide in the mess.

Again, watch for yourself to get an extended understanding of the problems it poses. What interested me (and fits within the theme of this blog), is how common mild cases of hoarding are. Substance abuse can be a foreign concept for anyone who isn't an addict, but so many people in modern consumerist culture are addicted to stuff. I believe most of us (especially when we feel strapped for cash) tend to hold on to the most irrational stuff.

I recently emptied out a storage unit after two years. That's two years, during which I made maybe three trips there to get something out. So the point is, it probably could have burned down, and I would have been no worse for the wear. There are infinite, good excuses for keeping the stuff: some clothes for charity, which never quite made it there; a couple shelving units, which could come in handy; old baby stuff... oh, the memories!

Ultimately, I donated, recycled, and trashed about 90% of what I was paying to store. No, my case isn't severe. Yes, I could afford the payments. That's not the point. The point is, I accumulated stuff I didn't need which put a dent in my resources (including the time it took to unload and sort it all). It's a waste. Why do we do that?

There are two prominent reasons for hoarding, as I see it. The first is that the hoarder has an emotional attachment to the items. We all have mementos that would appear to be junk to anyone else. Every meaningful relationship or event leaves some physical trace. The problem comes when we need to hold on to so many of these, that their presence gets in the way of new memories.

The second is that the person has a scarcity mentality. Aside from the memories attached to these items, the hoarder connects an exaggerated value to each. "It might come in handy!" is an example of this. The question one ought to ask himself is this: "Do I suppose that this item will become useful enough, soon enough, to warrant my storing it?" This is especially true for large items and/or those that will degrade with time (i.e.: shelving units or cars). For smaller items, I'd add the question: "Will I be able to find this when the time comes that I need it?"

In America, anyway, most of the time, its easier to just go buy whatever you need when you need it—even a cheap used item is as close as the internet. Indeed, this is what we do, despite already having the item we need packed away somewhere. That's not to say you shouldn't accumulate assets—items that increase in value, if not usefulness with time. The point here is to learn to tell the difference before you put it into storage.

Mainstream media caters necessarily to the masses, and is sponsored by consumer products. This apparatus of the machine has a vested interest in spreading the general belief that buying stuff creates happiness. As soon as a product goes out the door (of the factory, the big box store, etc.), its company no longer feels responsible for where it ends up. Media creates sadness, so that marketing can sell happiness—that's the bottom line.

The troublesome thing is, this is not inaccurate. You do feel good when you buy stuff, hence the addiction. Like substance abuse, this belief creates baggage—literally. With such an emphasis on buying what ultimately ends up as trash, is it any wonder that some people try to squeeze every last ounce of value out of each item? Any wonder that cars sit on blocks, waiting to be repaired? Any wonder diet books and exercise equipment stack floor to ceiling, awaiting the "right time"?

It doesn't surprise me that once we buy what we don't need, and store it until it can be used or discarded properly, that we wouldn't do the same with everything that comes into the mess. Bills we mean to pay, get lost. Trash we mean to recycle, gets buried. The mantra is "buy, buy, buy, hurry, hurry, hurry!" until our living space is as cluttered and disorganized as our minds.

STOP! Take a deep breath. Get the mess off your mind, by getting it out of your house and your life. By all means, keep the memories—just lose the mementos.

October '10: The Month in Posts

As I find myself dealing with deeper issues of humanity, I think it is important to remind my readers of the role that media plays in creating and perpetuating these issues—this being a media-related blog. A lot of this months posts have dealt with personal motivations, especially where people have been duped into ignoring these motivations. Ultimately, media influences the way we think, and the solution is not as about avoiding any wrong information as it is learning to identify when something is wrong. To avoid wrong information entirely is to kill our ability to identify it—and to fall prey to it, ultimately.

How Much Change is Enough? - October 9, 2010

This is not as clear cut or universal with regards to person change. Change, in both senses, merely indicates a difference between one thing and another. In the grocery store, your change is the difference between what you owed and what you gave (a $20 bill, say). In life, your change is the difference between who you are now, and who you become through education and experience. (read more)

Winning, Losing, or Not Playing - October 13, 2010

Strangely, many performance leaders who teach win-win principles still tend to speak in sports analogies, which are always win-lose. By necessity, one team must win and one team must lose. Even a discussion of self-mastery in the individual as a key to team victory goes by way of one team winning and one team losing. (read more)

Autopilot - October 25, 2010

Have you ever arrived at work quite unaware of the journey from home? Your alarm goes off, and the next thing you know, you're punching in. You don't remember your breakfast, that drive through traffic, that train ride, etc. What is happening around us as we jostle our ways to press #9 in the great factory of our mechanical society? (read more)

On Shyness - October 27, 2010

Simply put, a shy person fears he will be worse off in some way as the result of an interaction with another person. Shyness is a symptom more commonly ascribed to introverts than to extroverts. However, withdrawal from social events is a part of the introvert's natural disposition, and they have build up their strengths around this fact. To be shy and an extrovert is a more serious problem. When they possess the fear that interactions will harm them, their very nature causes them pain. (read more)

Two Minutes Hate - October 27, 2010

No one hates people. They only hate ideas. In order to hate other people, a person must first dehumanize them in his mind. By turning them into something quite apart from (and especially beneath) himself, he regards himself as free to treat them as something other than a person—a demon or an animal, for instance. (read more)

Classes

There are three classes to our society: lower, middle, and upper. The lower class is comprised of individuals who earn their living with their hands. The middle class is made up of those who earn their living with their brains. The upper class differs from these two in that they don't "earn" their living at all—they "make" their living.

The upper class is comprised of builders in the general sense. They collectively compose and execute the major changes in civilization. Their wealth is not in bank accounts, but in assets they have built. Sometimes they fund their own ventures, and sometimes they partner with investors, but their aim is to produce value.

The middle class came out of industrialization—particularly the advent of the assembly line, which needed not only laborers but also specialists and managers to oversee the operations. They work for the owners or operate a "small" business which is an extension of their individual skill and expertise.

The lower class are also ultimately the consumers of everything produced by society. Since their work does not extend beyond their physical abilities, they rarely create value greater that what they consume. They work for the owners, and also work under the managers. By definition, they create nothing and merely operate in a reactionary mode—following orders. If they ever become proactive, they cease to be lower class.

In the early days, the middle class was not far behind the upper class. However, this may have had less to do with the height of the upper middle class and more with underdevelopment of the upper class's assets. As industrialization matured and organizations grew larger, the divide between the middle and upper became more apparent.

The system is such that the middle class's value creating ability is limited to what they personally can do. In the beginning, it would have seemed like a better deal to work a middle class job for what was a very good salary, and leave the change-making and ownership responsibilities to those who would have made barely any more for their efforts.

However, because the middle class is dependent upon the application of their personal skills, they are limited in income by the amount of time they have to ply their trade. By contrast, since the owners' wealth is not dependent upon an application of their skills—except what's needed to induce growth—the sky is the limit. As long as they increase the value of their brand, company, or organization, they increase their net-worth.

So the only thing stopping the lower classes from performing the effort to attain higher class status, is information. Proper education from the right sources—particularly, sources demonstrating the results you want in life—is then essential to rising above economic despair.

Winning, Losing, or Not Playing

In success-oriented media, there is a lot of talk of winning and losing. I agree that organizational systems should seek to be "win-win" as opposed to "win-lose". In a win-win structure, there is some form of transaction whereupon two sides agree to a mutual exchange of value. In a win-lose structure, the goal is to use some form of force or exploitation (however subtle) to "get the better" of the other side.

Strangely, many performance leaders who teach win-win principles still tend to speak in sports analogies, which are always win-lose. By necessity, one team must win and one team must lose. Even a discussion of self-mastery in the individual as a key to team victory goes by way of one team winning and one team losing.

But how can both teams win? They can't. It is an artificial system of scarcity (there being only one trophy) which is designed to force a display of performance. It neither promotes nor rewards the different ways in which the teams are valuable, it merely applauds the victor. This may be fine for performers, but it is damaging to the psyche of creators.

All this success talk using the words "winners" and "losers" implies that to succeed is to play a game well. This is not the case.

To succeed as a creator, one must master his ability to learn about the world, then subsequently compose an expression of its truths. He cannot lose so long as he does not abandon the learning process. He cannot win, because he is not playing a game. His success cannot be called a "win" any more than exploring a jungle and drafting a map can be called such.

His art is a valuable artifact, measured in quality by a group of people who seek its usefulness. A different group may value a different map—say a topographical rather than geographical one—and would therefore require the efforts of a different creator. These two creators are not in competition, they are not playing. They are merely offering a composition of a truthful perspective to those who seek it.

You Have to Not Have to to Want to

This is an intentially confusing title, so that you have to think about it. Or rather, so that you want to think about it. Reading this blog is a voluntary act, after all. Are you picking up what I'm throwing down?

In this book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Daniel Pink explains how incentives to perform—"carrot and stick" rewards—tend to destroy productivity. While these incentives work well for mechanical tasks, they actually reduce the quality of performance for more cognitive tasks. Actually, the science says that most people would much rather do such work for a sense of purpose. In other words, we're looking for "spiritual" rewards rather than "material" rewards.

In RSA Animate's video summary of Drive, Pink refers to a software company called Atlassian. Their approach to this problem is once a quarter to give employees 24 hours of free time to work on whatever they want to—complete autonomy. This greatly increases performance; more bugs are eliminated, new products created, etc. Essentially, this proposed solution is to give more free time wherein people don't "have to" do anything.

This method makes sense because, beyond satisfying basic living expenses, people want to follow their interests. A person has infinitely more energy to explore what they are interested in that what they are not. In a rigid system of obligations to a superior, a person might become interested in a certain lead, but neglect to follow it because of other more pressing duties. Autonomy gives him the resources to pursue what only he can see and fix.

Apparently, there is something in our hearts that sinks under the pressure of imposed responsibilities. Without the lightness and enthusiasm possible only in freedom, certain solutions cannot be seen and certainly cannot be executed. Our desire to pursue our own interests as we define them is essential to free living. It is surprising what we can achieve when we want to, but you have to not "have to" to "want to."

How Much Change is Enough?

Simply stated: the right amount. From a grocery store transaction standpoint, there is one clear answer. It is neither too much nor too little. It is a balance; a FIT state. When a clerk counts back your change, there are certain bounding elements that are external to the desires of either party. Natural laws of fairness dictate that neither party get the better of the other.

However, this is not as clear cut or universal with regards to person change. Change, in both senses, merely indicates a difference between one thing and another. In the grocery store, your change is the difference between what you owed and what you gave (a $20 bill, say). In life, your change is the difference between who you are now, and who you become through education and experience. That education—or more precisely, what you gain from it—is the difference.

While I don't believe it is possible to be over-educated in general—especially when the education is broad—it is possible to take too many things to heart. In this way, an individual can needlessly toil to change himself in areas where the benefits of such a change are not worth the cost. Each individual is different from every other individual, of course, so this process must necessarily be tailored to suit each.

For example, a person who is an extrovert might find it difficult to focus on a lecture, daydreaming of more action-centered activities. They can't wait to get out in the field—for sports, sales calls, parties, or networking. They struggle to follow endless charts and graphs, even those which accurately depict the current situation and ought to equip them of their next move. Should they be trained in the art of memorizing these graphs, or should they simply be allowed to learn from trial and error?

In the opposite case—and, I believe, a more widespread problem—a person who is an introvert finds it difficult to focus at a party, desperately planning an escape. They can't wait to get away from the action—to recover themselves; to collect, categorize, and formulate an understanding. They struggle to take in the endless tidbits of information, when the real focus is merely to meet a great many people. Should they be trained in the art of networking, or should they simply be allowed the time to fully absorb each interaction?

Ultimately, the answer to the question depends upon and understanding of where you are right now, and where you want to be at some defined point in the future. Note that while the span of time between now and a dated goal varies by the goal and the person, for everyone who has a goal it is essential to commit to the date. When you set a date for well-defined goal, and begin to understand where you are right now, you can plot a course to change.

This too, varies from a learn-by-doing process to a carefully composed plan. Nevertheless, the main lesson here is that when we understand our strengths, we must utilize those strengths. For every strength in our character, we have correlating weakness. Never attempt to reach a goal by changing your inherent weaknesses. While this can be done, it is rarely worth it. Weaknesses should not be ignored—they are real obstacles—but for those boulders whose destruction risks the destruction of a correlating strength—again, it's not worth dying over.