Mandela’s eight lessons are not always what you might expect:
1. Courage is not the absence of fear — it’s inspiring others to move beyond it. Most leaders have faced down fear, but it is during times of stress that the mettle of leadership is tested. This means maintaining the momentum in tough times; or, as Mandela explains, sometimes you must “put up a front.”
2. Lead from the front — but don’t leave your base behind. Mandela focused on a principle objective and employed any and all tactics required to achieve it. However, he always ensured that he brought his support base along with him. To achieve great things, it takes a village. As Richard Stengel writes in the Time article:
“He’s a historical man,” says Cyril Ramaphosa, former Secretary General of the African National Congress. “He was thinking way ahead of us. He has posterity in mind: How will they view what we’ve done?” Prison gave him the ability to take the long view. It had to; there was no other view possible. He was thinking in terms of not days and weeks but decades. He knew history was on his side, that the result was inevitable; it was just a question of how soon and how it would be achieved. “Things will be better in the long run,” he sometimes said. He always played for the long run.
3. Lead from the back — and let others believe they are in front. Be sure to read Mandela’s analogy on this point. While it appears contradictory, you will smile at the wisdom. Remember that leaders can actively assist in the growth of their supporters/teams. Like a herd of cattle, sometimes you can only point them in the right direction from behind.
4. Know your enemy — and learn about his favorite sport. Whether you are fighting against or negotiating with an opponent, your destiny is entwined. Finding a common ground for conversation, like sport, allows you a step inside another’s world view — and if you have to focus on one thing, make sure it is communication. It is the door to opportunity. Those that I know who have been in business for many years consistently say that communication is the one thing they wish that they themselves and those around them were better at.
5. Keep your friends close — and your rivals even closer. Mandela understood that “people act in their own interest,” and his approach to dealing with those he did not trust was to bring them into his confidence and neutralize them with charm. But should a crisis ensue, remember the STOP technique to help guide your decisions:
Make the story your own. Don’t leave it to others to tell what’s happening.
Set your own timeframe and make timeliness a critical part of your actions.
Stay objective. If you don’t know the answer to a question, don’t speculate or make assumptions. Find the facts.
Sometimes a crisis needs the help of a professional. Reach out to those you trust.
6. Appearances matter — and remember to smile. Our personal iconographies are important: the way that we carry ourselves, the way we walk into a room, the manner with which we greet people and, of course, the clothes that we wear all tell a story. Mandela’s smile symbolized an inclusive, patient yet determined leader. Great things can be achieved with a little grace.
7. Nothing is black or white. As leaders we are often presented with two options — to decide one way or another. Mandela often asked “Why not both?” Again, the focus must remain on the outcome, not the tactics. If a choice has to be made, choose the most urgent of the issues.
8. Quitting is leading too. Not all of our decisions or initiatives will be successful. Leaders must make the difficult decision to cancel or back away from poorly performing projects. Mandela also clearly retired as a way to establish a precedent across Africa — staying long enough to set the course, but not staying on to “steer the ship.” Sometimes leaders must concede to win. Taking one step back may just be the fastest way to your desired goal.
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
Thursday, 24 July 2008
Post-Y generation
… there is one school of thought that says Gen Y is all about a strong having work-life balance, a personalised workplace, and a happy, motivated career, with a strong sense that what they are doing is important.
"A common theme throughout was the students' belief that their parents' generation worked too hard and that a work-life balance and the ability to start a family without one's career being affected were important prerequisites in determining the paths they would pursue."
… That same study suggests that Gen Y workers are running the risk of major disappointment, that 30 to 45 year olds suffered mid career depression and that 31-35 year olds were the most negative, topping the poll in every category, including 'feeling undervalued' (59%), being 'unfulfilled' (49%) and being 'de-motivated' (43%).
But the most interesting stuff is about the Post-Y generation, the ones born from 1995. And according to Tamara Erikson on the Harvard Business Review blog, they are significantly different from Gen Y, not to mention Gen X or their boomer grandparents.
For a start, they have come into a world where there are all sorts of problems and no easy solutions. "Most 12 year olds are very aware that the polar ice caps are melting and the march of the penguins is slowing to a halt," Erikson writes. "They know why the family is vacationing in the backyard this year and understand that the high gas prices are related to diminishing global supply of a commodity that has, in many ways, become the ubiquitous lubricant of American society over the past seventy years, since our trek to the suburbs began in the 1940s. Many understand that other resources are limited, as well. Their geography lessons have given them a sense of the vital role water plays in politics and our future. Whatever they or their parents think about the war in Iraq and the Middle East in general, it's likely that they have absorbed the complexity of the situation. I doubt they've heard anyone offering simple, quick solutions regardless of the direction in which one would prefer to head. It would have been almost impossible for them to escape the phrase "housing crisis," even though few, I suspect, understand how such a disaster came to be. Home ownership, an icon of past generations' goals, suddenly looks less worthy, now a risky proposition."
It's important to remember they are coming into a world where the economic conditions are likely to be more constrained. And that will shape their thinking.
(from "Management Line" in "The Age")
"A common theme throughout was the students' belief that their parents' generation worked too hard and that a work-life balance and the ability to start a family without one's career being affected were important prerequisites in determining the paths they would pursue."
… That same study suggests that Gen Y workers are running the risk of major disappointment, that 30 to 45 year olds suffered mid career depression and that 31-35 year olds were the most negative, topping the poll in every category, including 'feeling undervalued' (59%), being 'unfulfilled' (49%) and being 'de-motivated' (43%).
But the most interesting stuff is about the Post-Y generation, the ones born from 1995. And according to Tamara Erikson on the Harvard Business Review blog, they are significantly different from Gen Y, not to mention Gen X or their boomer grandparents.
For a start, they have come into a world where there are all sorts of problems and no easy solutions. "Most 12 year olds are very aware that the polar ice caps are melting and the march of the penguins is slowing to a halt," Erikson writes. "They know why the family is vacationing in the backyard this year and understand that the high gas prices are related to diminishing global supply of a commodity that has, in many ways, become the ubiquitous lubricant of American society over the past seventy years, since our trek to the suburbs began in the 1940s. Many understand that other resources are limited, as well. Their geography lessons have given them a sense of the vital role water plays in politics and our future. Whatever they or their parents think about the war in Iraq and the Middle East in general, it's likely that they have absorbed the complexity of the situation. I doubt they've heard anyone offering simple, quick solutions regardless of the direction in which one would prefer to head. It would have been almost impossible for them to escape the phrase "housing crisis," even though few, I suspect, understand how such a disaster came to be. Home ownership, an icon of past generations' goals, suddenly looks less worthy, now a risky proposition."
It's important to remember they are coming into a world where the economic conditions are likely to be more constrained. And that will shape their thinking.
(from "Management Line" in "The Age")
Saturday, 19 July 2008
Just had to "blog" this
The results of the cultural indoctrination stakes are not yet in but there is a definite trend — triviality leads, followed closely by superficiality and mindless distraction. Vanity looks great while profundity is bringing up the rear. Pettiness is powering ahead, along with passivity and indifference. Curiosity lost interest, wisdom was scratched and critical thought had to be put down. Ego is running wild. Attention span continues to shorten and no one is betting on survival.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Half a century ago, humanistic thinkers were heralding a great awakening that would usher in a golden age of enlightened living. People such as Erich Fromm, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Rollo May and Viktor Frankl were laying the groundwork for a new social order distinguished by raised consciousness, depth of purpose and ethical refinement. This tantalising vision was the antithesis of our society of blinkered narcissists and hypnogogic materialists. Dumbness was not our destiny. Planetary annihilation was not the plan. By the 21st century, we were supposed to be the rarefied "people of tomorrow", inhabiting a sagacious and wholesome world.
Erich Fromm's 1955 tome, The Sane Society, signalled the debut of the one-dimensional "marketing character" — a robotic, all-consuming creature, "well-fed, well-entertained … passive, unalive and lacking in feeling".
But Fromm was also confident that we would avoid further descent into the fatuous. He forecast a utopian society based on "humanistic communitarianism" that would nurture our higher "existential needs".
(from Triumph of the trivial life by John Schumaker in "The Age" 19/07/08)
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Half a century ago, humanistic thinkers were heralding a great awakening that would usher in a golden age of enlightened living. People such as Erich Fromm, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Rollo May and Viktor Frankl were laying the groundwork for a new social order distinguished by raised consciousness, depth of purpose and ethical refinement. This tantalising vision was the antithesis of our society of blinkered narcissists and hypnogogic materialists. Dumbness was not our destiny. Planetary annihilation was not the plan. By the 21st century, we were supposed to be the rarefied "people of tomorrow", inhabiting a sagacious and wholesome world.
Erich Fromm's 1955 tome, The Sane Society, signalled the debut of the one-dimensional "marketing character" — a robotic, all-consuming creature, "well-fed, well-entertained … passive, unalive and lacking in feeling".
But Fromm was also confident that we would avoid further descent into the fatuous. He forecast a utopian society based on "humanistic communitarianism" that would nurture our higher "existential needs".
(from Triumph of the trivial life by John Schumaker in "The Age" 19/07/08)
Friday, 18 July 2008
There are no approaches to leadership that will always be successful, and none that will always fail
Despite all the books, articles and other media folk trying to prove otherwise, leadership is not a science. There are no ‘laws’ that apply in every circumstance — or even most of them. There are no approaches to leadership that will always be successful, and none that will always fail. Those writers who use anecdotes, rathe than evidence, to support their own preconceptions will always find situations in which every flavor of leadership has triumphed — just as every one has been a disaster at some point. As in anything that concerns human beings, the complexity of causes and effects that produce achievement or failure are so numerous and interlocking that they pretty much defy any kind of analysis.
Leadership isn’t even close to being a science, but it certainly draws heavily on ideas from the social sciences. You can also see continual attempts to derive ‘laws’ for leaders to follow, whether these come from statistical analysis, anecdotal evidence, or the erroneous belief that following what the ‘great men’ of the past did can produce success today.
All such attempts have this in common: they assume laws or principles which can more or less guarantee success.
All such attempts have this in common: they assume that analysis and categorization can produce laws or principles which, if followed faithfully, can more or less guarantee success in most circumstances. New and inexperienced leaders crave such guidance. Ineffective leaders are told to improve their leadership skills or face a doubtful future. There is a large industry of trainers, coaches and consultants, many of whom are dedicated to the notion that they both know what makes for successful leadership and can teach it to others.
It doesn’t work, any more than the legion of economists have been able to keep us from boom and bust. That much is plain. The interesting point is to ask why and see what we can learn from the answers.
Humankind cannot bear too much of reality
In an area of knowledge like physics or chemistry, people have studied the processes involved for many years, categorizing their findings and producing ‘laws’ which are often highly accurate in predicting future events. The law of gravity states that all objects will drop towards the surface of the earth. We don’t expect that to change. We can calculate future events based on that knowledge and we will usually be right.
Some common processes are simply too complex and variable to allow for accurate forecasting.
Yet, even in the hard sciences, some common processes are simply too complex and variable to allow for accurate forecasting. The weather is a good example. While the ‘laws’ that drive the world’s weather are well known, it has proved impossible to make forecasts for more than few days ahead — and even those are sometimes wildly inaccurate. The weather is both too complex and too subject to random inputs.
Weather forecasting is a good analogy for leadership
We want to know what the weather will bring, so that we can plan ahead and avoid our picnic, vacation, sporting event or whatever being spoiled by a storm. Organizations want leaders to be able to do the same thing for the storms of business: to provide steady, predictable profits without nasty surprises or unexpected setbacks. In both cases, people step up to offer what is required, even though it isn’t possible to do much better than Simon Jenkins’ goose entrails.
In any situation that relies on human choices and actions , the level of complexity is nearly infinite.
In any situation that relies on human choices and actions (and which business situations do not?), the level of complexity is nearly infinite. Economists dealt with this by basing their ‘laws’ and theories on an artificial creature: homo economicus — a person who always and infallibly acts in his or her own best economic interests. Their basis for doing this — other than to make any kind of ’scientific’ process like mathematical analysis feasible in their disciple — is the assumption that all the complexities will somehow cancel one another out. More recently, so-called behavioral economists have delighted in showing this to be nonsense, but have yet to produce a viable alternative. Similarly, many leaders have tended to assume that people are simple creatures whose behaviors can be manipulated by some blend of carrot and stick; while more ’scientific’ leaders have relied on the theories of the social sciences to produce sets of leadership traits or behaviors they can follow.
The reality is this: we all know that people’s motives and actions depend on as many different causes as there are people — more, since we change our minds constantly and often respond one way on one day and quite another the day after. This makes people’s actions even harder to predict than the weather. Sure, there are some broad probabilities we can usually rely on — it snows in the north in winter and is usually hot in the tropics — but the detail inevitably escapes us.
Leadership in reality
Leadership is just like that. We can recognize that some broad approaches to leadership, like blatant tyranny, tend to produce characteristic problems, but that hasn’t prevented some tyrants from being extraordinarily successful. Yet, just as you cannot explain the greatness of a Shakespeare or a Beethoven by means of set ‘laws’, you cannot say exactly why some leaders have achieved greatness in people’s eyes, despite being often vain and tyrannical (Napoleon), cold and disdainful (The Duke of Wellington), egotistical and devious (Julius Caesar), emotional and lustful (Catherine the Great), or interfering and bellicose (Churchill).
Leadership is an art, not a science. It depends mostly on sensitivity to circumstances, courage to face reality and a continual willingness to do whatever it takes to bring others along. Until we all recognize that and face our options accordingly, we’ll stay as far away as we are today from solving the world’s leadership (and economic) problems.
Leadership isn’t even close to being a science, but it certainly draws heavily on ideas from the social sciences. You can also see continual attempts to derive ‘laws’ for leaders to follow, whether these come from statistical analysis, anecdotal evidence, or the erroneous belief that following what the ‘great men’ of the past did can produce success today.
All such attempts have this in common: they assume laws or principles which can more or less guarantee success.
All such attempts have this in common: they assume that analysis and categorization can produce laws or principles which, if followed faithfully, can more or less guarantee success in most circumstances. New and inexperienced leaders crave such guidance. Ineffective leaders are told to improve their leadership skills or face a doubtful future. There is a large industry of trainers, coaches and consultants, many of whom are dedicated to the notion that they both know what makes for successful leadership and can teach it to others.
It doesn’t work, any more than the legion of economists have been able to keep us from boom and bust. That much is plain. The interesting point is to ask why and see what we can learn from the answers.
Humankind cannot bear too much of reality
In an area of knowledge like physics or chemistry, people have studied the processes involved for many years, categorizing their findings and producing ‘laws’ which are often highly accurate in predicting future events. The law of gravity states that all objects will drop towards the surface of the earth. We don’t expect that to change. We can calculate future events based on that knowledge and we will usually be right.
Some common processes are simply too complex and variable to allow for accurate forecasting.
Yet, even in the hard sciences, some common processes are simply too complex and variable to allow for accurate forecasting. The weather is a good example. While the ‘laws’ that drive the world’s weather are well known, it has proved impossible to make forecasts for more than few days ahead — and even those are sometimes wildly inaccurate. The weather is both too complex and too subject to random inputs.
Weather forecasting is a good analogy for leadership
We want to know what the weather will bring, so that we can plan ahead and avoid our picnic, vacation, sporting event or whatever being spoiled by a storm. Organizations want leaders to be able to do the same thing for the storms of business: to provide steady, predictable profits without nasty surprises or unexpected setbacks. In both cases, people step up to offer what is required, even though it isn’t possible to do much better than Simon Jenkins’ goose entrails.
In any situation that relies on human choices and actions , the level of complexity is nearly infinite.
In any situation that relies on human choices and actions (and which business situations do not?), the level of complexity is nearly infinite. Economists dealt with this by basing their ‘laws’ and theories on an artificial creature: homo economicus — a person who always and infallibly acts in his or her own best economic interests. Their basis for doing this — other than to make any kind of ’scientific’ process like mathematical analysis feasible in their disciple — is the assumption that all the complexities will somehow cancel one another out. More recently, so-called behavioral economists have delighted in showing this to be nonsense, but have yet to produce a viable alternative. Similarly, many leaders have tended to assume that people are simple creatures whose behaviors can be manipulated by some blend of carrot and stick; while more ’scientific’ leaders have relied on the theories of the social sciences to produce sets of leadership traits or behaviors they can follow.
The reality is this: we all know that people’s motives and actions depend on as many different causes as there are people — more, since we change our minds constantly and often respond one way on one day and quite another the day after. This makes people’s actions even harder to predict than the weather. Sure, there are some broad probabilities we can usually rely on — it snows in the north in winter and is usually hot in the tropics — but the detail inevitably escapes us.
Leadership in reality
Leadership is just like that. We can recognize that some broad approaches to leadership, like blatant tyranny, tend to produce characteristic problems, but that hasn’t prevented some tyrants from being extraordinarily successful. Yet, just as you cannot explain the greatness of a Shakespeare or a Beethoven by means of set ‘laws’, you cannot say exactly why some leaders have achieved greatness in people’s eyes, despite being often vain and tyrannical (Napoleon), cold and disdainful (The Duke of Wellington), egotistical and devious (Julius Caesar), emotional and lustful (Catherine the Great), or interfering and bellicose (Churchill).
Leadership is an art, not a science. It depends mostly on sensitivity to circumstances, courage to face reality and a continual willingness to do whatever it takes to bring others along. Until we all recognize that and face our options accordingly, we’ll stay as far away as we are today from solving the world’s leadership (and economic) problems.
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
On from a Chinese proverb
There’s a Chinese proverb that goes something like this: “Tell me and I’ll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I’ll understand.” Leaders should know by now that people tend to resist change when it’s forced on them. “Telling” is what initiates the resistance. It causes those being told to spend their energy mostly on NOT doing what you’ve told them. Yet that resistance is not so much about the change; it’s all about being changed.
Some thoughts about one of today’s fetishes: setting clear life and career goals.
The conventional wisdom is that we all need clear and challenging goals for our lives; that life without goals is leads to failure and dissatisfaction. I wonder if this is correct? After all, many people give up on the goals they have set themselves. From New Year’s resolutions to ‘new me’ decisions, it’s goal setting that seems to lead to failure more often than to success.
Why should this be? Why should people find that giving themselves something to aim at leads to being in a worse position than when they started? Setting goals seems to be such a simple process. You take a look at yourself, decide what you want to change most, think about how to get started, then do it. What is it that goes wrong?
Here are some thoughts about potential pitfalls. They don’t happen to everyone, but they are definitely common enough to be worth avoiding.
Being unrealistic
I think this is the most common reason why so many people fail to meet their chosen goals and end up feeling worse than when they started. Their goals were never realistic. The targets demanded more effort, more motivation, more determination, more ability than the person had to offer. They were based either on wishful thinking or on whatever targets were fashionable at the moment.
Setting yourself unrealistic goals is the equivalent of picking a fist-fight with a professional boxer twice your size.
Setting yourself unrealistic goals is the equivalent of picking a fist-fight with a professional boxer twice your size. There’s only ever going to be one outcome. What’s uncertain is just how badly you’ll be hurt.
One of the greatest benefits of goal setting ought to be the opportunity to stand back and take a long, slow, realistic look at yourself. It’s odd how often people fail to do this. Instead, they get swept away by the nonsense about ‘big hairy, audacious goals’ being somehow the best kind. They believe the myth that aiming for the moon will somehow call up the skill and resources to get there.
Until you know exactly what you can do, and whether ’stretch’ goals motivate or intimidate you, it’s surely best to stick with things you know are within your capabilities. Far better to build success slowly and surely than risk everything on a single throw. Big bets lead to big losses — maybe on a scale you can’t really afford. If failure hurts badly enough, you may never try giving yourself a target in life again; and that would be far too high a cost to pay for getting it wrong once.
Who are you trying to impress?
It’s foolish to set yourself a goal that’s chosen mostly to look good or impress other people. It’s equally foolish to go along with whatever is fashionable, rather than stick to what truly matters to you. You’re setting goals for yourself, right? So who are you trying to impress?
Dieting probably offers the best example of what I mean. Many folk are overweight — I know I am. They ought to lose a few pounds, if only for the sake of their health. Yet the fashionable target for body size and shape is set by the media, especially for young women. The reality is that people’s natural body sizes and shapes vary as much as their height. Some are genetically programed to be tall and skinny, other smaller and more bulky. But when some super-model is the ideal being aimed at, the ordinary person is pretty much bound to fail.
Setting yourself a target that doesn't fit who you are and what you can reasonably achieve is always going to lead to tears.
The consequences of that failure can be anything between giving up on weight control totally to suffering eating disorders like bulimia or anorexia. In the same way, setting yourself a target that doesn’t fit who you are and what you can reasonably achieve is always going to lead to tears. You either won’t get close to making it or you’ll do so and be wretched as a result. Besides, creating goals aimed at impressing others will probably never get you sufficiently fired up to achieve what you say you planned. Guess what? Those other people weren’t impressed or even interested. They knew it was only hot air.
Keep quiet about your plans
I suspect that one of the worst mistakes you can make is to talk too much about what you aim to achieve. Some people say you should enlist friends to help keep you on track, but sounding off about your plans has much greater drawbacks.
Talking about your goals is a wonderful substitute for action. It feels like you're already there — only minus the effort.
First, talking about your goals is a wonderful substitute for action. Talk about your goals enough and it feels like you’re already there — only minus the effort. Of course you’re not; you’re no further forward, but lots of people manage to spend a lifetime talking about what they plan to do, yet do nothing at all.
Second, it encourages you to make statements that come back to haunt you. It draws attention to setbacks along the way. Rather than face the humiliation of admitting they went off track, many people prefer to give up. If they’d kept quiet, they could have put things right and pressed on, minus the embarrassment.
Third, it gives lots of people the chance to start in with their own stories, problems and advice. You have enough to cope with. You don’t need to hear how it went wrong for others, or how brilliantly they coped (with the silent suggestion you will never do as well as they did).
Too many goals, too few priorities
People often set themselves too many goals at once. They see everything as a priority, throwing themselves into change full of enthusiasm and excitement. When that wears off — as it surely will — they suddenly come up against the reality that have taken on much more than they can manage.
When everything is important, nothing is. You must prioritize or increase the risk of failure.
When everything is important, nothing is. You must prioritize or increase the risk of failure. Focus on what truly matters most — just one thing, if possible — and get it done. Then move on to the next. Success breeds success. Facing a mass of goals is so daunting, it’s no wonder most people give up.
I’m not suggesting that setting yourself goals in life is wrong; nor that some sort of objective can help you have a sense of direction and fulfillment. What I am suggesting is that you should approach both with care and deliberation. It’s easy to get it wrong and waste time and energy on something you’ll never attain. You don’t even need to have a long-term goal, let alone one that sounds tough or impressive.
All you really need in life is to go along, putting one foot in front of the other and doing whatever seems the next most important task. It won’t be flashy and it won’t impress the neighbors, but it might still give you a life worth living. Even small successes feel better than gigantic failures — and they can add up over a long enough time to achievements that you might well be proud of.
Why should this be? Why should people find that giving themselves something to aim at leads to being in a worse position than when they started? Setting goals seems to be such a simple process. You take a look at yourself, decide what you want to change most, think about how to get started, then do it. What is it that goes wrong?
Here are some thoughts about potential pitfalls. They don’t happen to everyone, but they are definitely common enough to be worth avoiding.
Being unrealistic
I think this is the most common reason why so many people fail to meet their chosen goals and end up feeling worse than when they started. Their goals were never realistic. The targets demanded more effort, more motivation, more determination, more ability than the person had to offer. They were based either on wishful thinking or on whatever targets were fashionable at the moment.
Setting yourself unrealistic goals is the equivalent of picking a fist-fight with a professional boxer twice your size.
Setting yourself unrealistic goals is the equivalent of picking a fist-fight with a professional boxer twice your size. There’s only ever going to be one outcome. What’s uncertain is just how badly you’ll be hurt.
One of the greatest benefits of goal setting ought to be the opportunity to stand back and take a long, slow, realistic look at yourself. It’s odd how often people fail to do this. Instead, they get swept away by the nonsense about ‘big hairy, audacious goals’ being somehow the best kind. They believe the myth that aiming for the moon will somehow call up the skill and resources to get there.
Until you know exactly what you can do, and whether ’stretch’ goals motivate or intimidate you, it’s surely best to stick with things you know are within your capabilities. Far better to build success slowly and surely than risk everything on a single throw. Big bets lead to big losses — maybe on a scale you can’t really afford. If failure hurts badly enough, you may never try giving yourself a target in life again; and that would be far too high a cost to pay for getting it wrong once.
Who are you trying to impress?
It’s foolish to set yourself a goal that’s chosen mostly to look good or impress other people. It’s equally foolish to go along with whatever is fashionable, rather than stick to what truly matters to you. You’re setting goals for yourself, right? So who are you trying to impress?
Dieting probably offers the best example of what I mean. Many folk are overweight — I know I am. They ought to lose a few pounds, if only for the sake of their health. Yet the fashionable target for body size and shape is set by the media, especially for young women. The reality is that people’s natural body sizes and shapes vary as much as their height. Some are genetically programed to be tall and skinny, other smaller and more bulky. But when some super-model is the ideal being aimed at, the ordinary person is pretty much bound to fail.
Setting yourself a target that doesn't fit who you are and what you can reasonably achieve is always going to lead to tears.
The consequences of that failure can be anything between giving up on weight control totally to suffering eating disorders like bulimia or anorexia. In the same way, setting yourself a target that doesn’t fit who you are and what you can reasonably achieve is always going to lead to tears. You either won’t get close to making it or you’ll do so and be wretched as a result. Besides, creating goals aimed at impressing others will probably never get you sufficiently fired up to achieve what you say you planned. Guess what? Those other people weren’t impressed or even interested. They knew it was only hot air.
Keep quiet about your plans
I suspect that one of the worst mistakes you can make is to talk too much about what you aim to achieve. Some people say you should enlist friends to help keep you on track, but sounding off about your plans has much greater drawbacks.
Talking about your goals is a wonderful substitute for action. It feels like you're already there — only minus the effort.
First, talking about your goals is a wonderful substitute for action. Talk about your goals enough and it feels like you’re already there — only minus the effort. Of course you’re not; you’re no further forward, but lots of people manage to spend a lifetime talking about what they plan to do, yet do nothing at all.
Second, it encourages you to make statements that come back to haunt you. It draws attention to setbacks along the way. Rather than face the humiliation of admitting they went off track, many people prefer to give up. If they’d kept quiet, they could have put things right and pressed on, minus the embarrassment.
Third, it gives lots of people the chance to start in with their own stories, problems and advice. You have enough to cope with. You don’t need to hear how it went wrong for others, or how brilliantly they coped (with the silent suggestion you will never do as well as they did).
Too many goals, too few priorities
People often set themselves too many goals at once. They see everything as a priority, throwing themselves into change full of enthusiasm and excitement. When that wears off — as it surely will — they suddenly come up against the reality that have taken on much more than they can manage.
When everything is important, nothing is. You must prioritize or increase the risk of failure.
When everything is important, nothing is. You must prioritize or increase the risk of failure. Focus on what truly matters most — just one thing, if possible — and get it done. Then move on to the next. Success breeds success. Facing a mass of goals is so daunting, it’s no wonder most people give up.
I’m not suggesting that setting yourself goals in life is wrong; nor that some sort of objective can help you have a sense of direction and fulfillment. What I am suggesting is that you should approach both with care and deliberation. It’s easy to get it wrong and waste time and energy on something you’ll never attain. You don’t even need to have a long-term goal, let alone one that sounds tough or impressive.
All you really need in life is to go along, putting one foot in front of the other and doing whatever seems the next most important task. It won’t be flashy and it won’t impress the neighbors, but it might still give you a life worth living. Even small successes feel better than gigantic failures — and they can add up over a long enough time to achievements that you might well be proud of.
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
On a gloomy day ..
Increasing poverty, disease, and instability in many parts of the world, decreasing resources to
It does not require any sophisticated social theory to grasp these threats. It makes only short-term economic sense to continue to expend a finite resource and create conditions that in just a few decades will measurably depress world productivity.
Yet we do nothing. The need for change may be obvious, but the culture of our age makes the obvious choice seem intolerably painful. Our insatiable demand for control of our lives, the enriched privation that demands to be fed with more and more goods - these feed a spiral of self-destructive consumption. Afraid we are nothing, we want everything. Severed from the ways in which we make ourselves, confronting our own creative power as an alien force that ceaselessly threatens to overwhelm our identities, we are driven to construct worlds of our own in which we can maintain the fragile illusion that we are independent beings.
So we use whatever comes to hand. Our DVD players, designer clothes, iphones, computers, framed diplomas, CD racks, SUVs, on and on . They give pleasure, but they multiply incessantly because they are also the fragments we shore against the ruins of our common life. This endless hunger feeds the equally endless rapacity of constant economic growth. And the dread of our self-made isolation, the emotional impoverishment of our culture and the resigned belief in our own powerlessness will not change no matter how rational capitalist production becomes or how fair we make international trade.
We seem to be at an impasse. Changes in the political landscape is a mirage or the imposition of a fragmentary understanding of human activity that is mistaken for the whole. We are left with well-meaning democratic society, valuable and perhaps even essential within its limits, but unable to deliver us from the hunger at its heart, from the discontents Freud claimed were the price of civilization. A more human as well as a more equitable life: one in which we recognize ourselves in others, no longer afraid of the transformations of our mutual creativity or driven to construct a world of commodities in which to shelter from the world of commodity production, in which we might live more fully instead of living within ideas of life —have we no path there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)