Wanting It Too Much

It's funny how we all dream about something...

Money, honor, success, piety, large families, health, beauty, popularity, big houses, fancy cars, exciting vacations, and so on. 

Some people even dream of technology and big data, and wanting to either come up with "the next big thing" or simply have all the answers to everything. 

In the election session now, Saturday Night Live (SNL) frequently makes fun of some candidates at how much they desperately want to be president. 

I wonder though between the connection of wanting something so much and actually getting it. 

Does wanting it...led you to actually get it. 

OR

Perhaps, it actually can push it further away. 

One women who I was talking with told me that the more you want something, the less likely you are to get it, period.

You want it too much (you're greedy, narcissistic, or think you are somehow ultimately deserving and the world just owes it to you)!

The universe just won't let you have it when you are desperate for it. 

You have to be ready for it...cool with it...and most importantly, at peace with yourself, and then you can get where you want to be. 

There is something that rings so true about that. 

Desperation and success do not make good bedfellows. 

In fact, the more you know somebody wants something, isn't that just such a huge turn-off (you start questioning their motives and everything) and in a way you want to recoil and not give it to them. 

Sure, knowing what you want helps. 

Hard work helps. 

But being okay with whatever G-d decides for you is critical. 

You can't go with your head through the door!

G-d will either open or close the path to you...and all the kings horses and all the kings men won't make the difference in the end. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Wanting It Too Much

Treat People Nice

On a recent college visit, I saw this sign hanging on a door. 

The quote is by Maya Angelou and it is very powerful:

"People will forget what you said,
People will forget what you did,
But people will never forget how you made them feel."

As human beings in this world, we come and go.

Our time here is finite. 

We will be replaced by others.

What is truly memorable about us is our relationships and how we treat others. 

When we show kindness to people or when we are cruel to others--these things are never forgotten. 

Our interactions are the mark of who we are inside--do we sincerely care about others and the bigger picture or are we just plain selfish?

How about you--can you remember:

• how that parent who loved you made you feel? 
• how that teacher who taught you made you feel? 
• how that friend who played with you made you feel?
• how that boss who mentored you made you feel? 
• how that clergy who inspired you made you feel?
• how that spouse who was your companion made you feel?
• how those children who looked up to you made you feel? 
• how those colleagues who supported your work made you feel?

I'm sure you can also remember times when people made you feel not so good--perhaps, you scowled or even cursed them under your breath. 

Getting results in life is not enough--we can't do it by stepping on other people and really being successful that way.

Empathy and kindness or a hard heart and cruelty--you will be remembered one way or another. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Treat People Nice

Adaptability And Integrity In The Face Of Catastrophe

The Walking Dead is the #1 TV show--and this past Sunday was just amazing not only in terms of the plot, but the lessons it provided.

The big question raised was can people change?

The Governor went through a seeming metamorphosis after the destruction of his prior town and murder of his people (by his own hand) and now he has a newfound family and tribe. 

When he comes to attack Rick and the prison to take it for the protection of his own people, Rick says let's just share it, it will be hard to overcome old rivalries, but we can do it--we can change!

But the Governor, yells in a blood curdling voice, "Liar!" and proceeds in a craze to chop off Hershel's head. 

What is particularly dramatics about this--aside from their opposing views of change--is that Hershel is the doctor who not only takes care of the physical health of his people, but also is the conscience of his group seeing that they don't lose their moral way. 

The Governor is a cold killer that truly can never change--and he not only executes Hershel, but screams "Kill them all!"

He also kills his newly adopted daughter after she is bitten by one of the walkers..he shoots her right in the face. 

At first, this seems like the Governor has changed, he can kill a Walker even if it's from his new family, as opposed to his own real daughter that he kept (unwilling to let her go) until Michonne kills her. 

But this was not real change for the Governor, because as he told Hershel about attacking and killing someone else's children to survive, "they aren't mine!"

The Governor is all about himself and will do anything selfishly to survive without consideration of others--this does not change. 

On the other hand, Rick and others survive by their ability to change and grow--they kill when they must, they have empathy when they can, they live by a code of right and wrong--in every situation, they adapt. 

For example, in a prior episode, Carol is forced to leave Rick's group because she brutally killed and burnt two of people in the prison when they got sick and were a threat of spreading the disease. However, Rick understood that this was wrong and banished her for what she did. Not all killing is justified, even if it helps you survive.

The Governor (and his new cohorts) are finally killed off in this episode, and although the safety of the prison is gone, and Rick and the others must leave and wander again, they continue to survive another day--changing with ever new challenges and adhering to an informal code of conduct that they maintain, even in the face of a world catastrophe.

(Source Photo: Dannielle Blumenthal)

Adaptability And Integrity In The Face Of Catastrophe

Smartphones, Dumb People

On the Street in Washington, D.C., there is this circular sign on the ground.

It says: "Look up! Watch where you are walking."

This is a good reminder, especially on the corner, right before you step off and possibly walk into some ongoing traffic.

People get distracted walking and even texting while driving and they can have big accidents because of this. 

But an article by Christine Rosen in the Wall Street Journal takes this notion quite a bit further. 

She proposes that people are so busy on their smartphones and tablets that they are either "oblivious to their surroundings" or more likely to want to film emergencies rather than get involved and help someone in trouble. 

She has examples including in December 2012, when a freelance photographer took a photo of a man run over by a train instead of trying to help him off the tracks. 

However, I am not convinced that it is the computing devices that make people into "apathetic bystanders" or "cruel voyeurs" any more than the salons in the Wild West made people into alcoholics, gunslingers, and patronizers of prostitutes. 

Let's face it, people are who they are.  

Things do not make us do bad, but lack of self-control and base impulses, poor moral upbringings, brain chemistry and brainwashing, and psychological problems and disorders cause people to behave in antisocial and immoral ways. 

If people weren't filming someone being attacked on the subway, then very likely they would be running out at the next available stop or changing cars as soon as they could get that middle door opened. 

Those helpful people, good samaritans, and even heroes among us, are not there because they left their iPhones at home that day, but because their conscience tells them that it's the right thing to do, and perhaps that they would want someone to help them or their family member if the situation was reversed. 

People like to blame a lot of things on technology, but saying that we are "losing our sense of duty to others because of it" is absurd. 

The technology doesn't make the person; the person makes the technology!" ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Smartphones, Dumb People

Shortsighted Government Is Selfish Politics

So I am at the pool today in Maryland. 

This old man--looks about 100, yes really!--comes up to me and starts a conversation. 

He says, you know what--my friend in California is 99-years old and he just got his driver's license renewed--for 5 years!

Imagine that--can the State of California with confidence really issue a 5-year driver's license to someone at that age and believe that both the drivers' safety and public safety is provided for?

Yes, the problems at the Federal government level are ginormous--the national debt, the level of social entitlements, the "true" unemployment rate, the poverty level, our failing healthcare system, and more. 

Still we cannot forget that some of the most important services that citizens get are at the State and Local levels of government--police, fire & rescue, transportation, community development, family planning, and more. 

For government to function effectively--we need all levels to act rationally, responsibly, and with care for the people in mind--both short-term and long-term. 

Issuing 5-year driver's license to 99-year old individuals can have a devastating impact on someone family if that person loses control of their vehicle due to their physical or mental condition.

Similarly, issuing social entitlements (and they may indeed be needed) without a realistic plan for funding the system is irresponsible and can have a catastrophic impact to families around the nation when the system comes up short.

Government has to run with common sense--and stop setting up rules that are shortsighted and blind to the bigger picture. 

Yes, people deserve to drive and to have medical care and so forth, but politicians should set up these systems, so that the people are really served, and not just their political agendas. ;-)

(Source Video: Michelle Blumenthal)

Shortsighted Government Is Selfish Politics

Virtual Government--Yes or Nonsense

The Atlantic (2 June 2013) asks why do we even need a government these days--why not just have a virtual one--where you just "buy" the government you want, the size, the capabilities, and you tailor it for your needs?

The author sees government as menu-driven, like a videogame, by a "rotating dial," where you choose whatever government suites you best. 

In this world of virtual government, people are seen turning to private sector alternatives to get capabilities, customer service, and prices that are better than the government's--in some cases, this may actually work, like with private insurance. 

However, this article goes beyond this notion to where government is not tied to the physical boundaries of the real world, but rather to virtual jurisdictions, citizenship, and even values held or abrogated. 

While I agree that raising the bar on government is a good thing--expect more for less--and partnering with the private sector can make government more efficient, the idea of wholesale shopping government around is quite ludicrous: 


- Will we hire mercenaries instead of having an armed forces?

- Will we rely solely on CEOs to conduct our diplomacy?

- Will justice be doled out by vigilantes? 

- Will private inspectors alone regulate food, drug, and the financial system?

While compared to an iPad wheel for making service selections, Government is not the same as a library of songs or movies that one scrolls through to pick and choose what one likes and dislikes. 

Like the old joke about the difference between family and friends...you can choose your friends, but you can't just choose your family!

While government can provide services virtually, it cannot be a government entirely sliced up by choice--where you opt-in for what you like and opt-out for what you don't--if that were the case, we would all selfishly take and never contribute to the greater good. 

For example, "Hey, I like social entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, but I don't particularly care for contributing to space exploration or research and development for certain diseases that I may not be genetically predisposed to."

There is a civic commons where we must share--the prime example is a fire department. If I choose not to contribute, then the fire department still has to come to put out the fire or else it can spread to others. 

In the end, we are not just a collective of individuals, but a nation bound together by core values and beliefs, and shared interests and investments in the future--and where by sharing the risks and burdens, we fall or rise together.  

Like anything that you are seriously apart of--family, religion, organizations, and work--we take the good and work on the bad, rather than just immaturely throwing it all or in innumerable parts away. 

Yes, government should only do functions that are inherently governmental, and we should avail ourselves of all the talent and expertise in the private sector for the rest, but no, we should not wholly think that we can replace government with loose and shifting ties on the Internet and purely profit-driven private sector players. 

If Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda serving as modern virtual governments are the best examples of what can be accomplished, then we should all be running (not walking) to good 'ol Democracy of the U.S. of A.

Virtual government as a way to provision services as well as competition and augmentation by the private sector is great, but becoming a stateless state will not solve the large and complex problems we must face, not alone, but together.

Even though bureaucratic waste and abuse is bad, the system of debate, negotiation, checks and balances, basic human rights, and voting is good, and we should not just throw out the precious baby with the dirty bathwater. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Virtual Government--Yes or Nonsense

Putting Children Above Ourselves

What a distorted editorial this morning in the Wall Street Journal called "What's Really Behind the Entitlement Crisis."

Oh, thank goodness (NOT) that we have these pundit-types to tell us what's "really" happening and feed us their self-serving "proofs."

Anyway, the author, Ben Wattenberg, contends that we all are suffering a decline in standard of living because we don't have enough children. 

He actually advocates that we have more children to bear the burden of our waste, fraud, and abuse and inability to live within our means.

The author writes: "Never-born babies are the root cause of the 'social deficit' that plagues nations across the world and threaten to break the bank in many."

Never mind that current world population of over 7 billion people is anticipated to rise above 9 billion by 2050, and we continue to spoil and deplete our world's limited resources already.

The author selfishly contends that "Declining birth rates mean there are not enough workers to support retirees."

Unfortunately, the author ignores that if current and prior workers and politicians did not spend down the balances in social security to finance other pork-barrel political initiatives, then each workers savings would still be there to support their retirement, and we would not have to rely on future generations to make up the difference by spending their savings to support our prior excesses and waste. 

Wattenberg ends by saying that "The real danger for the future is too few births."

Like a glutton, he advocates that we eat more in order to keep trying to satiate our insatiable spending needs. 

When I was a kid, my father used to joke about eating too much and say we should do some push-ups--push the the table (with all the food) away from us!

No, like teenagers on day time TV shows, who contend that they want to have children because they feel it is their "way out" of their problems and only then they will be loved and be able to love, and the TV show host puts them in a program with a fake baby that cries and makes at all the inconvenient hours of the day and night, does the teenager realize that having (more) children is not the answer to their problems, but actually may only increase their problems. 

Having more children as a nation--we already average about 2 per family--in order to finance our retirements and entitlements through the development of another generation of a slave labor pool is completely misguided. 

Have children for the right reasons--out of genuine love and a commitment to give--not to receive. 

Mr. Wattenberg does not seem to care if children are brought into the world of broken families, poverty, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, molestation and incest, homelessness, and separation and divorce, because Wattenberg's standard of living is at stake. 

Bring children into a world that is giving, loving, and sustainable.

Safeguard life, but don't recklessly encourage birth. 

Birth is a privilege of the young, not an entitlement for the elderly.

(Source Photo: Michelle Blumenthal)

Putting Children Above Ourselves

Your Leadership Ticket Is Waiting

A lot of colleagues tell me that they hate office politics, and for many it represents their one-way ticket to ongoing bickering, infighting, and a virtual endless cycle of unsatisfied wants and unhappiness.

Office politics is where the interests of multiple parties either converge or collide--where convergence occurs through feelings of interdependence (i.e. enterprise) and acts of teamwork, while collisions predominate by stressing independence (i.e. isolationism) and head-butting.

This is where good and bad leadership can make a huge difference.

- One one hand, a bad leader sees the world of the office as "us versus them" and fights almost indiscriminately for his/her share of scope, resources, influence, and power.

- On the other hand, a good leader looks out for the good of the organization and its mission, and works to ensure the people have what they need to get their jobs done right, regardless of who is doing it or why.

Thus, good leaders inspire trust and confidence, because they, without doubt, put the mission front and center--and egos are left at door.

Harvard Business Review (January-February 2011) in an article called "Are You A Good Boss--Or A Great One?" identifies a couple of key elements that inherently create opposition and competitiveness within the enterprise:

1) Division of Labor--This is the where we define that I do this and you do that. This has the potential to "create disparate groups with disparate and even conflicting goals and priorities." If this differentiation is not well integrated back as interrelated parts of an overall organizational identity and mission, then feelings of "us versus them" and even arguments over whose jobs and functions are more important and should come first in the pecking order will tear away at the organizational fiber and chances of success.

2) Scarce Resources--This is where limited resources to meet requirements and desirements impact the various parts of the organization, because not everyone's wishes can be pursued at the same time or even necessarily, at all.  Priorities need to be set and tradeoffs made in what will get done and what won't. Again, without a clear sense of unity versus disparity, scarcity can quickly unravel the organization based on people's  feelings of unfairness, dissatisfaction, unrest, and potentially even "mob rule" when people feel potentially threatened.

Hence, a bad leader works the system--seeing it as a win-lose scenario--where his/her goals and objectives are necessarily more important than everyone else, and getting the resources (i.e. having a bigger sandbox or "building an empire") is seen as not only desirable but critical to their personal success--here, their identity and loyalty is to their particular niche silo.

However, a good leader cares for the system--looking to create win-win situations--where no one element is better or more important than another, rather where they all must work together synergistically for the greater good of the organization. In this case, resources go not to who fights dirtier, but to who will most benefit the mission with them--in this case, their allegiance and duty is to the greater enterprise and its mission.

HBR states well that "In a real team [with a real leader], members hold themselves and one another jointly accountable. They share a genuine conviction they will succeed or fail together."

Organizations need not be snake pits with cut throat managers wanting to see others fail and waiting to take what they can for themselves, rather there is another way, and that is to lead with a shared sense of purpose, meaning, and teamwork. 

And this is achieved through creating harmony among organizational elements and not class warfare between them.

This type of leader that creates unity--builds enduring strength--and has the ticket we need to organizational success.

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Your Leadership Ticket Is Waiting

Speak Up or Shut Up

We've all been there--organizations that are run by the king or queen and their proverbial gang of 6 or 7 or 8 or 9.

These are the organizations that are dominated by powerful, but narcissistic leadership (notice I do not call them leaders--because they are not). 

According to Forbes, (11 January 2012) in an article entitled Why Narcissistic CEOs Kill Their Companies, in these organizations, the c-suite is dominated by those showing four narcissistic personality traits:

- Exploitative--They are in charge and everyone else had better respect--or better yet worship--them. Typically they are surrounded by "yes men" and eager beavers, ready to please at just about all costs. 

- Authoritarian--They insist on "being the center of attention," they always know better, are always right even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and with their people, it's their way or the highway. 

- Arrogant--They are full of themselves and usually something else :-) and believe they are superior and therefore entitled to their positions of power and stature.

- Self-Absorbed--They admire and and are preoccupied with themselves, and not focused on what's ultimately good for the organization, the mission, and its people. 

In such organizations, and with such pitiful leadership, generally we find cultures of fear and what Harvard Business Review (January-February 2012) says are organizations where people "are afraid to speak honestly."

In these dysfunctional organizations with inept leadership, the workforce is stunted--they cannot genuinely contribute or grow and where organizational candor, trust, and collaboration is low, organizational performance is predictably poor.

HBR suggests that greater candor and sharing is possible by "breaking meetings into smaller groups," assigning people to "notice and speak up when something is being left unsaid," and to "teach 'caring-criticism'"--where input is provided constructively and not personally attacking and where honest feedback is viewed as "generous, rather than critical."

I think these suggestions may help organizations that are fundamentally well-run by caring and professional leaders, but when narcissists and power mongers rule the day, then the culture is not speak up, but rather shut up. 

One of the things that I have been fortunate to experience and learn is that diplomacy from the top-down goes a long way in creating a professional and productive work culture. 

When people are given respect and the freedom to speak up constructively, when they can work in true-teaming environments, and when relationships matter more than winning the day, then the workforce and all the individuals therein have the opportunity to grow to their potential. In speak up organizations, people can voice their opinions, provide valuable input, and contribute to the mission--both the people and the organization thrive. 

In contrast, when the workplace is shut up, because of narcissistic and poor leadership, the workforce is essentially shut down--they are in essence muzzled in speech and ultimately in deed. These organizations choke off their own talent and lifeblood, while their head swells from the arrogance and power at the top.

Diplomacy is a skill not only in international relations, but in life and in the workplace, and diplomatic leaders are not narcissists trying to wield and hold power, but rather polished and professional leaders who foster a culture of speak up and team up--they are ready to take their organizations and people to new levels of productivity, growth, and meaning.

Speak Up or Shut Up

Raise Your Glass To Great Bosses

It's a funny time of year. Folks are celebrating the holidays, and for some of them the traditional office party is full of cheer, while for others it’s a nightmare.

In a way it's a paradox for some that they have a holiday party with the same bosses that treat them otherwise badly the rest of year!

This reminds of some of the worst traits a boss can exhibit--here's a “top 10”:

1) Selfishness: Every day it's all about the boss--their power trip, their ego, their next promotion--instead of about the mission and the customers.

2) Amoral: To some, integrity and business do not go together.

3) Discrimination: They tolerate or in too many cases, even exhibit blatant discrimination themselves.

4) Disrespect: This can be overtly or implicitly, hurting the employee professionally and personally as well.

5) Inconsistency: Flip-flopping is not just something that bothers people about politics, but it makes for a bipolar work environment, where employees are damned if they do and if they don't, but the boss can always say, “I told you so (and the opposite).”

6) Favoritism: Plays favorites instead of judging employees only on the true factor, merit. This causes workers to become demoralized as they see people hired and promoted for all the wrong reasons.

7) Insecurity: They are threatened by seemingly everyone and everything--can't give anyone else credit or recognize the good around them--a one-person team who sees anybody else’s success as implying their own failure.

8) Competitive: They have to be the smartest person in the room, and innovation and objectivity is squelched--no risk is worth the wrath of “boss Khan.”

9) Stealing: If someone else does have something of value to contribute, this boss just steals it and presents it as their own (attribution or recognition, what for?)

10) Micromanagement: Looking over your shoulder every minute, redoing your work, not trusting you, they are control freaks, a complete nightmare to work for.

Bosses come in all shapes and sizes. I’ve been fortunate to work for some of the best, and I hope that I do them justice with my own employees over the course of my career.

Here’s hoping that at your holiday party, you were able to raise your glass with a boss who makes you feel valued and respected--that's a holiday party to really celebrate!

(Source Photo: here)

Raise Your Glass To Great Bosses

No More Excuses, Please

The New Yorker (24 October 2011) has a clever take on the urge of some--in this case, the privileged--to try and preserve the status quo. However, this can be applied more broadly.

While not an endorsement of any specific movement, this is an acknowledgement of the resistance to change by both organizations and individuals, and the many excuses offered.

Some typical ones we all have heard, in one form or other:

- It's always been this way.

- We've tried "that" before and it didn't work.

- Change is hard.

- Everything is fine just the way it is.

While change for changes sake is obviously pointless, change to adapt to new opportunities and threats is just good business sense.

Additionally, change to address inequalities on inequities is good moral sense.

Of course, we have to vet proposed changes and ensure they are constructive, the best option available, and really doable, so we are not just jumping into something irresponsibly.

When change meets the mark, then to implement it, we have to give it all we've got!

From our leaders, it takes vision, courage, and determination to see what needs to get done, get past the excuses, and inspire change.

From society, it takes sacrifice and hard work to get us to where we must go.

But if it's a destination worthwhile, then we drop the excuses and move to action.

Hopefully, we can recognize when change is indeed, necessary, and not be blinded by our fears and self-serving resistance that hinders the greater good.

No More Excuses, Please

Know What's Right, Do What's Right

In a conversation with a good friend recently, we got to talking about integrity--the meaning and of course, the importance.

And at one point, he says straight-out, integrity takes two things:

1) Know what's right

2) Do what's right

And I'm loving it!

Straight-forward and simple--know and do what's right.

Then he tells me about Gus Lee, a nationally recognized ethicist (and Chair of Character Development at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point) who wrote this book Courage: The Backbone of Leadership.

I was inspired by what I heard and since went back to learn more about his philosophy on the subject.

Lee believes that "leadership is grounded in high character" and that "we think we are looking for managers, but in fact, we need principled leaders."

To drive our "moral courage", Lee says we have 3 powerful resources:

1) Conscience--"that moral, inner voice."

2) Discernment--this is where you work to discern "the higher right" getting past "fear, feelings, and wishful thinking" and of course, our own self interests.

3) Discerning Advisors--we seek the counsel of "the most courageous, high integrity, high character, and principled person or people" you know.

And I would add a fourth important resource, which is religious teachings that can be a steadfast guidepost (especially when coupled with the others as a personal litmus test of whether you are applying them correctly).

Finally, I like Lee's observation that there are three type of individuals when it comes to issues of integrity:

1) Egotists--those who are self-serving.

2) Pragmatists--those who "serve results" or what I would call serving a specified cause.

3) People of Courage--those who "act in the right regardless."

Doing the right thing is not easy (it means putting aside your own interests)!

That's why it takes tremendous courage to be the type of moral person that we all ultimately admire and respect.

Those leaders who act with moral rectitude, these to me are the few and the amazing!

Know What's Right, Do What's Right

Selfishness and The Paradox of Emotional Intelligence

I was fortunate to be in a terrific leadership development class this week held in coordination with University of Virginia, and one of the instructors shared this interesting explanation about the four levels of emotional intelligence (EI), which I have put into the attached graphic (note: there are other variants of this).


Essentially there are three levels of EI that have to do with “me”:

1. Self-Awareness: Being cognizant of one’s own emotions, thinking and behaviors

2. Self-Management: Being able to control negative displays of emotions, thoughts, and behaviors.

3. Self-Direction: Being able to positively choose emotions, thoughts, and behaviors.

These three levels are steps and maturity in the development of a person’s emotional intelligence.

Then, for those that are able to “breakthrough” to the next and forth level having to do with “others” (instead of “me”), there is a fourth level called:

4. Empathy: Being able to understand, share, and identify with the emotions and thoughts of others.

The idea here, as another instructor stated, is that “we close the [emotional] gap with others through empathy and disclosure.”

However, in order to get to the stage where we can genuinely connect and empathize with others, we must first work on ourselves.

From a leadership perspective, I think this model of emotional intelligence is very valuable, because it provide us the framework for maturing our emotional self-development starting with basic awareness and advancing toward gaining control over ourselves and ultimately being able to have meaningful understanding for others.

It is only with such understanding of and connection with others that we can create the foundation for successful teamwork, innovation, and improved performance.

Where are we failing on EI?

• Being so busy with “the daily grind” that we don’t have the time, energy, or capacity to do justice to the relationships in our lives.

• Lack of mastery of the “me”—we lack self-awareness and are not in control of ourselves.

• Narcissism that leads us to ignore the others around us and therefore leads us to have difficulty relating to them.

All of these, in a sense, represent a huge life paradox. We are taught that to succeed we must work on ourselves, and in turn we have become a self-focused society.


We have learned that success means being perfectly educated, thin, fit, married, earning a huge salary, and so on. But we are so busy thinking about these goals and looking at them as pure achievements to be marked off on a list that we lose sight of the process. And in doing so we actually become less effective at the things we are trying to do.


The process is about becoming emotionally intelligent—about learning the skills of self-control, self-management, self-direction, and ultimately empathy.


In fact, to succeed—and to find meaning in that success—we must give meaningfully to others in time and energy, rather than just taking for ourselves.

Ultimately, it doesn’t have to be a “breakthrough” event to empathize, give, and build healthy and productive relationships. Regardless of how much money or prestige we achieve in life, I believe that achieving the “us” rather than only focusing on the “me” is truly where the biggest payoff is at in life.

Selfishness and The Paradox of Emotional Intelligence