#character
To paraphrase an old adage: give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.
We’ve developed a culture in which the poor receive aid without conditions. We believe that they are poor because of bad luck or circumstances, or because their parents or other family was poor.
We, as a society, believe some are poor because they are lazy, resentful or don’t have the skills to hold a job. The poor believe they are poor because they have been discriminated against, treated badly by employers or, they believe the government somehow owes them.
How we would love to change the thought process of poverty. On Aug. 4, 2014, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran two columns – one by the New York Times’ David Brooks, and the other by engineer and former Atlanta Falcon William White – that discussed the thought process of the poor.
Brooks talked about character development among the poor. He quotes Richard Reeves of the Brookings Institution as saying that both progressive and conservative orthodoxies in dealing with poverty do so in the abstract. He believes the orthodoxies view the poor as a species of “hollow man,” whose destiny is shaped by economic structures alone.
White, on the other hand, grew up poor in Lima, Ohio. His father worked in a foundry, in which the only air-conditioned place was the engineer’s office. He was determined to succeed in school and become an engineer. As it happened, he also had a successful 11-year career in the National Football League, after graduating with an engineering degree from The Ohio State University.
What both Brooks and White are saying is that circumstances shouldn’t define a person. They also say that fewer people would be in dire circumstances if they just had the belief that they could get out of them.
We, as a society, can’t want success for anyone more than he wants it for himself, as White has shown. We hate to see anyone live in poverty, but we can’t give anyone the desire to get out. If you have the desire to get out, you WILL get out. You will fight through your circumstances and become successful.
Brooks says we should teach people in dire circumstances several things to help them out of their own situations. First, we teach good habits. If you change behavior, you will change disposition eventually, Brooks writes. He cites many government programs that help poor parents and students to observe basic etiquette and practice small, but regular, acts of self-restraint.
Then, we have to show them opportunity. Most of us, Brooks writes, can only deny short-term pleasures because we see the path between self-denial now and something better down the road.
Third, exemplars. Character is not developed individually. It is instilled by communities and transmitted by elders, Brooks writes. That brings to mind another adage: if you can’t change the people around you, change the people around you.
Fourth, standards. People can only practice restraint after they determine the sort of person they want to be, Brooks writes.
In other words, give people something to shoot for, instill in them the belief that they can get it and show them what they need to do to get it.
If your circumstances aren’t what you want them to be, there are many vehicles out there that could help the person who wants to change his life, and has a vision of what he wants his life to be. For one of the best, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau.
So if you don’t like your circumstances, don’t wallow and blame. Dream that life can be better, believe that YOU can make it better, then step up and do what you need to do.
Peter
Tag Archives: The New York Times
YOUR THOUGHTS SAY A LOT ABOUT YOU
#thoughts
What characterizes your thoughts?
Are your thoughts courageous? Are they fanciful? Are they rewarding? Can you be a hero just sitting at your desk, thinking?
New York Times columnist David Brooks discussed this in depth in a Sept. 1, 2014, column published in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
As Brooks writes, it’s easy to see heroism in a soldier who displays courage under fire. But can someone sitting at a desk, alone, be a hero? He can, with the right thoughts.
Brooks cites the 2007 book “Intellectual Virtues,” by Robert C. Roberts of Baylor University and W. Jay Wood of Wheaton College. The authors list six characteristics that would determine whether you might be a thought hero.
First, Brooks writes, one must love to learn and be ardently curious. In other words, a thought hero would seek the most information he can before he talked about, or formed an opinion about, something.
Secondly, one needs courage. It’s not just a willingness to hold unpopular views, as Brooks writes, but, as he puts it, the reckless thinker takes a few pieces of information and leaps to some faraway conspiracy theory.
Third is firmness. That’s the middle ground between surrendering one’s beliefs at the slightest opposition, and holding dogmatically to a belief against all evidence. You might say it’s an upgrade from wishy-washy, and a dial-down from arrogance.
The fourth is humility – not letting a good story get in the way of the facts, to paraphrase a quote attributed to Mark Twain.
Then there’s autonomy – forming your own thoughts, not just adopting as gospel what someone else may have told you. You may gladly accept others’ guidance, but, in the end, what you think should be your own.
Finally, there is generosity. If you know something that someone else doesn’t know, you share it – willingly and for free. It also means hearing others as they wish to be heard – not looking to pounce on others’ errors, Brooks writes.
All this adds up to openness of thought. To open one’s mind, one must also open his heart and soul. Today’s society is loaded with what the comedians call “truthiness.” Ads, political statements, online postings and other communications are loaded with stretched truth, even outright falsehoods.
The dangers we face have to do with what we accept as true. Along the way, if we have constant curiosity, we might find that something we were told was true by someone or something we respect may not be true. We have to recognize those situations as we encounter them.
So, after reviewing the “Intellectual Virtues,” where do your thoughts fit in? Are you truly open to the truth? If you are, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. You’ll see and hear real, truthful stories from real people. You might even like what you hear and see.
It’s possible to become more intellectually virtuous if you are honest about yourself and your thoughts. Change can be hard. Improvements may come slowly. But if you desire intellectual virtue, go for it! Do what you need to do to get it. It may not be as hard to attain as you might think. And, others you never thought would may follow you.
Peter
CHARACTER, DRIVE AND POVERTY
To paraphrase an old adage: give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.
We’ve developed a culture in which the poor receive aid without conditions. We believe that they are poor because of bad luck or circumstances, or because their parents or other family was poor.
We, as a society, believe some are poor because they are lazy, resentful or don’t have the skills to hold a job. The poor believe they are poor because they have been discriminated against, treated badly by employers or, they believe the government somehow owes them.
How we would love to change the thought process of poverty. On Aug. 4, 2014, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran two columns – one by the New York Times’ David Brooks, and the other by engineer and former Atlanta Falcon William White – that discussed the thought process of the poor.
Brooks talked about character development among the poor. He quotes Richard Reeves of the Brookings Institution as saying that both progressive and conservative orthodoxies in dealing with poverty do so in the abstract. He believes the orthodoxies view the poor as a species of “hollow man” whose destiny is shaped by economic structures alone.
White, on the other hand, grew up poor in Lima, Ohio. His father worked in a foundry, in which the only air-conditioned place was the engineer’s office. He was determined to succeed in school and become an engineer. As it happened, he also had a successful 11-year career in the National Football League, after graduating with an engineering degree from The Ohio State University.
What both Brooks and White are saying is that circumstances shouldn’t define a person. They also say that fewer people would be in dire circumstances if they just had the belief that they could get out of them.
We, as a society, can’t want success for anyone more than he wants it for himself, as White has shown. We hate to see anyone live in poverty, but we can’t give anyone the desire to get out. If you have the desire to get out, you WILL get out. You will fight through your circumstances and become successful.
Brooks says we should teach people in dire circumstances several things to help them out of their own situations. First, we teach good habits. If you change behavior, you will change disposition eventually, Brooks writes. He cites many government programs that help poor parents and students to observe basic etiquette and practice small, but regular, acts of self-restraint.
Then, we have to show them opportunity. Most of us, Brooks writes, can only deny short-term pleasures because we see the path between self-denial now and something better down the road.
Third, exemplars. Character is not developed individually. It is instilled by communities and transmitted by elders, Brooks writes. That brings to mind another adage: if you can’t change the people around you, change the people around you.
Fourth, standards. People can only practice restraint after they determine the sort of person they want to be, Brooks writes.
In other words, give people something to shoot for, instill in them the belief that they can get it and show them what they need to do to get it.
If your circumstances aren’t what you want them to be, there are many vehicles out there that could help the person who wants to change his life, and has a vision of what he wants his life to be. For one of the best, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau.
So if you don’t like your circumstances, don’t wallow and blame. Dream that life can be better, believe that YOU can make it better, then step up and do what you need to do.
Peter
WEALTH CONCENTRATED IN FEWER HANDS
The goal of past generations is to have the next generation be better off than they were.
Many of us can remember a time when, if we worked hard, we advanced. If we had a job and behaved on the job, we could work as long as we wanted, retire when we got older and have a few good years of leisure as a reward for our hard work.
By most accounts, this was called the American Dream.
The recession of 2008 may have changed everything. We now have a world in which the middle class is shrinking because hard-working people are losing their jobs, and having great difficulty finding another that pays as well – if they find one at all.
Lifestyles are being cut back. Pessimistic views of the future abound. Perfectly good, hard-working people are getting discouraged. Spirits are being broken.
Thomas Picketty, a French economist, draws a picture of consolidation of wealth in fewer hands in his book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.” New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman calls the book a phenomenon. Krugman wrote about the book in an April 24,2014, column.
Picketty sees a world in which more wealth will be concentrated in a decreasing number of hands. He sees that as a dangerous trend.
No one wants anyone to get paid for laziness. Most people want to work, and want to be paid fairly for what they do. Krugman points out that more conservative economic policies of government are leading to wealth being spread more lavishly on fewer people, at the expense of a majority of others.
Without getting into a debate about the values, or evils, of socialism or capitalism, let’s look at what we have in front of us.
Many of us have gone through a downsizing at work. Companies are learning to operate with fewer people, thanks to technology advancements and other things.
When this happened in previous decades, those who got laid off were reasonably confident they would find work before too much time passed. Today, that’s not necessarily the case. There are millions of people who have been out of work for extended periods, and employers are not hiring them because they have been out of work for so long.
Hence, the capitalistic wealth distribution formula – work=money – is turned on its head. The socialist voice is getting louder. In other words: more heavily tax those few who have benefitted from this, to cover those that they injured in the process.
But there may be a better way than wealth redistribution through government. Make more widely known the available vehicles for a person to change his life. There are many opportunities out there for people to live their dreams, despite having been hurt by the current economic trends.
For one of the best, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. At the same time, some people have to change. It was comfortable having a job, going to work, work as many years as a person wanted and retire not only with the means to meet needs, but perhaps to also enjoy leisure.
You can be angry at wealth concentration in a few hands, or you can find a way to gain more wealth for yourself, and help others do the same.
That’s the ultimate in people helping people. If more people did that, proper wealth distribution would naturally occur, without government interference.
It’s always better to earn your own wealth than to take someone else’s. Look for a vehicle that allows you to do that, without impoverishing others in the process. Look for that vehicle you and your friends could ride together — and work together to enrich each other.
Think of the good you can do in the process. Best of all, think of the fun you’ll have doing it.
Peter
YOUNG VS. OLD IN A CHANGING WORLD
It started in the 1960s.
Young people wanting something better than – or, at least, different from – what their parents had and cherished.
Some 1960s protests turned violent. Today, in countries all over the world, the protests are very violent. The police and military in many countries are turning on their own people – largely young people – for trying to change the status quo.
Reporters David Kirkpatrick and Mayy El Sheikh discussed the chasm between young and old in Egypt, which has already overthrown its longtime dictator. But in that country, the “new” government hasn’t given them what they want.
The reporters’ story was published in the Monday, Feb. 17, 2014, edition of The New York Times.
We see it in countries all over the world – Syria, Ukraine etc. Young people want more freedom. Young people want to be who they really are – not who their parents or other elders want them to be.
If you are young today, the world is very different from that in which your parents grew up. Jobs are scarce. Employers are reorganizing every five minutes. So, even if you are lucky enough to land a good job, you can’t expect it to last.
Your parents may not understand you. They want what’s best for you, but may not have a clue what that is. All they have to go on is what was best for THEM.
If you are older, you shake your head at the younger generation. After all, your “dream” was a secure job with benefits, some advancement potential and a pension when you retired. If you got that far and achieved that: congratulations. But those younger than you may never see that. They will really have to be diligent to have financial security when they are your age.
Yes, the world is an ocean liner. It is certainly not a cruise ship, but in many cases it turns just as slowly. Make no mistake, though. It is turning. Perhaps it is not turning as quickly as the younger people want, but it is turning. When it turns, it will go in a very different direction.
Companies and employers have experts watching the ship, and trying to determine which direction it will go. Unlike the world of the past, this world will be turning constantly, as innovation in communication, manufacturing and technology evolve, and re-evolve.
Innovation, combined with education, give young people the courage to be who they are, not who their parents or elders want them to be. They have different, and more modern, ideas about how to live. In their minds, if they are going to survive, they have to fight for what they believe in. They have to fight for the freedom to be what they want to be.
In a changing world, we – young and older – need to have a Plan B. If the world changes in a way we don’t like, we need something that will give us the security to be who we are, and want to be. We need something that will allow us the freedom to not be dependent on an ever-changing employment situation. There are many ways to accomplish this. For one of the best, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau.
Meanwhile, fight to be who you are in an ever-changing world. At the same time, let others be who they are, as long as they mean you no harm. Throughout the world, give the young people the freedom they so crave. With freedom comes innovation. Innovation will come, whether we want it to or not. So let people innovate.
If you are older, you must realize that change isn’t all bad. If you are younger, remember that your elders are fighting to keep what is dear to them. When young and old understand each other, the world will be more peaceful and prosperous for all. As Paul McCartney’s mother told him years ago, “Let It Be.”
Peter
FORMAL AUTHORITY VS. MORAL AUTHORITY
Dov Siedman, author of the book, “How,” says there are basically two kinds of authority in the world: formal authority and moral authority.
The former can be (pick one: taken, granted, elected, appointed). The latter must be earned through respect from those over whom one has authority. He’s not talking about COMMANDING respect, he talking about gaining true respect through leading by example and giving the people what they want and deserve.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman referred to Siedman in a June 2013 column about protests in Turkey. Friedman says Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has lost the respect of his people. He says they don’t want to overthrow him, as has been done, or is in progress, in other Muslim countries. They just want him to know that he is making or changing rules about religion and other things, and they don’t like it. They just want him to, as Friedman puts it, back off.
But Siedman’s work can be applied to other parts of life. In fact, Siedman’s company, LRN, advises CEOs on how to gain more moral authority within their organizations.
Think of any work situation. Is your boss (pick one or more: overbearing, incompetent, cheap)? Do you hate going in there, but have to so you can put food on the table? If you were in your boss’ shoes, how would you run the place?
You don’t gain respect by edict. You earn it by your behavior. Think of it this way: if you were in your boss’ shoes, would you think you’d have a better, even more profitable operation if the people working for you genuinely respected you? If they talk at lunch, or after work, are they maligning you or are they admiring you? If you already have some authority over people, even your children as a parent, you need to be concerned about that to a great degree.
Sure, you are going to take some actions that not everyone will like. But if you have their respect overall, they will understand why you did it and work with you. It makes for a much smoother and, if it’s a business, generally a more profitable operation.
The other advantage of leading by example, and behaving so those on your team respect you, is you say less to them. They will follow what you do. Words can be misunderstood or misconstrued, but actions provide much clearer meaning.
If you are starting, or want to start, your own company, think about Siedman’s work and earn moral authority from the employees you ultimately hire. They will thank you for it by their actions. And you might actually enjoy giving priority to THEIR success first. It will pay you dividends that are worth more than money.
If you want to start a company, even if you are working for someone else, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. You should be able to spend a little time building your fortune without interfering with what you are already doing.
If you are a boss, test out your moral authority. Go to lunch with your folks, or meet them after work. If they welcome you, you may already have moral authority. If they find reasons not to include you, you know you have work to do.
If you don’t care what they think of you, you have some thinking to do. It could take you a long time to earn their respect. In fact, you may have to do it gradually as newer employees join you. It takes lots of energy to be a dictator and hold power when those below you hate you. It takes far less energy and stress to earn moral authority.
Peter
SCHOOL REVERSAL
Traditionally, students went to school to see and listen to teachers.
They took what they learned home to practice – what we know as homework.
They brought it back to school the next day to see what they did right, and what they did wrong.
But what if it were reversed?
What if students heard and saw the teachers at home, and came to class to practice what they’d learned. Or, better yet, to see what they could do with what they’d learned?
In a two-day conference titled “Online Learning and the Future of Residential Education,” New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman asked himself the following question: why am I paying $50,000 a year for my kid to go to college, when he can learn all he wants for free from massive, open online courses?
Friedman’s friend, Michael Sandel, teaches the famous, Socratic “Justice” course at Harvard, which has 1,000 students. The class is launching March 12, 2013, as the first humanities offering on the MIT-Harvard edX online learning platform.
In the blended education model, Friedman says students at San Jose State watch MIT lectures on circuits and electronics, and do the exercises at home. Then they come to class, ask the SJSU professor questions about the lectures, then devote most of the class time to problem-solving and discussion.
At the college level, this model allows more students to learn from the best teachers in the world. It also could lower the cost of college, because so much is available online. But it also gives colleges the flexibility to add more to the college experience while lowering the cost. It gives students the chance not just to learn, but also to apply what they’ve learned in practical situations. Students will not just get a degree, but could come out of college with some working knowledge in a given area.
But at the high school or middle school level, it could really lower costs. Suppose a high school student heard lectures on history, math, English etc. on his computer at home. Then, he came to school to do his “homework,” and to take tests. What if he could e-mail his questions to the lecturer and get answers via e-mail? What if the student had to log in to hear a lecture? The school could monitor a student’s activities at home.
What if there were more time at school to be with friends, and have fun? Do you think that might increase attendance, and lower the dropout rate? What if schools were more like labs?
BETTER, CHEAPER EDUCATION
Education at all levels has to not just get better. It has to get cheaper. Friedman, in his March 2013 column, talking about the college level, said that the bottom line is that the residential college experience has huge value. But blending in more technology into education will enhance that experience, improve education and lower the cost of college.
At lower education levels, more students can learn from the best teachers through online classes. They can have more fun at school applying what they’ve learned. School systems can have greater flexibility in the number of buildings it needs, the number of teachers it needs etc. In short, they could do much better for less money.
If you are in the education field, know that your world is changing. How fast it will change is anyone’s guess. If you don’t like what you see coming, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. That will give you a possible Plan B, should your situation change for the worse. For students, however, better education is on its way. For taxpayers, that better education could come at a lower cost.
Peter
THE GREAT INFLECTION
We are easing out of the Great Recession, though it is still difficult for some.
We are heading into the Great Inflection, according to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.
We are in a hyper-connected – not just connected – world, Friedman asserts. We are seeing more wealth created, and much better productivity in the workplace.
But, that isn’t translating into lower unemployment. You see, some of the jobs lost in the Great Recession will never return.
Think back to the time when World War II ended, the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, labor unions had great clout and – here’s the big one – technological progress was relatively slow.
If you got laid off from a job, chances are it was a slow period for your employer. When things picked up, you were back to work. Men – most married women did not work then – would crow about “steady” work. In other words, there were few peaks and valleys in their business. They got a paycheck every week for their 40 hours, plus, for some, the bonus of overtime.
College education was for the few. Parents wanted their sons to get out and work, and their daughters to get married. That idyllic life didn’t work out for everyone, but it did for a large number of people.
EACH DOWNTURN MEANS JOBS LOST FOREVER
Contrast that period to today. If you have a job, you fear change, because it comes quickly and you don’t know how that change will affect you, until it does. Companies reorganize one day, and a few months later they do it again. Each time, usually, more people lose their jobs, replaced by some machine which, likely, will be “old” technology a year later.
As companies cut jobs, many of them are creating new and different ones, either at the same time, or a short time later. The people being cut may not fill the bill for the new positions. Something to think about: if your current job is a series of repetitive tasks that don’t require you to create anything, you should be thinking about learning something new. Chances are, your job will not last as long as you want it to.
Some of the folks from those earlier working days, once they hit a certain age, balked at learning “new stuff.” They were counting the days until they could retire. Today, if you don’t learn new stuff, regardless of your age, you will be gone, probably sooner than you want to be.
Friedman points out that with rapid change, the workforce has to keep learning. Your schooling, whatever it is, won’t last you the rest of your life anymore. It will always be with you, but education today is merely an entry vehicle. The people who survive in today’s workplace are those who are always learning, who can deal with change in stride and can foresee what might be coming. As Friedman puts it, you have to provide added value to the technology.
For those of you either shut out of the modern job market, or who live in fear that one day you will be, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. It’s one of the best of several ways you can create wealth WHILE you await your fate in the job market. One day, perhaps, you might not even need the job market.
In much of the discussion about employment and the economy today, many long for those old days. Jobs were “protected.” Work was, for many, “steady.” Workers had a certain security that they were convinced was never going away. Many today fight the changes that connectivity, technology and other productivity enhancements have brought. They want it stopped. But, it’s like standing on railroad tracks and holding out your arms, thinking you are going to stop one of those bullet trains.
Progress will happen with or without you. You can choose to fight the Great Inflection, or you can work to be part of it. If you can’t beat it, either join it or look for a new plan. Put your fate in YOUR hands.
Peter
SMALL TOWNS, BIG CITIES, GROWING AS PEOPLE
Many of us grow up in small towns, rural areas or neighborhoods of larger cities and grow fond of the area, the people etc.
But, when we enter adulthood, perhaps going off to college, it hits us: we may not realize our full potential if we settle down back home. Settle may be the operative word here.
New York Times columnist David Brooks discussed this phenomenon. He wondered whether, in the meritocracy vs. government race, it would be so bad if meritocracy won.
In a nutshell, a young person leaves home and goes off to college. He realizes his limited potential if he moved back home, where only a small percentage of the folks living there had college degrees. He decides to move to a place where, as Brooks quotes, up to 50% of the people have college degrees, i.e. San Francisco, San Jose, Boston, Washington or the Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina.
The folks back home may call him snooty for not wanting to move home. But he has a degree from an elite university, i.e. Stanford or an Ivy League school. He got good enough grades back home to get into the prestigious school, did well once he got there and now HAS to reside where people are more like the new him.
WAITING TO HEAR THOSE WORDS
A friend relayed the story of his childhood. He grew up on a farm in Georgia. When he wasn’t in school, he was working on the farm. He enjoyed some aspects of farming, but it was backbreaking work.
Finally, in his teen years, he told his father that he did not want to do this the rest of his life.
His father, it turned out, had been waiting years to hear those words.
Farming taught him hard work. But it also taught him how NOT to spend his life. There was so much more out there.
He stayed in Georgia, but had a superb sales career.
So what’s wrong with growing up in a small town, or rural area, or a specific neighborhood of a city? Nothing at all. But the kids grow up in an age of equality – everyone is the same and should be treated as such. When they move on to bigger and better things, they have to learn to go for distinction. They must be more accomplished, more cutting edge, to thrive in the new world, as Brooks points out.
This distinction even occurs in higher education. Many universities look to hire professors from the elite schools. Even the graduates they produce are not good enough, Brooks says.
The world demands innovation, collaboration, global thinking. Where one has grown up often thrives on a collective sameness and routine. There is security in sameness. There is tradition in sameness. There is equality in sameness. But for those who want to thrive in the world, change must be the operative word.
There is good news for those who may live in the sameness of “home,” wherever that is. There are many ways for you to prosper without leaving home. To check out one of the best, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. Like the young college grad who needs to move out of his comfort zone into the bigger world, those left at home may have to leap outside their comfort zones. And, it can be done without leaving home.
The moral here is that sameness and equality may not improve the world as it should. Those seeking to see their great potential thrive have to depart their world of sameness and venture out into the world of competition, and, yes, discomfort.
It isn’t to say that they shouldn’t help the folks back home. But, they don’t have to settle for the sameness of their parents’ world. The more people who jump from their comfort zones to find their full potential, the better the world will be. Striving to be equal has far worse consequences than striving to be better.
Peter
BE A GOOD PERSON: SUFFER FOOLS GLADLY
He didn’t suffer fools gladly.
That’s an old expression with biblical origins that is used to describe a person who didn’t tolerate well those who he thought were fools – or at least not as smart, as informed or as well-versed as he.
To many, this is an honorable trait, as New York Times columnist David Brooks points out. But, as Brooks says, good manners permit one to suffer fools gladly.
Manners have gotten a bad rap over the years, just as political correctness has.
Brooks points out that when someone who doesn’t suffer fools gladly humiliates someone, he can look to be the bigger fool.
Let’s take it a step further. Suppose you worked for someone who did not suffer fools gladly. How would you feel when he didn’t show the necessary patience as you were learning your job? Sometimes, the fool you don’t suffer gladly is merely someone who disagrees with you. We’ve seen in Washington, D.C., in recent times, how not suffering fools gladly can actually prevent things from getting done.
Speaking of Washington, D.C., Maureen Dowd, another New York Times columnist, pointed out the differences between President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Biden relishes negotiating deals on Capitol Hill, while the president has little patience for it, Dowd says. Apparently, the president does not suffer fools gladly, if Dowd’s assessment is correct. Biden, on the other hand, loves to.
CONFIDENCE ON THE INSIDE, HUMILITY, GENEROSITY, INTEGRITY OUTSIDE
It’s been said that good people have three characteristics, among many. They have humility, integrity and generosity. Perhaps one can have integrity and not suffer fools gladly. But it would be difficult to be humble and generous, and not suffer fools gladly.
It’s OK to be confident. It’s certainly OK, even desirable, to think well of yourself – on the inside. But being humble means you don’t flaunt that confidence by making others feel less worthy. You do your thing well, and give others credit.
Being generous means that you are blessed to have what you have, and are willing to share with those who may not have what you have. The more you give, the more you get in most situations.
Go back to the employer-employee relationship. A humble, generous employer with integrity is someone everyone would want to work for. He shows patience with the employee when needed. He appreciates the efforts his employees give him. He generously pays for those efforts. He realizes that without those employees, he would not be where he is. Because of his integrity, he always does the right thing, regardless of the effect on him.
He realizes his employees may not know as much as he does, because they are not in position to know. But they are not fools to be suffered.
He is not just being polite, and showing good manners by being humble, generous and having integrity. He’s being a good business person and a great employer. Those characteristics greatly improve his chances of success.
He also believes that his success depends on how much he helps others succeed. If you are a humble, generous person with integrity, and have the desire to help others like you succeed, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. That could be the vehicle to fulfill your dream of helping others, thus helping yourself.
It takes many to make a world. It’s OK to know something that someone else doesn’t know. Just don’t be afraid to share what you know. Share it with humility, integrity and generosity. Suffer “fools” gladly, then give them credit for accomplishments. If you don’t, you could look like the bigger fool.
Peter