"Our goals should serve as markers, measurements of the progress we make in pursuit of something greater than ourselves."

Simon Sinek, inspirational post - June 13th, 2016

***

This goal advice scratched at me. [Perhaps, I was itchy before it arrived?]

While it carries an admirable-altruistic message at its surface, I'm not sure this advice fits the majority of people. Warm & friendly - perhaps. Appropriate & helpful - likely not. 

For me, 'greater than ourselves' rings of fundamentalist thinking. I can imagine Nietzsche fuming at the thought. I can imagine a pained expression on Emerson's kind face. I can imagine fundamentalists rubbing their hands. 

The message scratched at me for two quite different reasons, which I will approach as follows:

First, as a general rule - life is an ongoing learning experience. Certainly, this applies to people who possess normal intelligence and at least a little curiosity. For those who also possess a realistic perspective and at least a little humility, much of the lifelong learning is about self. Each person is a complex piece of art, worthy of relentless study. With the self being a lifelong work-in-process, doesn't it make sense to set goals for greater selves rather than goals for greater than selves? For those who argue they have completed their self-development and are as great as they can be...well Nietzsche would argue these elite few would be stepping backwards to find purposes beyond their own.

Second, isn't 'greater then ourselves' a strange phrase? I mean, really, what does it mean? Is it intended to imply there are goals/interests that are greater in value than our own goals? If so, are these great goals/interests distinct from our own goals/interests? Is it even possible to pursue any goal/interest without serving self-interest at some level? Can we pay forward without receiving some level of gratification/personal compensation? Now, I am thinking of the great Emerson and his discourse on Compensation. Won't we have to set the wisdom of Emerson aside if we wish to have goals 'greater than ourselves'?

In recent conversations, it became clear to me that many people believe other people favour taking action over thinking about strategy. This viewpoint has been expressed as a criticism: the underlying argument being - people should spend more time thinking about strategy. 

Why?

Here’s one reason: People who strategize tend to take decisive and that ‘forethought’ combination promotes accurately-aimed action. So, strategy is the seedbed where both effectiveness and efficiency have the opportunity to grow.

Abe Lincoln knew this. He said, "Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe."

Regardless of the merits of strategic thinking, many people choose to take action over thinking about strategy. 

Why?

Before getting into the possibilities, “Why” is important because - if progressive changes are to be made, leaders must understand the ‘motivations’ behind people’s behavior. 

Obstinate-to-change behaviour is rooted in emotions. 

In the business environment, often, obstinate-to-change behaviour is rooted in negative emotions…fear-based emotions.

So, to understand what needs to be done to change behaviour it is essential to understand the underlying fears. 

I have found Napoleon Hill’s summary of fears to be the most helpful starting point for understanding fears. In his classic ‘Think and Grow Rich’ (first published in 1937), Hill defined the following 6 basic fears:

1. Fear of Poverty
2. Fear of Criticism
3. Fear of Ill Health
4. Fear of Loss of Love
5. Fear of Old Age
6. Fear of Death

What do you think? 

In business, which of these fears would cause a person to resist strategic thinking?

Strikes me that the first two – Fear of Poverty and Fear of Criticism – are the likely root causes. Both these fears are most-common: that’s why they are at the top of Hill’s list. Obviously, it will take some forethought and sensitivity in order to explore these limiting-fears. The effort will be well rewarded.

Some people believe I get too bogged down or is it tied up in words. Writing too much. Going into too much detail. Being too nitpicky about definitions.

No, probably that's not right. I probably should have said, most people think I get too bogged down/tied up in words.

I agree. What a shortcoming. I mean - considering my goal is to help people obtain their business goals, it would be tremendous if most people were saying, Wow - this fellow sure packages his messages well! 

Clear.

Crisp.

Delivering accurate, quick & easy wisdom.

***

So - I've set a new challenge: I must learn to package my messages in ways that appeal to folks who want quick-reading/easy-reading and of course valuable messages. As I write this, I'm thinking fondly about Plucky & Pithy...a post from 2010 and Plucky & Pithy #2 a post from 2012.

***

People are adapting their reading: to address that, I should boil everyting down to bullet points, 3 at most:

• I get it. Just deliver a stitch in quick time, don't deliver nine.
• I get it. Too much cooking spoils the broth.
• I get it. This also applies to bakers: too much baking spoils the cake.

***

But, what about the common practice of setting company values, barely defining them, and missing the fact personal values are intimately linked with personal rules:

• How do I ignore that?
• How do I ease off on defining values?
• How do I ease off on explaining the power of deep-set rules reflecting deep-set personal values?

(Changing current habits is going to take some work and some time.)

***

As I work at Plucky & Pithy

Perhaps, the people who cannot live with details can offer helpful advice...

(And I'm OK if their advice is detailed.)