GIVETTING

Giving is good, and there is nothing wrong with getting but givetting is better. Giving and getting are primarily one-sided. Givetting involves a mutually beneficial transaction in which both parties give to and get from the other party. Someone who gives to or gets from someone else is primarily concerned with his own needs. He either meets his need to give or his need to get. Someone who givets is concerned equally with what he gives and with what he gets. This is not the same as quid pro quo. In that type of transaction, each party gives only to get. In a givet transaction, both parties give and get because their interests in self and their interests in others are in balance. This does not require that both parties receive something of equal value. It only requires that both parties have mutual satisfaction as their primary concern.

Balance is an important attribute of all transactions. Giving and getting are no exception. The underlying problem with both of these types of transactions is that they are out of balance. Because giving and getting are fundamental aspects of almost all human transactions, the unbalanced nature of all gets and almost all gives has had a profoundly negative impact on the human condition. If I could change “just” one aspect of the human condition, it would be in the conceptualization and practice of giving and getting.

The primary problem with getting is that it is fundamentally a selfish act. When I need or want something, I think about how I can get it. Then I do what I must do to get it. If what I need or want is freely available (as everything was in the proverbial Garden of Eden), this is not a problem. I simply take it, and no one else is affected by my act of getting.

Since I do not live in the Garden of Eden, very little of what I need or want is freely available. Almost everything I need or want is owned or controlled by someone else. When this is the case, I can either take the object with no consideration for the other party or I can attempt to entice the other party to give it to me by offering something to him or her. Society has recognized the destructive impact the first course of conduct has on its functioning and has negatively sanctioned most acts of taking that do not provide consideration of the other party. These sanctions apply to stealing and rape, for example. Other forms of taking without consideration for the other party may be frowned on by society but are not formally sanctioned negatively. For example, members of society may frown on embarrassing another person for one’s self-aggrandizement, but society does not negatively sanction in a formal way this type of inconsiderate taking.

The second form of taking, taking by enticing the other party with a consideration, is the basic structure of almost all human transactions. Every act of purchasing an object or a service follows this approach. Similarly, every act of selling an object or a service follows this approach. (Selling an object or a service in exchange for money or giving money in exchange for an object or service are fundamentally the same from this perspective. Both are forms of taking with a consideration.) An act of seduction, whatever the object of the seduction may be, also follows this pattern. Offering compliments, attention, meals, etc. in exchange for affection or sexual favors is a form of taking in exchange for a consideration.

The primary problem with taking with a consideration is that the other party to the transaction is not really considered except as a means to getting what I want. Whether or not the other party is fully satisfied after the transaction is no concern of mine when I take for a consideration. I am only concerned with convincing the person to give me what I want, not with being satisfied with what I give. Taking with consideration, while highly preferable to taking without consideration, still falls far short of a balanced transaction.

A true act of giving occurs when a person gives to another with little, if any, concern for self. (When a person gives in order to get, this is really a form of taking as described above.) At first blush, the act of selfless giving appears to be highly commendable. In practice, it may be when the giver is a responsible, healthy adult whose concern for others is so strong that he chooses, at times, to give to others based primarily on his concern for them.

While healthy selfless giving is highly commendable, it is so rarely practiced. Many religions attempt to encourage their adherents to practice healthy selfless giving. Frequently they do this by relating stories of great people from the past who excelled in this activity. No doubt, these ancient saints and their contemporary counterparts have done and continue to do much good for humankind. Based on history, the likelihood that this type of activity will become more widely practiced is very low.

Worse, still, many of the people who give selflessly do so due to a very poor self-image. Selfless giving of this type is very self-destructive. A woman who cannot say no to others even when their demands are totally selfish and imbalanced, for example, may practice selfless giving, but few (other than exceptionally selfish people) would find this behavior commendable. People who practice this form of selfless giving need our help to develop self-respect and to learn to give less selflessly.

Balance in each giving and getting transaction must start with the realization that both parties to the transaction can give and get simultaneously. Each person can give to the other a consideration not to entice or seduce the other but to meet the need or want of the other. Similarly, each person can get from the other a consideration that meets his or her want or need. The mutuality of benefit is the basis of the inherent balance of this type of transaction. Each party to the transaction is concerned with what the other party gets just as each party to the transaction is concerned about what the other party gives. This mutuality of benefit is neither selfish (I am concerned with what the other party gets) nor selfless (I am also concerned about what I get.)

This balanced type of transaction is a give and a get, a givet, for each of the parties. Givetting results in mutual satisfaction and appreciation. Everyone wins! The key here is that each party understands that the likelihood that both parties will get everything that they need or want is low. At the same time, each party understands that the best result is that both parties get enough to be satisfied with the transaction. A mutual win with mutual satisfaction requires mutual concern and mutual compromise. Givetting requires a lot of its practitioners. To me, the effort is more than worthwhile.

LEADERSHIP

I know that I am an effective leader when I have nothing to do.

I am usually very busy. Sometimes I am less busy. Occasionally I have nothing to do. I suspect that I am an effective leader when I am very busy and when I am less busy. I know that I am an effective leader when I have nothing to do.

There are always activities that I can do even when I have nothing to do. I can visit group homes, or outpatient clinics, or schools, or other locations where we deliver services, observe what is happening, and talk with employees and customers. I can talk on the telephone and ask managers about what is happening in their programs. If I am really desperate to find something to do, I can always read any of the many books, journals, articles, and advertisements that I receive on a daily basis. None of these activities is particularly pressing, but they can be very enlightening and even productive. At the very least, I can learn more about what is happening in my organization as well as in others. On occasion, they help me identify a potential problem before it does any significant damage. Preventing problems is always better than responding to them.

Even though there are activities that I can do productively when I have nothing pressing to do, I consider this state “nothing to do.” At these times, I can safely become fully involved in other interests without compromising the high quality that my business has attained.

Paradoxically, I consider a status of “nothing to do” to be a high point in my career. This is not because I get to “play hooky” from work. It is because having nothing pressing to do is an indication that I have successfully delegated all responsibilities that I can reasonably delegate. As an entrepreneurial leader, I believe that I should delegate all responsibilities other than thinking of new business opportunities and starting new businesses. When I have nothing pressing to do with my existing businesses, I have the opportunity to work on these two key entrepreneurial activities. I can do this without fear because having nothing to do indicates to me that my organization is functioning smoothly, effectively, and independently under the day-to-day leadership of the people who report directly to me. To me, the ultimate goal of all leadership is to bring the organizational that is being lead to this state of affairs.

FEELINGS

Western man sublimates his feelings in an attempt to decide objectively. Integrated man decides objectively by experiencing his feelings and thoughts harmoniously.

The hero who never loses his cool under fire is one of the revered archetypes in Western novels and films. This hero frequently seems oblivious to his own feelings that are totally “bottled up” or deeply repressed in Freudian terms. He never cried as a child, and accepts his fate stoically. He may be an exceptional poker player (literally as well as figuratively) who never reveals his hand (or the feelings he has) through his facial expression or otherwise. He plays hard, fights hard, and always wins the heroine’s heart through his boyish charm and good looks.

I have never met any real heroes, at least as popularly defined, so I cannot comment definitively on the accuracy of this characterization. I strongly disagree, however, with the underlying message that is conveyed by this archetype and in many other ways in Western culture: Good decision-making in difficult situations requires nerves of steel. Feelings must be suppressed to arrive at the best decision.

There are exceptional times when there is an element of truth to this belief. In an emergency, action must be taken immediately. There is no time to experience feelings, and responses must be automatic. A surgeon confronted with a major “bleed” during surgery needs to stop the bleeding, not reflect on his feelings about the bleed. These emergencies are actually much less frequent than most people recognize. When confronted with a serious problem, many people believe that they must act quickly and decisively. This is true only when pausing to reflect on the problem results in unacceptable danger or damage. It usually is preferable to pause even if a small amount of additional danger or damage must be tolerated during the pause.

While pausing to reflect on the problem, reflection on the emotions that the problem arouses is frequently an important part of putting the problem into the proper perspective. We must recognize that problem solving starts with problem defining, and that problem defining can be clouded by the emotions aroused by the problem. When we recognize these emotions and accept them as legitimate parts of our humanity, we maximize the probability that we will frame the problem effectively and arrive at the best decision. Effective problem solving in most cases does not require nerves of steel. It requires acceptance of our humanity and limitations. This includes acceptance of our emotions and their impact on our decision-making.

Emotions that are repressed distort our perception of problems. Emotions that are acknowledged and accepted can be evaluated and factored into problem definition and problem solving.

RELIGION

A white shirt is not an indication of clean hands. Religion is not about looking good. It is about being good. Religion does not make bad people good. It makes good people better.

Jacob was the final of the three patriarchs of the Children of Israel. Traditionally, he is considered the paradigm of ethical behavior. His name in ancient Hebrew, however, means trickster. Jacob’s protagonist through much of his adult life was Laban. Traditionally, Laban is considered the paradigm of deceitful behavior. His name in ancient Hebrew, however, means white which is normally associated with purity. Is this merely a biblical oddity? I do not think so. Appearances and reality frequently do not coincide. What appears to be pure may not be and vice versa.

Most people judge others based upon brief, superficial observations. Frequently, people do not take the time to adjust their proverbial first impressions. People like Laban take advantage of this by dressing and acting in a way that communicates, at least superficially, their goodness. Laban, no doubt, dressed in the ancient local equivalent of a beautiful Italian suit with a crisp white shirt and a beautiful silk tie. People who knew him superficially saw him as a successful and honest businessman. All of his statements as quoted in Genesis supported the purity of his intentions and actions. Below the surface, he was a man very different than he appeared to be.

Jacob, in contrast, always seemed to be involved in conflict with others. People who knew him only superficially saw a man who could not stay out of trouble. He fought with his older brother Esau, his father-in-law Laban, with the people of Shechem, with the world. He seemed to be a troublemaker. People who knew Jacob, who took the time to look beyond the superficial and below the surface, knew him to be a peace-loving man who was dedicated to the highest level of integrity.

Religion throughout the ages has stressed conformity to standards of behavior. Conformity to standards of behavior frequently leads to adoption of the values upon which these standards are based. This assumption is supported by the empirically supported psychological theory of “cognitive dissonance.” This theory, in part, postulates that external behavior has a significant influence on internal beliefs. Sometimes people do what they believe is right. More frequently, people believe that what they do is right. By motivating people to conform to behavioral standards, religion attempts to have a positive influence on beliefs which in turn should lead to more positive behavior.

We must not confuse, however, the behaviors that we observe with the totality of a person’s behaviors. Some people act publicly in a manner that conforms to religious standards because they want others to see them as good people. Public religious behavior is not always a good indication of private behavior.

This is not an indictment of religion. It is recognition of human frailties. Nor does this observation support the lack of need for religion. Secular humanism can be abused at least as much as any other religion by evil people who want to appear to be good as they exploit others. The ultimate example of this was the vast amount of exploitation, particularly of women, that accompanied the free love movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

This is an indictment of making decisions based on superficial observations. It is also an indictment of evil people who use looking good as a tool to cover up doing bad.

SUCCESS

The difference between people who are successful and people who are not successful is not measured by the number of times they fall. The difference is measured by the number of times they get up.

People who are successful fall more frequently than people who are not successful. They also fall farther and harder. Falling so frequently, so far, and so hard is not what makes them successful. It is a by-product of trying many potential ways to succeed, including ways that have great risk.

People who are successful anticipate that they will fall. They also know that falling hurts. They may interpret a fall as a failure, and they may even become angry or depressed over the failure, but they do not see failure as reflective of who they are. The recognition that “I have failed” is dramatically different than the conclusion that “I am a failure.” Successful people never conclude that they are failures even if they may have their moments of doubt.

Saying, “I am a failure” implies that you are not capable of growth and development. Thirty years of working with children and adults with the most serious and complex challenges has taught me many lessons. Perhaps the most important lesson I have learned is that everyone is able to grow and develop. An individual may have failed from time to time in the past. An individual may have failed almost continuously in the past. An individual may have failed spectacularly in the past. It is still inaccurate and unproductive for him to say, “I am a failure.”

People who are successful know that people are not static rocks. We are dynamic beings. We cannot stand still. We may be moving upward, downward, or around in circles, but we are always moving. “I am a success” is just as false as “I am a failure” because I cannot rest on my laurels very long without starting to move downward.

Today is full of opportunities. In many ways, a person who has experienced recent successes has more opportunities than a person who has experienced recent failures. Each success that I experience provides more opportunities to challenge me. Nevertheless, even a person with very few, if any, recent successes has many opportunities to grow and develop.

In at least one very important way, a person who has experienced many recent failures has more opportunities than a person who has recently been successful. A person who has experienced many recent failures has more areas to improve. Each of these areas presents many important challenges.
Pick a challenge, any challenge. Take one step toward achieving it. You have just experienced success. Take one more step, and another, and another … Whoops, you fell. Get up. You have just experienced success. Take one more step, and another, and another…