HUMBLE

I have never understood how being honored in public can be a humbling experience.

I have attended more than my fair share of dinners that honor people for making a large financial contribution to a charity or public institution. Frequently, in responding to the praise heaped upon the person during the event, the honoree notes that he “is humbled by the experience” of being honored. I have always wondered what that means.

The word “humble” as an adjective as in, “He is humble,” means “meek.” Do these fabulously wealthy individuals really want us to believe that their response to being profusely praised is “meekness”? Maybe they do, but I do not buy this for a moment.

Humble as a verb as in, “He was humbled by the experience,” means “humiliated.” I find it even less likely that these wealthy people feel humiliated by all the lavish praise.

The word humble is derived from the Latin word that means “ground.” In a sense, humble means to feel no more valuable than the ground we walk on. When the patriarch Abraham spoke to the Almighty, no doubt a very humbling experience, he commented, “I am earth and ashes.” In the presence of the Almighty, we all would feel very meek.

Interestingly, the Hebrew word for man, Adam, is derived from the Hebrew word meaning ground. According to the book of Genesis, this is because the Almighty created man out of earth, and as we all know we all return to the earth when our time is complete. The message seems to be clear: We should not think too much of ourselves. Humility is always in order.

While humility is always in order, there may be another lesson to be learned from the Hebrew word Adam. The angels are very holy creatures created by the Almighty to perform in His service. They are created holy and act in holy ways during their entire existence. They act the way they act because the Almighty did not give them any choice. They do what the Almighty created them to do and only what the Almighty created them to do.

Man’s origins are much more humble. Nevertheless, the Almighty gave us choice. We can choose to follow our earthy natures and indulge ourselves with little regard for others or for the Almighty’s wishes. Alternatively, we can choose to make the world a better place, each in our own way. When we do, we fly very high, much higher than the angels. Our humble origins and our humble destiny enhance the greatness of our achievements while we are alive.

Humility is always in order. So is striving for greatness. The Hebrew word Adam teaches us that we are capable of being humble and still strive for greatness. No doubt, this synthesis of humility and greatness is very difficult to achieve. It must still be the ultimate goal for each of us.

OPPOSITIONAL VS. CONTRARIAN

Doing the opposite of what others do is not the same as analyzing situations in a contrarian manner to arrive at more effective alternative responses.

In the past, when I encountered oppositional people I was very happy. I believed that I shared much in common with these people. I, too, frequently respond to situations in contrarian ways that other people find startling.

Over the years, I have revised my feelings in this regard. True, I respond to many situations in unique ways. In some respects, this is very similar to the ways that oppositional people respond. But being oppositional and being contrarian are polar opposites in a critical way.

People who are oppositional behave the way they do to be different. The effectiveness of the response is not critical. As long as it is opposite of the expected, oppositional people are comfortable with the response. In many cases, oppositional people respond in ways that are less effective or even disastrous just to be different.

I do not want to be different. I am different! One way that I am different is that I continuously evaluate and re-evaluate both common and unusual situations in an attempt to arrive at more effective responses. If I do not find a more effective response, I am perfectly happy to respond in the same way that most other people respond to a particular set of circumstances. Yet, I am never satisfied that the commonly accepted response is the best possible response. There are always alternative ways of responding. Can I look at a set of circumstances from a different perspective and arrive at a more effective response? I am always trying to do this.

I encourage people to experiment with alternative perspectives. I encourage people to try alternative responses in an effort to find more effective responses. This is contrarian and makes us different. It does not make us oppositional.

FORCE

I tried to force people to be independent until I realized that people who are dependent on force are not independent.

As a young entrepreneur, I thought about power a lot. To me, power seemed to be very powerful. People, who had it, got what they wanted. I wanted a lot as a young entrepreneur, and I was convinced that I needed to acquire a lot of power to get what I wanted.

My interest in the subject peaked when I heard a very powerful community leader deliver a lecture on the nature of power from the viewpoint of Prince Machiavelli, the famous 17th Century Italian nobleman who introduced the world to the notion that “power corrupts.” If power corrupts as Prince Machiavelli suggested, did I really want to be powerful, I wondered. I wanted to achieve a lot, but I also wanted to maintain my integrity. Can power and integrity co-exist?

I thought about this question for a very long time, and I have concluded that the answer is “yes,” but only if power is defined in a particular way.

To most people -- including me as a young entrepreneur -- power is the ability to force others to do what I want. This is the power of kings and others in similar positions. Kings command, and subjects comply. If subjects do not comply, they are severely punished. Prince Machiavelli suggested convincingly that this type of power, even in the hands of a person who initially has good intentions, leads inevitably to corruption.

But is this the only type of power? For a long time, I could not conceive of any other. As I grew more experienced as a consultant and as I learned more about person-centered planning and other innovative strategies in my field, I began to realize that there is another type of power. As I used this other type of power more frequently and effectively, I concluded that it is even more powerful than the more common type of power held by kings and other tyrants.

The power to influence is very different from the power to force. The power to force relies on people’s fear of punishment. As long as the people over whom I want to exert power believe that I can and will punish them, they will do what I want. If they believe that they can avoid punishment by avoiding detection of their rebellious actions or through some other means, they will do what they want, not what I want.

The power to influence is not based on my ability to punish others. Instead, it is based on others wanting to comply with the suggestions, advice, counsel, etc. of someone they respect. This respect may be based on many individual factors or on a combination of many factors. If my suggestions, advice, counsel, etc. in the past have proven to be valuable, this history of providing valuable insights may be the basis of the respect. If I am a person who is seen as particularly successful, my success may be the basis of the respect. Regardless of why I am respected, others may choose to do what I want them to do not out of fear, but because they believe that what I want and what they want are fully, or at least reasonably, congruent.

When I have the power to influence, I need not show how powerful I am. My power does not stem from displays of power. It stems from being respected as a good source of suggestions, advice, counsel, etc. When I have the power to influence, my power is not limited to circumstances where I have the ability to punish or the ability to do anything at all. My power stems from the fact that others choose to listen and consider what I have to say, what I have said in the past, and how I have acted in the past. They can and will choose to do what I want whether or not I am present and whether or not I will know or care about what they do. Alternatively, they will choose to do something that is very different from what I want but that still is congruent with the values that I have influenced them to respect. In a very real sense, when people who respect me choose to reject what I have suggested and implement some other approach that is congruent with the values I have influenced them to respect, they are doing what I suggested. My suggestions as a powerful, influential person are not commands that need to be followed to the letter. They truly are suggestions. If my suggestions are rejected but trigger creative thinking that results in alternative solutions that are better than my suggested solutions, this also is a sign of my power to influence.

I do not want to influence you to do what I want you to do. I want to influence you to implement the most effective solution that is congruent with the high ethical standards that I value.

I do not want you to do what I suggest. I want you to do what is right.

STAFF

The primary distinction between staff members and consumers in our organization is that staff members are paid for their organizational activities.

Each individual who is part of our organization is responsible to support other people in our organization. This is because all people are responsible to support other people. The responsibility to support other people is part of the human condition. We are all responsible to support each other.

Once we accept this fundamental human responsibility, distinguishing between people called staff members and people called consumers becomes difficult. The “obvious” difference is no longer obvious. Worse still, it is false. Staff members cannot be people who support consumers and consumers cannot be people who are supported by staff members. Both are responsible to support each other. Additionally, consumers are responsible to support other consumers and staff members are responsible to support other staff members. Support flows from person to person in our organization regardless of title.

If we analyze the situation more deeply, we must conclude that the responsibility that consumers have to support others in our organization is actually broader than the responsibility of staff members to support others in our organization. Each consumer’s responsibility is unlimited; he is responsible to support any other person within our organization (actually any other person in the universe). Each staff member is responsible primarily to support those consumers who are assigned to him. To the extent that supporting people not part of his “caseload” interferes with his work assignment, a staff member is not permitted to support those other people. Are we to conclude that a consumer is someone with unlimited responsibility to support others in our organization while a staff member is someone with a more narrow responsibility in this regard? This cannot be!

In law, there is a significant difference between the obligation of staff members to support people who are part of their caseloads and the responsibility of all people to support other people. Because staff members are paid to support consumers who are part of their caseloads, they have a legal obligation to fulfill their responsibilities. People who are not paid to support others do not have this legal obligation.

While the legal obligation that staff members have to support members of their caseloads is very important under certain circumstances, on a daily basis it should have little impact on how people support people within our organization. We expect staff members to support consumers and we expect consumers to support staff members. We resort to applying the law only when staff members are not performing their responsibilities appropriately. Thankfully, this is relatively rare. Most of the time, it is not an active issue. Are we to conclude that the primary difference between staff members and consumers can only be observed when a staff member does not perform his obligations appropriately? This too cannot be!

When all is said and done, the primary difference between staff members and consumers in our organization is that staff members receive pay for their organizational responsibilities while consumers do not. All other differences stem from this fact and are subordinate to it.

Should we pay consumers when they provide support to other consumers just like we pay staff members? The answer, of course, is that when consumers assume the legal obligation to support other consumers they become staff members and they are paid for performing their legal obligations. This happens in a variety of programs including our peer support program. When a consumer assumes the legal obligations of a staff member, he stops being a consumer and starts being a staff member, at least during on-duty hours. This, of course, is no different than other staff members who are staff when they are on-duty and not staff when they are off-duty. (I should point out that all staff, including staff members who are also consumers, have certain legal obligations toward consumers even when they are off-duty.)

We must also recognize that many staff members are consumers of mental health supports. The fact that these staff members receive their mental supports from professionals not associated with our organization does not change the underlying fact that mental health challenges are experienced by people within our organization even when they do not have the title of consumer. This too blurs the distinction between staff members and consumers within our organization.

The more we analyze the situation, the smaller the differences between staff members and consumers seem. I believe that one day these differences may become so small that they will cease being an important consideration. When we reach that point, it will become self-evident that there never should have been two “classes” of people within our organization: staff members and consumers. Instead, we always should have referred to people who are part of our organization by one title only. (I do not know what that title should be, but I have been thinking about it for some time.) Alternatively, we may determine that people do not need any titles at all, and we can refer to each other in the most natural way, by our names.

We clearly are not yet ready to abandon the distinction between staff members and consumers within our organization. I do not have any idea when or even if we ever will be ready to do this. Until that time, we must continue to strive to support each other to the absolute best of our individual and collective abilities.

We all need support from each other. We all are responsible to support each other. We all are people.