Recently, scientists and medical doctors have retracted some well-intentioned advice that has been shared for years with faithful audiences in search of the key to maintaining healthy lifestyles. The myth being debunked? The idea that power-packed multi-vitamins are desirable and helpful in providing the body with what was necessary to give our bodies a boost in staying healthy. With all of the talk about it being a "good thing" to get more vitamins into our systems, it seems that, according to some researchers, too much of certain vitamins are not only excreted from the body as excess waste, but have even been proven to be detrimental to one's health. In other words, the very "good thing" that was supposed to have been okay to get more of - because it was "good" - could be taken at a level that causes problems.
Most instances, where we speak with regards to too much of a good thing, we are usually referring to things that bring us pleasure - like cakes, Hostess snack cakes, candy corn, coffee, chocolate, in general. We even resort to using this adage when the recreational marijuana user finds that he or she needs the next fix a bit more desperately than the last time. And this, in fact, lended more significance to the findings: Because, unlike in the case of things we like doing, or eating, or seeing, vitamins and vegetables are considered necessary evils that we partake in out of obligation -- and usually not much more than that. How could this be? A finding like such could shake the very foundation of the argument that parents used to make us eat our vegetables, or take the steps instead of the elevator, in order to stay healthy.
So this got me to thinking: Do lessons like this actually also exist in business or in one's career development? The answer: a resounding "yes!" One can have too many rules (we call this too much red tape); or too many folks in management while not enough among the ranks (we refer this to having too many chiefs, not enough Indians, or having too many cooks in the kitchen). There can be a surplus of resources (overstocked) or too much products (poor sales performance); and so many other instances exist where, for all our best efforts, excess can create the very problems we've tried to avoid in the first place.
The irony of it all is that often many of the excesses in business occur when someone has over thought a situation: ordered too much, projected sales that were unfounded, or underestimated the impact of some factor on the economy. By far, however, one could assert that the most damage can be done when one spends more time planning than doing (i.e., the proverbial meetings to plan meetings). The point at which one stunts his or her own progress because of the energies that are spent in preparing to do a thing is the point at which one must determine that there is an inefficiency that has been created. And in most cases, at this point, it has become systemic in nature. Once an inefficiency has been detected, human nature is usually pretty dependable in working at correcting for it - or as we call it, troubleshooting the system. The hardest part, however, is the act of identifying a deficiency and resisting the urge to create a committee to attend to the task of figuring out where the problem is taking place. For my part, history has faithfully found that successful recovery from such inefficiencies has occurred when the organization or entity resorted to good ol' fashioned strategic measures or troubleshooting - quick, on-the-spot thinking. Nine times out of ten, it is out of moments like these that true leaders emerge, rising to the occasion to show his or her business prowess.
So something is still to be said for good old fashioned innovation and creativity. The moral of this message: Anticipate what you can, but at the end of the day, trust your instincts. In all likelihood, they are what have taken you as far along in your career as you are (especially if you have enjoyed any degree of "success" at what you do). With the workplace proving to evolve at such monumental paces, learn to embrace your adaptability to a variety of situations. At the end of the day, the two main virtues that the workplace can never get too much of are innovation and adaptability (the ability to change according to the situation).
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Artificial Stimulants
We've probably all heard about the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that of workers aged 18-44, the 21st century employee is likely to change jobs an average of 11 times during their lifetime. If you haven't, it probably doesn't take too much of a stretch of imagination to guess as much given the general unrest and low job satisfaction we witness personally on a daily basis in the workplace. In fact, we very well may be contributing to that calculation.
While these changes, or "shifts in gear," may be attributed on an individual basis to a number of different causes, the impact is the same: a person leaves one situation and moves on to another, desperately hoping that the change will be "better" for them. And what criteria do we use when assessing if a situation is "better" or not? Most studies will show that people associate the following attributes with job satisfaction: a job they like, that holds their interest (variety of tasks), and contributes in a meaningful way to the overall mission of the organization; has a good work environment (both in the physical workspace, and in terms of location and vicinity with respect to being convenient to means of transportation to and from their place of business); presence of a fair, and competent boss; having convenient work hours and reasonable expectations.
Last but certainly not least, people want to know about pay and opportunities for advancement. We, after all, do want to have our cake and to eat it too -- not to mention that slice of American apple pie that says if we work hard enough we can have/achieve anything we want, including the big house with the white picket fence, two car garages, the ability to pay for our children's college educations, etc.
But how much of this ever really materializes these days - at least, on the terms that we feel it should take place? We expect to be employed under the ideal work conditions, having all criteria satisfied: our interests' constantly stimulated, our egos continuously stroked, our wallets always content and growing (I know, tall order there), and our sense of purpose never in doubt. All this we expect, however, in addition to an expectation to be able to go home at the end of a reasonable work day to enjoy the presence of our family and loved ones, and engage in some of the more enjoyable hobbies of life (being able to take family vacations, going fishing, throwing incredible parties that are just "the talk of the town"). It takes us then a bit by surprise when economics (supply and demand) actually influences what our pay rate will be (not exactly to our liking), the long hours or the lay-offs that impact us, and the fact that no one tells us that the company's administration has one or two maniac depressives at the helm who are apparently off of their medication for prolonged periods of time.
The other day my eyebrows were raised by reading the title of an article on the front page of Newsweek magazine, "Is College a Lousy Investment?" Now, it is not as though every working individual doesn't periodically ask themselves the self-same question when glancing at their pay stub or checking their balance online on payday. It's just that to me this signaled a change in overall view with regard to exactly how much value we now placed on a paper which we previously felt was so important to acquire. And we felt comfortable enough about it to talk about it publicly.
But this is not the focus of this particular entry. I can't quantify the value of your degree or certificate or educational investments, as a whole. I can't ascertain if it was actually worth it for you to pursue - or to choose not to - pursue that higher degree, because that, indeed, for all the statistics we can quote, is still an individual choice and his or her prerogative. What I can say is that in the workplace, regardless of our educational preparedness with relation to our specific job profile, we are still expected to perform some sort of function to some level of proficiency. And this is where it gets dicey.
Another changing of the parameters: I will not speak on whether or not one should pursue training after getting the job to help them to do it better, or more proficiently. No, my focus is on the motivation side of things (yes, for you critics out there, I punked out).What do you do when you are unchallenged, or bored out of your mind with the monotony of the tasks you are responsible for? Do you ignore the fact that you're bored? (You dare not tell your boss you're bored out of your mind unless you know for certain that there is promotion territory in clear view - and closer than just on the horizon.) In fact, we usually just grin and bear it - until we move on to the next job. But what should we do.
I'm just old-fashioned I guess in that I believe that one of the most important ingredients to making a successful work environment is an individual's willingness to motivate his or her self unprompted by the powers-that-be. So that may, in fact, mean that some extra training is in order, or taking a class or two a year in the degree area closest to your actual job (if you have the time in your personal life for it) might be in order. However, it may just be that you need to find a creative nook in your daily work.
Yes, it is just that simple. So long as it is not illegal, you just may need to self-prescribe an activity that challenges you to do something that engages another part of your brain other than the dominant one that you use all of the time. Some people choose to do puzzles; others set up chess competitions during lunch hours; others' pastime include acquiring witty or funny cartoons and quotes and posting them in a common break room. (Notice I didn't talk about baking or cooking because that can really be a little touchy since you could be seen as contributing to added weight gain by your colleagues, hence encouraging a love-hate relationship: they'll love you for bringing in that sock-it-to-me cake (so moist and decadent); they'll hate you however when they are privately trading the number of pounds they've put on (and how you don't seem to put on an ounce) and are now no longer able to fit into their favorite slacks at work without causing quite a stir.
Don't be that person. (Smile. :)) Finding ways to express yourself creatively is essential to satisfying our need for stimulation, and motivation. Unfortunately, not enough workplace environments have paid attention to the great labor and management theorists who warned that motivation - even beyond physical capacity for productivity - is critical to having and maintaining a superior workforce. However, just because we are not motivated does not mean that we need to through the source of our "bread-and-butter" away altogether. Sometimes, as workers, our challenge is to still occupy the role that early modern day workers had to, which was to contribute/invest in our own contentment and happiness. It was this human component within the work environment that made it feel like a "family."
So ask yourself if you are doing "contentment and happiness." If not, you could be missing out on a large part of a more fulfilled life. I wish you Happy Motivations.
While these changes, or "shifts in gear," may be attributed on an individual basis to a number of different causes, the impact is the same: a person leaves one situation and moves on to another, desperately hoping that the change will be "better" for them. And what criteria do we use when assessing if a situation is "better" or not? Most studies will show that people associate the following attributes with job satisfaction: a job they like, that holds their interest (variety of tasks), and contributes in a meaningful way to the overall mission of the organization; has a good work environment (both in the physical workspace, and in terms of location and vicinity with respect to being convenient to means of transportation to and from their place of business); presence of a fair, and competent boss; having convenient work hours and reasonable expectations.
Last but certainly not least, people want to know about pay and opportunities for advancement. We, after all, do want to have our cake and to eat it too -- not to mention that slice of American apple pie that says if we work hard enough we can have/achieve anything we want, including the big house with the white picket fence, two car garages, the ability to pay for our children's college educations, etc.
But how much of this ever really materializes these days - at least, on the terms that we feel it should take place? We expect to be employed under the ideal work conditions, having all criteria satisfied: our interests' constantly stimulated, our egos continuously stroked, our wallets always content and growing (I know, tall order there), and our sense of purpose never in doubt. All this we expect, however, in addition to an expectation to be able to go home at the end of a reasonable work day to enjoy the presence of our family and loved ones, and engage in some of the more enjoyable hobbies of life (being able to take family vacations, going fishing, throwing incredible parties that are just "the talk of the town"). It takes us then a bit by surprise when economics (supply and demand) actually influences what our pay rate will be (not exactly to our liking), the long hours or the lay-offs that impact us, and the fact that no one tells us that the company's administration has one or two maniac depressives at the helm who are apparently off of their medication for prolonged periods of time.
The other day my eyebrows were raised by reading the title of an article on the front page of Newsweek magazine, "Is College a Lousy Investment?" Now, it is not as though every working individual doesn't periodically ask themselves the self-same question when glancing at their pay stub or checking their balance online on payday. It's just that to me this signaled a change in overall view with regard to exactly how much value we now placed on a paper which we previously felt was so important to acquire. And we felt comfortable enough about it to talk about it publicly.
But this is not the focus of this particular entry. I can't quantify the value of your degree or certificate or educational investments, as a whole. I can't ascertain if it was actually worth it for you to pursue - or to choose not to - pursue that higher degree, because that, indeed, for all the statistics we can quote, is still an individual choice and his or her prerogative. What I can say is that in the workplace, regardless of our educational preparedness with relation to our specific job profile, we are still expected to perform some sort of function to some level of proficiency. And this is where it gets dicey.
Another changing of the parameters: I will not speak on whether or not one should pursue training after getting the job to help them to do it better, or more proficiently. No, my focus is on the motivation side of things (yes, for you critics out there, I punked out).What do you do when you are unchallenged, or bored out of your mind with the monotony of the tasks you are responsible for? Do you ignore the fact that you're bored? (You dare not tell your boss you're bored out of your mind unless you know for certain that there is promotion territory in clear view - and closer than just on the horizon.) In fact, we usually just grin and bear it - until we move on to the next job. But what should we do.
I'm just old-fashioned I guess in that I believe that one of the most important ingredients to making a successful work environment is an individual's willingness to motivate his or her self unprompted by the powers-that-be. So that may, in fact, mean that some extra training is in order, or taking a class or two a year in the degree area closest to your actual job (if you have the time in your personal life for it) might be in order. However, it may just be that you need to find a creative nook in your daily work.
Yes, it is just that simple. So long as it is not illegal, you just may need to self-prescribe an activity that challenges you to do something that engages another part of your brain other than the dominant one that you use all of the time. Some people choose to do puzzles; others set up chess competitions during lunch hours; others' pastime include acquiring witty or funny cartoons and quotes and posting them in a common break room. (Notice I didn't talk about baking or cooking because that can really be a little touchy since you could be seen as contributing to added weight gain by your colleagues, hence encouraging a love-hate relationship: they'll love you for bringing in that sock-it-to-me cake (so moist and decadent); they'll hate you however when they are privately trading the number of pounds they've put on (and how you don't seem to put on an ounce) and are now no longer able to fit into their favorite slacks at work without causing quite a stir.
Don't be that person. (Smile. :)) Finding ways to express yourself creatively is essential to satisfying our need for stimulation, and motivation. Unfortunately, not enough workplace environments have paid attention to the great labor and management theorists who warned that motivation - even beyond physical capacity for productivity - is critical to having and maintaining a superior workforce. However, just because we are not motivated does not mean that we need to through the source of our "bread-and-butter" away altogether. Sometimes, as workers, our challenge is to still occupy the role that early modern day workers had to, which was to contribute/invest in our own contentment and happiness. It was this human component within the work environment that made it feel like a "family."
So ask yourself if you are doing "contentment and happiness." If not, you could be missing out on a large part of a more fulfilled life. I wish you Happy Motivations.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Rewards and Incentives
The idea of rewards and incentives, of giving someone something as a result of them performing a desired action, is probably one of the least understood concepts. As consumers we are used to the idea of signing up for a bonus perks card or filling out an online survey or just giving our names and email addresses in exchange for some small token (or a chance at a BIG token, these days) or reward. The vendors promise that all we need to do is fill-out this little postcard or take a moment to provide this small bit of information. But what is it that is really transpiring here? The willing consumer trades his or her privacy for a $2 trinket.
Are we really that hungry for stuff or what we consider "gifts?" Yet, it is effective and marketing remains a multi-billion dollar enterprise.
One can argue that we live by trading this currency (our personal information). And, perhaps the marketing machinery has proven a lesson that organizations, as a whole, have yet to learn: people will give you their most private part of themselves if you offer them gifts. Think about it. When was the last time you, as an individual, took someone out to lunch - your treat? Did they or did they not reveal themselves to you, far beyond what you expected them to? People instinctively feel a brand of loyalty, a variation of intimacy and connectedness to you, when you "give" them something that you do not ordinarily bestow upon them.
The challenge for business and the non-profit organization is to find appropriate usage of this "carrot" incentive approach. We all know about the "carrot-and-stick" approach and the controversy that comes with its application. And by no means am I advocating for one approach over another, however, it is a proven fact that somehow those in marketing have done pretty well with using the "carrot" approach and leaving the "stick" part of things to the attorneys. In management, the challenge is to be both "Mommy and Daddy" - effectively acting as "disciplinarian" and "the easy-going one" - without appearing paternalistic or motherly, construed in a negative light. Sadly, however, how many of our workplaces would rate highly on effectively managing this delicate balancing act? Probably not too many, I would guess, based on recent job satisfaction polls.
How, in fact, do we balance reward with punishment? Thankfully, this is not the topic of my post for today (love the way I dodged that bullet, eh?). However, I can remind my fellow managers and administrators that, rewards and incentives only work when two things happen: 1. an individual or group does something desirable; 2. the individual provides you with the information. It may seem like a hair-splitting of sorts, to have as a key criterion that he or she must inform you of the action but think about it. If a person doesn't tell you, how will you know? Hearing through the grapevine is hardly appropriate without at least getting the message to the do-gooder that you want to hear it from him or her directly. Somehow, the individual needs to own the responsibility for his or her good deed, as much as he or she would be held accountable for his or her "bad" deed, if it ever came to that. Praise and reprimand come from the same source (you), so require the same - information- from the same source (the individual). This reinforces the philosophy of each worker being responsible for his or her own work and establishes a "personal" relationship/interest in their performance.
Finally, the rewards should be appropriate to and commensurate with their actions. If it is their job to do something, do not reward them for merely doing their job. Reward them in instances where they have done their job so exceptionally well that others outside of your unit or organization have make mention of it. The "reward," therefore, is not for doing their job, it is for taking it to the next level in such a way that he or she has added value to the organization by generating good PR. (After all, a "good name" is perhaps, and arguably, the most valuable PR one can generate!) As to the reward itself, don't be afraid to think "small" in size - but personalize, whenever possible, and memorialize with a certificate to add a bit of "class" to the occasion. (And, yes, even if the individual is shy, publicly acknowledge the good deed - it is essential to set a precedent that says that you value, recognize and reward "good work.")
And, I will let you in on a little secret: The "stick" portion of things can be as simply communicated by the absence of any such rewards or incentives. If your people do not do their jobs, don't reward them. When you do "reward" them and they've done nothing correctly, you send the message that they can do "wrong" and still get the same outcome as if they were to do "right!" So why bother doing what is asked when the reward will come anyway? Think about it the next time you give an extra special gift (even in the form of a "free pass" to do as they please because you are too fed up with them to do anything) to an employee in the hopes of trying to buy his or her loyalty to you - or at least, call a truce (there exists no such thing as a "truce" with a renegade employee!). Is that really the message you want to give out to your employees? Because whatever you do, SETS A PRECEDENCE...
Are we really that hungry for stuff or what we consider "gifts?" Yet, it is effective and marketing remains a multi-billion dollar enterprise.
One can argue that we live by trading this currency (our personal information). And, perhaps the marketing machinery has proven a lesson that organizations, as a whole, have yet to learn: people will give you their most private part of themselves if you offer them gifts. Think about it. When was the last time you, as an individual, took someone out to lunch - your treat? Did they or did they not reveal themselves to you, far beyond what you expected them to? People instinctively feel a brand of loyalty, a variation of intimacy and connectedness to you, when you "give" them something that you do not ordinarily bestow upon them.
The challenge for business and the non-profit organization is to find appropriate usage of this "carrot" incentive approach. We all know about the "carrot-and-stick" approach and the controversy that comes with its application. And by no means am I advocating for one approach over another, however, it is a proven fact that somehow those in marketing have done pretty well with using the "carrot" approach and leaving the "stick" part of things to the attorneys. In management, the challenge is to be both "Mommy and Daddy" - effectively acting as "disciplinarian" and "the easy-going one" - without appearing paternalistic or motherly, construed in a negative light. Sadly, however, how many of our workplaces would rate highly on effectively managing this delicate balancing act? Probably not too many, I would guess, based on recent job satisfaction polls.
How, in fact, do we balance reward with punishment? Thankfully, this is not the topic of my post for today (love the way I dodged that bullet, eh?). However, I can remind my fellow managers and administrators that, rewards and incentives only work when two things happen: 1. an individual or group does something desirable; 2. the individual provides you with the information. It may seem like a hair-splitting of sorts, to have as a key criterion that he or she must inform you of the action but think about it. If a person doesn't tell you, how will you know? Hearing through the grapevine is hardly appropriate without at least getting the message to the do-gooder that you want to hear it from him or her directly. Somehow, the individual needs to own the responsibility for his or her good deed, as much as he or she would be held accountable for his or her "bad" deed, if it ever came to that. Praise and reprimand come from the same source (you), so require the same - information- from the same source (the individual). This reinforces the philosophy of each worker being responsible for his or her own work and establishes a "personal" relationship/interest in their performance.
Finally, the rewards should be appropriate to and commensurate with their actions. If it is their job to do something, do not reward them for merely doing their job. Reward them in instances where they have done their job so exceptionally well that others outside of your unit or organization have make mention of it. The "reward," therefore, is not for doing their job, it is for taking it to the next level in such a way that he or she has added value to the organization by generating good PR. (After all, a "good name" is perhaps, and arguably, the most valuable PR one can generate!) As to the reward itself, don't be afraid to think "small" in size - but personalize, whenever possible, and memorialize with a certificate to add a bit of "class" to the occasion. (And, yes, even if the individual is shy, publicly acknowledge the good deed - it is essential to set a precedent that says that you value, recognize and reward "good work.")
And, I will let you in on a little secret: The "stick" portion of things can be as simply communicated by the absence of any such rewards or incentives. If your people do not do their jobs, don't reward them. When you do "reward" them and they've done nothing correctly, you send the message that they can do "wrong" and still get the same outcome as if they were to do "right!" So why bother doing what is asked when the reward will come anyway? Think about it the next time you give an extra special gift (even in the form of a "free pass" to do as they please because you are too fed up with them to do anything) to an employee in the hopes of trying to buy his or her loyalty to you - or at least, call a truce (there exists no such thing as a "truce" with a renegade employee!). Is that really the message you want to give out to your employees? Because whatever you do, SETS A PRECEDENCE...
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
There's Something to be Said for Being Disciplined
I am probably one of the most humbled individuals you can find these days. Not often in life do you truly understand what drives people with passion to do what they do. I only now believe that I am beginning to understand the lesson of preparing one's self for their own potential - even if they do not quite know what that potential is...
In reflecting upon the life of a recently-deceased and beloved woman, whom I found to be contraversial, epitomizing the regimented discipline of the "old school" way of proving one's self academically amongst a new school of laissez-faire, renegade (almost) educators, I found myself longing for the lessons of what she had to offer me and the hundreds of young men and women who were, either directly or indirectly, pupils in her vast classroom. For 18 years running, she was the "Master" and her students were loyal to their sensai. Her weapon of choice for battle - which she passed down to her pupils through a steady, faithfully-administered diet - was a gigantic, bigger-than-life belief in the capability of her students to be the brightest, most-capable and accomplished research scientists coming out of the university systems of their era. She believed that excellence, exceptionality was not something that happened by chance. Rather, it was something that happened as a direct result of calculated, and disciplined repetitions. So, as a result, "hers" were expected to spend the extra time attending seminars that exemplified a glorious kind of passing-of-the-baton from one generation or cohort to the next. They were on a time-table and while some critics accused her of ruling with an iron fist, in actuality, this petite woman somehow "commanded" the respect of her students - and the attention (and, in some instances, the envy) of everyone else that came in contact with her.
If anything, one could truly say of her that she was so convinced of her convictions about the potential of her students and the way in which she was taking them - committed to taking the journey with each one beyond the few, short years she was entrusted with them - she absolutely refused to be distracted from her task, her purpose. I always admired her for that and, in a way, I feel that her legacy proved the fact that "her way" was absolutely right - as it always does. Legacy, that is.
Now, when I am faced with the question of whether or not a regimen or a schedule or some sort of concerted effort on my part is actually necessary for me to accomplish anything - meaning, even the smallest of tasks - I recall the conviction with which the proud, petite giant-of-a-woman would say to me, "I tell my students 'It's ridiculous! Of course you [my students] can be there with the best of them!'" Then she would run through the coveted wall of her former students, from over more than a decade ago, and provide individual updates on their accomplishments since having graduated from the University.
And I recall that the key to her success, her legacy, and consequently, the legacy of those who chose to believe her, was in being purposeful in her pursuit of being as good as any other person who achieved something great. She would say that the reason why her students were able to leave the University to go on to bigger and better things was because she made them commit to their own success - whether or not they wanted it. If they were going to reap the benefits of participating in her program, they would necessarily have to even feign belief in their ability. But, like it or not, they would practice their craft, what an accomplished presenter looked like, acted like, how he or she conducted his or her self. After a while, even the clumsiest participant was still far better off than most other peers. And this is what I affectionately consider to be her brand of "discipline." That is, self-discipline. Because ultimately, it was the implementation of what was instilled in her pupils, after they had moved on, that has continued to propel them forward.
We salute you, Dr. Fatma Helmy. May you rest in peace.
In reflecting upon the life of a recently-deceased and beloved woman, whom I found to be contraversial, epitomizing the regimented discipline of the "old school" way of proving one's self academically amongst a new school of laissez-faire, renegade (almost) educators, I found myself longing for the lessons of what she had to offer me and the hundreds of young men and women who were, either directly or indirectly, pupils in her vast classroom. For 18 years running, she was the "Master" and her students were loyal to their sensai. Her weapon of choice for battle - which she passed down to her pupils through a steady, faithfully-administered diet - was a gigantic, bigger-than-life belief in the capability of her students to be the brightest, most-capable and accomplished research scientists coming out of the university systems of their era. She believed that excellence, exceptionality was not something that happened by chance. Rather, it was something that happened as a direct result of calculated, and disciplined repetitions. So, as a result, "hers" were expected to spend the extra time attending seminars that exemplified a glorious kind of passing-of-the-baton from one generation or cohort to the next. They were on a time-table and while some critics accused her of ruling with an iron fist, in actuality, this petite woman somehow "commanded" the respect of her students - and the attention (and, in some instances, the envy) of everyone else that came in contact with her.
If anything, one could truly say of her that she was so convinced of her convictions about the potential of her students and the way in which she was taking them - committed to taking the journey with each one beyond the few, short years she was entrusted with them - she absolutely refused to be distracted from her task, her purpose. I always admired her for that and, in a way, I feel that her legacy proved the fact that "her way" was absolutely right - as it always does. Legacy, that is.
Now, when I am faced with the question of whether or not a regimen or a schedule or some sort of concerted effort on my part is actually necessary for me to accomplish anything - meaning, even the smallest of tasks - I recall the conviction with which the proud, petite giant-of-a-woman would say to me, "I tell my students 'It's ridiculous! Of course you [my students] can be there with the best of them!'" Then she would run through the coveted wall of her former students, from over more than a decade ago, and provide individual updates on their accomplishments since having graduated from the University.
And I recall that the key to her success, her legacy, and consequently, the legacy of those who chose to believe her, was in being purposeful in her pursuit of being as good as any other person who achieved something great. She would say that the reason why her students were able to leave the University to go on to bigger and better things was because she made them commit to their own success - whether or not they wanted it. If they were going to reap the benefits of participating in her program, they would necessarily have to even feign belief in their ability. But, like it or not, they would practice their craft, what an accomplished presenter looked like, acted like, how he or she conducted his or her self. After a while, even the clumsiest participant was still far better off than most other peers. And this is what I affectionately consider to be her brand of "discipline." That is, self-discipline. Because ultimately, it was the implementation of what was instilled in her pupils, after they had moved on, that has continued to propel them forward.
We salute you, Dr. Fatma Helmy. May you rest in peace.
Monday, January 2, 2012
New Year's Resolutions 2.0
Hi, there! And Happy New Year, everyone!
So a new year means: what? Well, it can mean promises that we make to ourselves to be better to ourselves and the ones we love. But we make this promise every year, don't we? So what's really different, what's to be considered special about another year? And, more specifically, this year?
My friends - fellow Gen X'ers - and I have long time since stopped disclosing our private promises, futile vows to ourselves - professed in the company of our most closest and intimate of guardians - about how we would finish what we attempted to do the year before. Really, I think, in a way, it's more of a glaring reminder of our failures: to say the same thing (just in a different way), for yet another year, when it obviously was a fruitless expedition in the last! Clearly, I have had my reservations about the whole "tradition" thing involved here. (Besides, we're mothers and fathers, now; we've outgrown such things...or at least, we let the media and the talk shows dictate what our goals will be for the year...)
But this year, I surprised myself. I was sending out my usual New Year's email greetings and realized, in re-reading it prior to sending it out (yes, I do edit most of my emails before sending them out), that there was an unmistakable quality about it that seemed awfully familiar. The best I could do to describe it was to call it a thinly-veiled attempt at "nostalgia" that was infused throughout. And there it was: the reason why, the older I get, I recognize that I have looked at tradition, kicked vehemently against it and the obvious tyrrany and staid resolve that it represented, dedicated my most passionate efforts to defy it, only to then mourn the loss of what I consider familiar and "old-fashioned" - crowded annual family gatherings, Christmas pancakes, sunrise service on Easter morning, the Macy's Thanksgiving parades, our icons and loved ones...
It's the nostalgia, the romanticism that causes us to not be OK with settling (at least, not for too long of a time) for being the janitor forever, when according to the American Dream, if we've put in the time to better ourselves, to educate ourselves, we should see some vertical movement in the company. Or why, even though our views on love may be a little unorthodox, we still seek validation. I.e., we want the wedding, the marriage license, the white picket fence -- even if we also have a penthouse on the water for 180 days out of the year. It is our homing device, the compass that irrefutibly guides and advises our impressions and convictions, without which I think a great deal of us would be LOST (and some of us ARE!). I think it is this sense of security, the comfort in knowing that I have the right to "expect" certain things to be, that fuels aspirations of healthy, well-rounded citizens of the world.
Take for example the idea of Santa Claus. There are probably many of you who know the story. Or, rather, multiple stories about the origin of the jolly, old guy who lives at the North Pole, keeping a list of naughty and nice children. I, honestly, thought I had heard it all when I began the Christmas season. I mean, hearkening back to the days of Father Christmas, and Old Saint Nick, and A Charlie Brown Christmas, and the tale of Ebenezer Scrooge, It's a Wonderful Life, and Miracle on 34th Street. These were all stories I had grown up with and looked forward to seeing over and over again -- and, even if I didn't quite choose to watch it for a span of a year or two (2), I still expected to see the broadcast times on the TV guide listing.
This year, however, I have to admit to having watched more variations on the theme of Santa Clause than I imagined ever existed...Never in a million years would I have expected to see so many different stories about the man in the bright red suit lined up, one after the other! And they weren't half bad. Although I must admit that I originally viewed them with some skepticism, expecting sappy, gushing, and sentimental script writing, coupled with bad, overly-dramatic acting. The lesson learned for me was this: if the arts, and in particular, writers, mirror what a society's sentiments are, then we are clearly yearning to believe in what we cannot see, but only feel, or that quality which we see embodied in our neighbors, our friends, a stranger in town. We want to be able to trust people to surprise us by not wanting anything from us in exchange for kindness other than gratitude. We are in desperate need of forgiveness from people that, for one reason or another, matter to us. And many of us will only do with forgiveness from God...This is what we characterize as the Christmas spirit. It's what keeps us on Santa's "nice" list - and off of the "naughy" list.
I had never before given much thought to the personification of Christmas, as portrayed in Santa Claus, but I have since come to resolve that Santa must represent mankind. We get true goodness, when we give true goodness; if we sow seeds of thorns and thistle, we will also reap this from our fellow man.
Simply put, this gives us HOPE and something to aspire towards. Hope of lifted hearts, of relationships free from animosity and strife. Even hope of looking forward to a truce with our own built-up issues. I, for one, haven't given up on "tradition." Even as I promise myself to do better, to treat my self better, to treat others better, I am reminded that my past shortcomings were not necessarily failures. Rather, I am reminded of a famous saying that has remained with me since junior and senior high school days: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again."
So this year, let's BE better to ourselves. At least, let's "TRY." How's that for nostalgia!
So a new year means: what? Well, it can mean promises that we make to ourselves to be better to ourselves and the ones we love. But we make this promise every year, don't we? So what's really different, what's to be considered special about another year? And, more specifically, this year?
My friends - fellow Gen X'ers - and I have long time since stopped disclosing our private promises, futile vows to ourselves - professed in the company of our most closest and intimate of guardians - about how we would finish what we attempted to do the year before. Really, I think, in a way, it's more of a glaring reminder of our failures: to say the same thing (just in a different way), for yet another year, when it obviously was a fruitless expedition in the last! Clearly, I have had my reservations about the whole "tradition" thing involved here. (Besides, we're mothers and fathers, now; we've outgrown such things...or at least, we let the media and the talk shows dictate what our goals will be for the year...)
But this year, I surprised myself. I was sending out my usual New Year's email greetings and realized, in re-reading it prior to sending it out (yes, I do edit most of my emails before sending them out), that there was an unmistakable quality about it that seemed awfully familiar. The best I could do to describe it was to call it a thinly-veiled attempt at "nostalgia" that was infused throughout. And there it was: the reason why, the older I get, I recognize that I have looked at tradition, kicked vehemently against it and the obvious tyrrany and staid resolve that it represented, dedicated my most passionate efforts to defy it, only to then mourn the loss of what I consider familiar and "old-fashioned" - crowded annual family gatherings, Christmas pancakes, sunrise service on Easter morning, the Macy's Thanksgiving parades, our icons and loved ones...
It's the nostalgia, the romanticism that causes us to not be OK with settling (at least, not for too long of a time) for being the janitor forever, when according to the American Dream, if we've put in the time to better ourselves, to educate ourselves, we should see some vertical movement in the company. Or why, even though our views on love may be a little unorthodox, we still seek validation. I.e., we want the wedding, the marriage license, the white picket fence -- even if we also have a penthouse on the water for 180 days out of the year. It is our homing device, the compass that irrefutibly guides and advises our impressions and convictions, without which I think a great deal of us would be LOST (and some of us ARE!). I think it is this sense of security, the comfort in knowing that I have the right to "expect" certain things to be, that fuels aspirations of healthy, well-rounded citizens of the world.
Take for example the idea of Santa Claus. There are probably many of you who know the story. Or, rather, multiple stories about the origin of the jolly, old guy who lives at the North Pole, keeping a list of naughty and nice children. I, honestly, thought I had heard it all when I began the Christmas season. I mean, hearkening back to the days of Father Christmas, and Old Saint Nick, and A Charlie Brown Christmas, and the tale of Ebenezer Scrooge, It's a Wonderful Life, and Miracle on 34th Street. These were all stories I had grown up with and looked forward to seeing over and over again -- and, even if I didn't quite choose to watch it for a span of a year or two (2), I still expected to see the broadcast times on the TV guide listing.
This year, however, I have to admit to having watched more variations on the theme of Santa Clause than I imagined ever existed...Never in a million years would I have expected to see so many different stories about the man in the bright red suit lined up, one after the other! And they weren't half bad. Although I must admit that I originally viewed them with some skepticism, expecting sappy, gushing, and sentimental script writing, coupled with bad, overly-dramatic acting. The lesson learned for me was this: if the arts, and in particular, writers, mirror what a society's sentiments are, then we are clearly yearning to believe in what we cannot see, but only feel, or that quality which we see embodied in our neighbors, our friends, a stranger in town. We want to be able to trust people to surprise us by not wanting anything from us in exchange for kindness other than gratitude. We are in desperate need of forgiveness from people that, for one reason or another, matter to us. And many of us will only do with forgiveness from God...This is what we characterize as the Christmas spirit. It's what keeps us on Santa's "nice" list - and off of the "naughy" list.
I had never before given much thought to the personification of Christmas, as portrayed in Santa Claus, but I have since come to resolve that Santa must represent mankind. We get true goodness, when we give true goodness; if we sow seeds of thorns and thistle, we will also reap this from our fellow man.
Simply put, this gives us HOPE and something to aspire towards. Hope of lifted hearts, of relationships free from animosity and strife. Even hope of looking forward to a truce with our own built-up issues. I, for one, haven't given up on "tradition." Even as I promise myself to do better, to treat my self better, to treat others better, I am reminded that my past shortcomings were not necessarily failures. Rather, I am reminded of a famous saying that has remained with me since junior and senior high school days: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again."
So this year, let's BE better to ourselves. At least, let's "TRY." How's that for nostalgia!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)