We need to make some course corrections. We all do from time to time. Of course, this implies getting uncomfortable. As we look at our life, we all have directions that need to be changed. It helps to begin this process by asking ourselves questions and giving serious and honest thought to the answers. What habits are holding me back? What three things do I want to accomplish by ?
What does a good day look like? What routines keep me on track? Why do I do what I do? And most importantly, what am I grateful for? Then drill down into specific areas of your life:. Do I make time to study and grow spiritually? What habits are draining my time and attention? What activities replenish me? Am I taking time to relax and grow in other areas of interest? Am I sleep deprived?
Am I eating healthy and avoiding processed foods? What do I need to change in my diet in ? Am I exercising regularly? Am I drinking enough water? Is my morning and evening routine setting me up for my best day? Am I living within my means? How much do I want to make in ? What do I have to do to reach that amount?
What weaknesses do I need to minimize? Am I where I would like to be in my work or career? How can I increase the value I bring to work? What relationships are building me up? Are any relationships taking me off-track? Who do I take for granted? Do I support those around me? Do I support and encourage others? Do I focus on building others up? Do I make time for others? Where do I need to grow? What strengths do I need to improve on? What do I need to learn? What books do I need to read? What seminars do I need to attend? What can I learn from the mistakes I made in ?
The key to moving forward is the first step. Every destination needs to be broken down into incremental markers or indicators on the way to the destination. What is the first thing you need to do to get you moving in the right direction? As you begin, focus on the actions required and not the end result. A small step is easier than a leap. Once the first step is made, it is easier to continue down the right path to your desired destination.
Leading Matters is about the journey. The stories he tells here are revolve around the ten elements that shaped his journey and how he relied on these traits in pivotal moments. The elements are relevant to any leader at any level. As he observes, the higher up you go the crises just get bigger and come faster. He begins by discussing the foundational elements: humility, authenticity, service, and empathy. He then links them together with courage.
Finally, he shows how collaboration, innovation, intellectual curiosity, storytelling, and creating change that lasts, helped him reach his goals. Arrogance sees only strengths, ignores our weaknesses, and overlooks the strengths of others, therefore leaving us vulnerable to catastrophic mistakes. Authenticity and Trust. Authenticity is essential to building trust. Leadership as Service. If you take a leadership role as a step toward a personal goal of gathering ever-greater titles, awards, and salaries, you will never see true success in that role.
Recognize the service of others. As a leader it is easy to get wrapped up in big projects and ambitious initiatives, and, in the process, to forget the smaller, but no less important, individual acts of service taking place all around you. Much of that service supports and enables the widely celebrated success of others.
Are Your Money Beliefs Holding You Back?
Empathy should always be a factor in making decisions and setting goals. Empathy represents a crucial check on action—placing a deep understanding of and concern for the human condition next to data can lead to decisions that support the wellbeing of all. Courage, on the other hand, compels a leader to take that right action. While many people can discern what is right and true, acting on that discernment is more difficult.
Even if risk-taking is against your nature, for the good of your organization, you must find the courage to practice it. Collaboration and Teamwork. Certain ground rules circumvented interteam rivalries. First of all, I reminded everyone of our shared goal: we wanted to achieve something great. This led to my final ground rule: team members must be treated with the utmost respect. Innovation presents great opportunities for smart entrepreneurs, not the other way around.
Intellectual Curiosity. Beyond personal enjoyment, though, this lifelong curiosity has served me well in my career. It has enabled me to engage in meaningful dialog about the world and its future. In challenging moments, great leaders show their true character. If you really want to inspire a team to action, best to engage them with a story. Once they become receptive—once they can imagine themselves as part of your vision—you can back your story up with facts and figures.
When you turn that dream into a vivid story, you make it so attractive and so real that people will want to share it with you by joining your team. When it came time to respond to change, these companies moved quickly and efficiently, because every employee already understood the company identity and therefore knew how to respond without direct coaching. In every profession and career, as we climb to higher leadership positions, the role of facts and data decreases. Any one of them has the potential to derail even the best of leaders.
While they may creep up on us, we can see them coming and apply the proper antidote. And even though these seven challenges never really go away, we can create some life habits that keep them at bay. Nieuwhof writes from a been-there-done-that Christian perspective about the issues as they manifest themselves in our lives and follows up each one with a chapter on how to combat it.
These issues affect everyone and some you'll find hit close to home. Cynicism Disappointment and frustration often end in cynicism. Ask them and they know all about it. It may get us in the door, but character is what determines how far we go. Technology just makes it worse. Eliminate hurry from your life. And this comment could pull any of us up short:. For me, the sense that a conversation is going nowhere always carries with it an underpinning of judgment and even arrogance on my part. Which, of course, should drive me right back to my knees in confession.
Irrelevance Irrelevance happens when what you do no longer connects to the culture and the people around you. That gap is a factor of how fast things change relative to you. Change staves off irrelevance. Get radical about change. Surround yourself with younger people. Seek change to transform you. Burnout Burnout saps the meaning and wonder out of life. Signs of burnout include among other things: your passion fades, you no longer feel your highs and lows, little things make you disproportionately emotional, everybody drains you, nothing satisfies you, and your productivity drops.
Getting out of this state begins by admitting it and then figuring out how to live today so you will thrive tomorrow. What does that look like? Nieuwhof recommends some concrete steps you can take to bring you back from burnout. Go deep enough and take enough time to recover so that you begin to feel gratitude for the process. Emptiness Ironically, success often makes you feel empty. Humility will win you what pride never will: the affection of others. Other people naturally gravitate toward people who live for a cause beyond themselves.
The practical advice found here will benefit anyone on their leadership journey. It does not invalidate everything else of its type, rather it is designed to be simpler and thereby memorable and actionable on issues that really matter for people in the work environment. And it is quite straightforward for both accessing yourself and others you work with. Pioneers value possibilities and they spark energy and imagination. Drivers value challenge and they generate momentum. Integrators value connection and they draw teams together. Guardians value stability and they bring order and rigor.
The authors naturally go into detail on each of these types and give an example of a well-known person that fits that type. They also delve into difference between the types as they relate to stress Pioneers are the least stressed. The trick of course, is to use this knowledge to modify you own behavior. Then you can determine how you might flex your own style to better match the preferences of those around you.
For example, too many constraints can completely shut a Pioneer down, while a Guardian may withdraw in an environment that feels too chaotic. Knowing these trigger points can help you as a leader to give people more of what they need to excel and less of what will turn them off. I might want to be direct with others but I have learned that I am more productive when I am diplomatic. But being that that is my natural tendency, I probably prefer when people are direct and concise with me. That fact would affect my working style profile.
They prefer having all of the answers and enjoy zooming into every detail. They grew up in a different time and may have adopted a more novelty-seeking and relationship—focused orientation. Without it we tend to be reactive, disengaged, an unimaginative. The more conscious we are, the faster we adapt, and the higher performing we become. Bob Rosen and Emma-Kate Swann wrote Conscious: The Power of Awareness in Business and Life , because they believe that becoming more conscious is critical in our increasingly disruptive and accelerating world.
Driven by the need to be right, those obsessed with being smart tend to hoard knowledge, externalize blame, and mismanage relationships and risks. This sabotages our ability to thrive in a constantly changing world. As a result, we stay stuck, biased, and reactive. Staying small and never stepping up is sure to lead to regrets and will undermine your highest potential. Harness the power of introspection by getting to know who you are, where you come from, and why you act the way you do.
Get curious and adaptive: deal with complexity and paradox by learning how to expand your mind, leverage your relationships and networks, and overcome unconscious biases. Become more honest and intentional in leadership and life, overcoming the pitfalls of being too safe and cautious while embracing reality. Act boldly and responsibly to reach your highest potential: how to champion your higher purpose, stretch people in constructive ways, and be generous in your relationships.
To lead change you need a conscious mindset. If we are going to create change, we have to begin with ourselves. That requires that we become more conscious of what pushes us forward—our Accelerators —and what holds us back—our Hijackers. Accelerators like courage, drive or determination, deliberate practice, resilience, and vulnerability, drive us forward.
Hijackers like self-criticism, cynicism, controlling behavior, aloofness or disengagement, and hyper-competitiveness, hold us back. It is important to know how these things impact your performance and constructively use them or deal with them. There are many things that conspire to throw us off-course. Knowing who you want to be in the world and remembering your purpose, will help you to manage these issues and keep you on course.
The more conscious we are the less drama we will experience in our lives. Another consequence of being conscious is to be civil. Acts of civility are the small sacrifices we make for the good of all and the sake of harmoniously living and working together. Barack Obama because "he's an Arab. He's a decent, family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. Conscious unleashes our full potential as human beings.
By expanding our minds, enriching our experiences, and shaping our destinies, we discover our purpose in life. Being conscious enables us to approach life as a journey. Equipped with everything we need—an open mind and heart, confidence and resilience, and our capacity for greater consciousness—we embrace the uncertainty of life. Conscious is the accelerator for effective change. If you are a high-performer, it comes with the territory. Graham offers 7 tips for overcoming Imposer Syndrome :.
Quite that Inner Voice. Perfection is Slow Death. Mistakes can indicate that you need to prioritize, delegate, or take a break. Or they could just be mistakes. Honor Your Accomplishments. Perhaps you attribute your success to luck. We are masters at believing negative feedback while shrugging off the positive.
Take time to listen to praise from others and own it. Plan for the Worst-Case Scenario. Stay humble and curious. It will give you unprecedented depth in this day and age. Beyond what I'm sharing here, Switchers is an invaluable resource for those looking to make a career switch. And this requires a different approach than the typical job search. She covers the five job search killers, networking and the 2nd Level Contact Strategy, rebranding your social media profile, and crafting your professional identity. Bias is a reality in the hiring process, and can be an especially difficult hurdle for Switchers.
Learn to identify it and engage strategies to overcome it such as using your network to become an insider. Your career story is what will convince the hiring manager to pull the trigger and make the offer. It should be logical, compelling, attention-getting, and genuine. You need to network to make a career switch. Second- and third level connections are where the action is!
Most people in your immediate circle have the same information you do, so the goal is to get their network, because that is where your next opportunity lies. Asking for help makes most of us uncomfortable and we often go to great lengths to avoid doing it. We fear rejection. We fear that people we think less of us. But the truth is we need the help and support of others to succeed. To be sure, leadership is fundamentally about asking people for help.
- The Happily Ever After;
- smash your hidden money beliefs Manual.
- Navigation menu.
- File information?
- What is Scientology, who was founder L. Ron Hubbard and what do Scientologists believe?!
Making matters worse, our intuitions about what should make others more likely to help are often dead wrong; our fumbling, apologetic ways of asking for assistance generally make people feel far less likely to want to help. We hate imposing on people and then inadvertently, we make them feel imposed upon. But for some reason, we forget that when it is our turn to ask for help. Research shows that people actually like us more when they have been able to help us.
It makes them feel good too—unless they feel compelled to help. In-Group Reinforcement. Those members of our group are the most likely to help us. The Positive Identity Reinforcement. Most people like to think of themselves as helpful because it is part of what it means to be a good person. We reinforce that with gratitude and appealing to the things that matter to them. They need not bother. The Effectiveness Reinforcement. People want what they do to make an impact—to have meaning. If we feel we are not making an impact, we are likely to lose motivation.
People need to clearly understand the impact of their helping. Research shows that when people are unable to get any kind of feedback about how well they are doing on a task, they quickly become disengaged from it. Be clear up-front about what you want done and the impact it will have. And be sure to follow-up. Let them know how things turned out.
Reinforcements is written in an engaging way and is full of solid research to support the approach needed to get the help we need to succeed. It is practical advice for anyone asking for help in a way that will leave both parties feeling good about the relationship. How many working hours of the average day do you and your team spend in the Drama Triangle? This triangle was developed as a social model years ago by Stephen Karpman, a student of Dr. Eric Berne, the father of Transactional Analysis. It maps out a type of dysfunctional interaction that is common in the workplace and in our homes as well.
Karpman used this triangle to define three points that arise predictably in any dysfunctional real-life drama: the Persecutor, the Victim, and the Rescuer. Notice that all three of these are roles we can choose to play, or choose to step back from , at any time. Here are three ways you could choose to respond:. The classic enabler. One classic pattern is: boss attacks Persecutor , people defend themselves Victim , other people come to their aid Rescuer. Be honest. How often do you really want to do that? A lot of the leaders we work with are shocked to learn that most of their workplace interactions fall within this dysfunctional triangle!
Start noticing that the Drama Triangle game typically begins with one person — it could be you — taking up the Persecutor or Victim role. For instance:. If not, could you think of anyone else we can get to help you out with it? Leave people enough time to readjust before the deadline. Your responsibility as a leader is to support your people, start good conversations, and make good outcomes possible. The Drama Triangle goes in the exact opposite direction of all three of those goals: it disempowers your team, starts lousy conversations, and makes terrible outcomes much more likely.
The only way to win this particular game to resolve not to play — and then stick with that decision! He oversees the corporate direction and strategy for the company's global operations including sales, marketing, consulting, alliances, and support. Under Mattson's leadership, the Sandler organization expanded domestically and internationally to over offices in 32 countries. For more information, please visit the Road to Excellence website.
The Excellence Process consists of six steps that when taken in order and made part of your culture will turn excellence into a process and help to get rid of your blind spots. He has curated ideas from 45 internationally—known doers and thinkers on the topics of entrepreneurship, innovation, and authentic leadership. But here are several that I found interesting my first time through the book:.
We know that a startup is a temporary organization designed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model. The corollary for an enterprise is as follows:. A company is a permanent organization designed to execute a repeatable and scalable business model.
Once you understand that existing companies are designed to execute, then you can see why they have a hard time with continuous and disruptive innovation. It will happen especially in industries such as transportation, shipping, finance, and retail, but all kinds of companies and leaders should look into this much deeper. Of course, the big companies have an advantage due to the amount of data they often how. The startups lack this, and data is increasingly becoming king. Daniel Burrus: How to Anticipate the Future. There are an amazing number of things we can accurately predict when we learn how to distinguish between what I call hard trends, trends that will happen, and soft trends, trends that might happen.
Think of it as a two-sided coin. Agility is on one side, allowing you to react fast to unforeseen change, and the other side is anticipatory, allowing you to see what is coming and take action before the change occurs. Agility is basically reacting quickly to change. Agile innovation will keep you reacting to disruptive innovation created by others. They are indeed timeless. Brian Dodd examines in Timeless Kindle what it takes to reach the top of your profession. How do you become the best at what you do?
How do you become an Apex Leader? Dodd has selected the 10 key practices that Apex Leaders have in common. While character, patience and empathy are important for a leader to sustain their leadership, they are not necessarily the behaviors and practices needed to get to the top of their chosen profession. Here, Dodd focuses on the achievement side of the equation.
The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine
What is required to be the best at what you do? While Timeless will resonate with Christian leaders, the principles apply across all organizations and contexts. As readers of his blog have come to expect, Dodd draws on many examples from the world of sports. All of these principles are found in scripture and are being successfully applied by Apex Leaders in organizations of all types.
Your team is your primary difference maker. Apex Leaders look for skill, work ethic and passion when building a team. Apex Leaders Are Humble Humble leaders do not deny their talents but are thankful for them. Humble leaders acknowledge that no matter how good they are, they are in constant need of support. All successful leaders must be servant-leaders first. They acknowledge they have been granted opportunities not for personal gain, but for the betterment of others.
Humble leaders know they have not arrived. The mission and vision of what they are trying to accomplish is too important to remain the same. Apex Leaders Continually Improve Are you willing to be rebuilt? Pride and arrogance are enemies of continual improvement. Apex Leaders Form Strong Relationships One of the most impressive things about the leadership of Jesus was his continual focus on relationships.
There is only one thing in your business which appreciates—your people. The most important relationship a leader needs to cultivate and protect is the relationship with their family. If you want to accomplish anything great as a leader, you must surround yourself with competent staff. Worth thinking about: Almost all important decisions made about you and your career take place when you are not in the room. So, always leave a trail of kindness and respect behind you.
Apex Leaders Make Others Better No matter how talented you are, you need someone who can make yourself better. Apex Leaders Show Consistency Organizations and their people suffer because of a lack of appreciation for consistent excellence. No athlete ever demonstrated consistent excellence better than the legendary Hank Aaron. We over-celebrate big results and under-appreciate consistent excellence. Aaron reminds us greatness is not always achieved through short-term spectacular results but sometimes through long-term consistency. Apex Leaders Lead by Example You cannot lead by example if you do not effectively lead yourself first.
Leading by example means putting the mission of your organization above your personal aspirations. Leaders who lead by example fight for unity. Delivering results requires preparation, decisiveness, talent, limiting unnecessary mistakes, energy, continual improvement, confidence, good health, and passion.
The biggest game. The biggest stage. A leaders character and people skills make someone want to follow them. The ability to deliver results determines if someone actually will follow them. By seeking out the experiences of others, we can grow faster with less drama. In The Book of Mistakes , Skip Prichard has created for us an absorbing fable of a young man and a young woman who are both part of a mysterious journey to learn the nine mistakes that tend to trip us up. While they make sense, they are not always intuitive. The truths presented here often stand between us and success.
The main story follows David whose life of promise has become ordinary. Through a life-altering event, he has a chance meeting with an Old Man who sets him on a journey that will take him to meet nine unique people who will share the nine mistakes and the impact these mistakes have had on their own lives. The nine mistakes are framed by three universal laws that are found in an ancient book of wisdom. The parallel story is about Aria and how she comes to be the keeper of the book of wisdom and how she learns of the three laws. Printable Graphic. The three universal laws enable the nine secrets to creating a successful future.
To avoid the nine mistakes, you need to:. Live your own dream. Recognize your inherent value. They set expectations. Reject excuses. Surround yourself with the right people. More forward through challenges with determination and purpose. Act boldly with the knowledge that your potential success is unlimited. Pursue your goals with urgency. You think about people, about loving those around you. Your first is important because you also must have a longer view, or you will never accomplish the goals that are hard and take longer.
Each mentor David encounters has their own story that illuminates the mistake they share with us. Their experiences help to identify and relate to the mistake and help us to take action to avoid the mistake in the future. Prichard brings a lot of wisdom to each of these common life issues. The story is engaging for young and old. Share this book widely because these are the kinds of mistakes that create regret down the road. At the end of your life these are the things that you look back on and wonder why no one ever told you about these pitfalls. We are never too old to learn them and some are more difficult to deal with because of the baggage that often accompanies them.
Now is the time to set your course. We work under the assumption that more is better. Morten Hansen thinks the way we work is broken. Not only that but how we manage and reward work, and how our culture recognizes hard work. What we call hard work may not be our best work. In Great at Work , Hansen reports on a five-year survey of 5, managers and employees, including sales reps, lawyers, actuaries, brokers, medical doctors, software programmers, engineers, store managers, plant foremen, nurses and even a Las Vegas casino dealer.
They discovered seven work smart practices. The first four involves mastering your own work, and the last three encompasses mastering working with others. Do Less, Then Obsess. The common practice he found among the highest-ranked performers in the study was that they carefully selected which priorities, tasks, meetings, customers, ideas or steps to undertake and which to let go. They then applied intense, targeted effort on those few priorities in order to excel.
He found that there were just a few key work practices related to this selectivity that accounted for two-thirds of the variation in performance among our subjects. Redesign Your Work. Redesigning work is about creating more value for the same amount of work done. The typical inside-out view, by contrast, measures work according to whether we have completed our tasks and goals, regardless of whether they produce any benefits.
The Learning Loop means you learn while you work. Doing great work requires that you are getting feedback every day. In his study, 74 percent of the top performers reviewed their work in an effort to learn and improve. On 17 percent in the underperforming category did. Aim for Passion and Purpose. You can have one without the other, but we should aim for both. You may need to take a wider view of what ignites you. Expand your circle of passion by tapping into these dimensions. Become a Forceful Champion. Getting our work done often hinges on our ability to gain the support of others.
Getting other people on board takes more than just explaining the merits of your project. The best advocates in their study master two skills in this regard. Not just grit, but smart grit. Enlist others to help move your project forward. They become lone crusaders for their efforts—and they exhaust themselves in the process. The ability to lead teams is crucial to great work.
As a matter of necessity, much of this work takes place in meetings. The trick is to encourage constructive fights in meetings with cognitive diversity. You must unite. Adopt Disciplined Collaboration. Hansen has identified two sins of collaboration : undercollaboration and overcollaboration. Some people talk too little, and some people talk too much across teams and departments. He recommends disciplined collaboration. Fresh and compelling examples are used throughout to fully illustrate the seven smart work practices.
N OW is where the future happens. In this moment we will take action that will affect our future or we will not. All we have is now. It is a flexible mindset so we can all learn to become a little more Nowist in our approach. One of the reasons that Nowists can see opportunities is that they are not stuck trying to protect their past; spending time and energy on something that no longer makes sense.
Functional Impulsivity. But they do possess a certain kind highly impulsive functional thinking. In a study performed at the University of Michigan on impulsivity, researchers found that there were two impulsive traits. And the kind that allows people to decide quickly with good results. They are good at deciding quickly under pressure and are willing to choose an option even at the cost of making a mistake that they can and are willing to correct as they go forward.
Nowists take control of their time. You can avoid procrastination by changing your learning to see your future in your present. They understand cause and effect. We all exist in the Now. It is only in the Now that we can think, do, or change anything in the future. A Nowist is an active optimist. They believe they can make good things happen and take action to create a better future.
How does it feel to not be afraid? Steve Sims, the founder of Bluefish , has built a company that gets things done. Bluefish makes seemingly out-of-reach, change-your-life, experiences happen. He calls it bluefishing. Bluefishing is about changing your mindset. Bluefishers look for connections. What are people passionate about and how can I find a win-win for their passions? Passion is something you have to discover—your own and others too. Bluefishers question everything. Drill down for it. Ask why at least three times.
Lead the orchestra. A dream team. Try something and fail at it over and over until you find out how to do it properly—to see if it is worth pursuing—while everyone else is still trying to work out the demographics. They drowned from staying there. It is discovery. Failure is final. Discovery is just the beginning. You learned what to do on your next attempt. To build your brand, first, do a self-audit. What do you stand for? How do you want people to feel when they are around you?
Discover your strengths and manage your weaknesses. Focus on your own weak links, the things that foul up your life or your work again and again and again. Forget about counting likes. Get others to talk about you—recommend you. Invest in your growth. Get better for your clients—your followers. And let them know. I was willing to look dumb, to be among people that I knew were far more intelligent than me, so that I could learn.
Be a sponge. Sims shares techniques to support the thinking but the tactics change over time. The thinking never does. Bluefishing is a mentality first, then a stack of tools and behaviors. Learn the password and the doors will open. Autonomy is simply looking at life as though we are a world unto ourselves.
As though we did it all by ourselves. But the reality is, we are connected. The opposite of autonomy is gratitude. Society does not see gratitude as a moral or a character issue, which it certainly is. Although it is has been scientifically proven to be a key to happiness, it is something much more profound than that. Most of our problems—especially relational issues—can be traced back to a lack of gratitude. In dealing with any of our problems, you will find that there is a lack of gratitude over something or someone.
Even Adam Smith, the economist that believed that the market should be driven by self-interest, expressed in The Theory of Moral Sentiments , his belief that feelings of gratitude are crucial for maintaining a society that is based on goodwill. He considered gratitude to be a crucial source of social civility and stability. Like all character traits, gratitude is expressed in action. It is returning a favor, giving thanks, showing appreciation or simply giving someone your time and attention.
When we are full of pride, angry, frustrated, depressed, defensive, stressed, irritated or anxious, we would do well take a time-out and uncover our ungratefulness. Gratitude is most often expressed by simply thanking others, but it is more than just giving thanks. It is a way of looking at life; a way of seeing other people.
It is more than a strategy or a technique to influence others. It is a way of being. Real gratitude is unconditional. Gratitude endures through everything. It is not a fleeting response to our circumstances. It was not about individual episodes in her life, but rather it speaks to a perspective on life.
An awareness of how much we owe to others throughout our life. Gratitude creates perspective. I am not alone. It strengthens our relationships while moderating our behavior. The autonomous person rejects gratitude precisely because they must recognize and submit to others in this way. I can invalidate them. This kind of thinking is not based in reality. Eventually, it leads to self-destruction. Gratefulness changes us. It strips away our indifference. It puts us in touch with reality because it acknowledges our connections—our networked existence.
It is this gratitude effect—the way it grounds us in reality—that benefits us and those around us the most. Gratitude moderates and even inhibits toxic emotions but more than that, it gives birth to positive emotions. Gratitude gives birth to and nurtures patience, a sense of humor, curiosity, creativity, insight, kindness, respect, courage, generosity, empathy, and positivity to name a few.
Gratitude creates the space for positive emotions to grow and flourish. Anger, irritation, defensiveness, worry, and impatience, are choices. Have you ever been in the middle of an angry rant when the phone rings? The point is, we can choose gratitude to drive these toxic emotions out of our lives. Negative emotions cannot coexist with gratitude. Gratitude has the power to pull teams together. We want to take our ball and go home—disengage.
If we can develop a mindset of gratitude, that will not happen. We will stay engaged. We will work together. Gratitude has the power to slow us down and reflect and refocus our attention on what matters. Sometimes we have to step back to see our life in perspective; to be able to connect the dots. Planets, lives. Humility, of course, makes all of this work. Humility is the ability to silence the self.
Humility is valuing other people; appreciating them. Humility allows us to be open to recognizing the good in all of our circumstances. Not surprisingly, the mechanism behind gratitude is remembering. Developing a mindset of gratitude is about remembering. And remembering takes effort. Of course, we can find the differences; we can find the negative. We can dwell on it. But we can combat that by seeking out anything that is excellent or praiseworthy—seeking out the good in any situation. Drawing upon positive memories gives us hope for the future.
Unconditional gratitude heals and creates understanding and builds relationships. Gratitude acknowledges that we are connected. Allow unconditional gratitude to define you as a leader. Good is often confused with competency. But it is really a character issue. You can be good at your job but doing good is a character issue. Doing good is not just no being bad but intentionally creating more good in the workplace and especially in others. Tjan begins a discussion by trying to define good and to build a framework and language to talk about what good is.
Truth: A mindset of humility that makes you teachable. Self-awareness and integrity between your thoughts and actions based on that self-awareness. Compassion: An open mind that without bias allows you to understand the actions of others. To practice empathy and act on that empathy with a generous spirit that gives people what they need.
Wholeness: Involves gratitude for the people around you that leads to an outgoing concern for others. Caring and nurturing the growth of others. Having the respect to fulfil your obligations to yourself and others and acting with a degree of wisdom. Knowing what is important. As leaders this is easier said than done. Daily we face tensions that have to managed as we try to implement our ideals real.
Tjan lists five core tensions :. Pragmatism versus Idealism Our ambitious goals versus reality.
- The 10 Most Limiting Beliefs About Money (& How to Remove Them)?
- The Top 10 Limiting Beliefs About Money and Corresponding Supporting Beliefs?
Neither one is good or bad. They are a productive tension. Character is a long-term investment. Good people grow by continually seeking to improve themselves and help others to become fuller versions of themselves. While good people value competency, they place a premium on character and values.
They commit beyond competency to character and values of truth, compassion, and wholeness. Good people are realists and find the balance between competing priorities and tensions. Learn to balance the tensions that exist in leadership. These five things are the Good People Mantra. They are five promises. As leaders we need to break from our role as leader to follower and relate to others human to human. Goodness come from building it in yourself and inspiring it in others. A customer tells you they are unhappy with a job, your boss gives you that dreaded look of displeasure or a coworker mocks your new haircut.
Negative memories can linger for a long time. This is not a typo. Dogs are naturals at exhibiting the leadership they need to be the leader of the pack. And they are the masters at shaking things off. Ever watch a dripping wet dog as it gets out of a pool or a lake? No towel or hairdryer needed, just a hypnotic back and forth motion that sprays unwanted water in every direction. It is a fair and efficient moral mechanism based on the moral character of the purchasers. Sure, private people as well as governments will make destructive decisions, but private people know their own needs better and demand more value for their money than a government could.
We may worry validly, say, about plastic bags polluting commons such as water in an unregulated environment. Too many people overvalue the temporary convenience, it is a moral problem sure. And indeed, that is also only possible because we pay them. Perhaps we should say not only that taxation is theft, but that paying taxes is a war-crime.
My point exactly because most of this information goes off in it little tax narrative without a balance of scales….. Consentual, willful, of sound mind and without coersive influences like fear of being kidknapped and held against your will for a victimless state presumptive crime.
- THE BIG BANG NEVER HAPPENED.
- How "The Secret" failed ~ Patrick Wanis.
- Smash Your Hidden Money Beliefs: Make More Money eBook.
- The 10 Most Limiting Beliefs About Money (& How to Remove Them);
- Hero Dog (Beef Casserole for the Dogs Soul Book 1).
- Environment, Fourth Edition (Fergusons Careers in Focus)?
Bang on Benjiiiii — put the money we have earned though our own endeavours and hard work back into our pockets rather than being penalised for any success we have achieved. The writer is basing his whole argument on pre-tax income, which of course is circular logic, and completely ignores the fact that income tax is not the only type of tax. To pretend that government is some kind of benevolent referee, immune from attempts at personal gain and influence is pure fantasy.
Are you able to justify paying some pop-star without talent but popular for stupid reasons million of dollars and at the same time letting some mentally disabled person die? The whole idea of self-regulating economy is based on the myth that consumers a act rationally b have absolute knowledge c are mindful of other people well-being including future generations.
Moreover, the argument that what you earn in such an economy is what you deserve is circular it begs the question. And they can only do it because there are people that listen to their music. And if you want to help a mentally disabled person, do it. The market gave me money, without me pointing guns at anybody to get it? All mine. Absolutely fair. A heinous crime. End it. Replace it with… nothing. Market is nothing more than a convention.
It has no morality. In fact, every known mathematical model of completely free market shows one stunning fact — in the end of the process one entity owns everything. So, if markets really gives you what you deserves, it follows that with all probability you deserve nothing. A and B trade underwear for carrots. Please explain. B is forced under threat of violence by G to give 5 of his carrots to A.
It is unfeasible to accurately predict the weather several days in advance although it is only dependent on deterministic physical processes.
But somehow, a phenomenon even more complex, involving large numbers of conscious agents with changing preferences, constraints and objectives may be predicted to a single outcome? Positivism does not apply to social sciences, including the economy. Money you earn is only a measure and very flawed one of real value you create. Money is not value, money is not wealth. In fact, there is nothing simpler than earning money from destroying real wealth devastation of rainforests for example.
What justifies the use of compulsion for something that non-compulsive firms can do much better? But of course this academic, who survives off of compulsion because few value his work, finds it in his self interest to rationalize compulsion, just as he justifies other ludicrous ideas poorly and inconsistently.
Philosopher Michail huemer explains:. The main method now used is coercive extraction of money from the population taxation. The prevalence of this method of finance is most likely due to the fact that it is a very reliable method of collecting very large amounts of money. But it is not normally permissible to coercively extract money from others, even if you have a very good use for the money.
On the face of it, therefore, taxation appears impermissible. That inference, however, seems to presuppose that individuals are justly entitled, prima facie, to their pretax incomes. Thomas Nagel and Liam Murphy have disputed this assumption. By creating tax laws, the state shapes the property rights that individuals have such that individuals own only their after-tax incomes. In response, there are three views one might hold regarding property rights. First, one might hold that property rights are natural, that is, moral rights that exist prior to the state.
John Locke, for example, held that individuals are justly entitled to the fruits of their labor, even in a pregovernmental society. Second, one might hold that property rights are partly natural, in that there are certain broad principles of property that are valid independent of governmental laws, but that there are many details of a regime of property rights that are not settled by these general moral principles.
One might hold that state-created laws are needed to settle such matters of detail. Third, one might hold that there are no natural property rights. Nagel and Murphy assume that this means that property rights are created by governmental decree. This is plausible only for one who presupposes a strong doctrine of political authority. Nagel and Murphy ascribe to the state a moral entitlement, arising from its power to create property rights, to coercively enforce its chosen distribution of resources.
These would be political obligations. If, therefore, the state has no authority, it has no such power of creating property rights as Murphy and Nagel suppose. The result would seem to be that even after the state has made its laws, there still are no property rights. If one finds this conclusion implausible, one ought to return to the view that there are natural property rights. But by the same token, the state will have no right to that wealth either, and thus citizens do no wrong by withholding it.
Meanwhile, there are the harms the state coercively imposes on those who fail to pay taxes, and these would seem to be prima facie injustices. In short, the defender of taxation must hold that the state, rather than the taxpayers, is justly entitled to the tax revenues that the state collects. There is no plausible way to defend this view unless one assumes a doctrine of political authority. Huemer, Michael Palgrave Macmillan. Kindle Edition. First: Just because the governments are granted the right and responsibility to tax, for the common good, allegedly, having been granted such lowers by the populace, it does not follow that the income generated is not belonging to the individual who is taxed.
By majority consent, we surrender our wealth to the governing body, who in returns x, y and z in a legal and social contract. We elect officials to legislate such collection. In this social contract, the check and balances are as follows: 1. Everyone has skin in the game. Everyone pays. Because everyone has skin in the game, we elect officials who will legislate sound financial policy, providing necessary services, within a manageable budget. Make no mistake, this so-called professor is lazy in his reasoning, dangerous in his presuppositions.
On the contrary. The whole idea that you deserve what you earn is circular and fallacious. First attitude is circular, second is simply false. Market is just social convention, we may of course discuss what forms of taxation are more or less justified, but the only rational measure you can use in such reasoning is improved well-being of society as a whole. Idealizing earnings and suggesting that taxation is just theft is simply infantile. From this perspective, withholding tax is the only moral approach as out taxes are being used to subsidise wealth destruction for the benefit of the political class and their friends.
The fundamental issue of taxation is whether the individual owns his or her self. If so, the fruit of his or her labor belongs to them and no one else. Taking it is theft. So of course they desire the job security a monopoly on force and theft provides them. I wonder if Prof. Goff would support a taxation program to equalize his income down to the level of the rest of the world? Their moral compass starts spinning in all kinds of different directions when their conceptions of justice would actually force significant lifestyle changes on themselves.
Slavery was legal. The internment of German Jews in German concentration camps was legal. Apartheid was legal. I had to stop at the halfway point. You made a statement that in my opinion is jumping over some huge gaps, and to even consider the second half of your argument, they need to be filled. Where do you get that rule from? Further how is it not just? But, that seems rather than a repudiation of markets, a repudiation of social norms, because people in general value knowing their money is safe more than having a cure for cancer.
It also implies that having a cure for cancer is itself valuable. One is a holder of tangible goods, the other a holder of knowledge. As we know from history knowledge is cheap and usually easy to come by, but few people take advantage of it. Finally, what is justice , and how does it apply to our sense of rights.
Hayek dispelled the idea of social justice all together. Even Rawls agreed that distribution can be unequal if the outcome is better for the least of us. You seem to be playing loose with terms and coming to premature conclusions. Also, the argument Nagel and Murphy make is rather different. Their main point is that because income and property cannot be protected without a state, there is an implied necessity of a state for private ownership. There view essentially hurts Anarchist, but nothing more.
A Nozickian minarchy could still fit within that perimeter. Or perhaps, you simply cannot help but congratulate yourself at their expense. How silly of me to think that my employer owns his income and decides how much of it to give to me. In fact, everything is owned by the government.
So right off the bat the writer makes a bizarre categorical error, as though the market is a sentient being that engages in an distribution of money. A salary is trade too — trading your talents in exchange for money. Since value is subjective, these exchanges necessarily are unequal. I might value something higher, or lower, than how you value it, and therefore agree to pay for it more, or less, than you would.
This is true of any financial transaction. If I have business X and you have business Y, I, based on a set of factors, might value a given work slot at N dollars and you, based a different set of factors, might value a given work slot at M dollars. Workers will either agree or disagree to this level of compensation, also based on their subjective value. Rather, it means that they each provided different values to their employers and therefore received different levels of compensation.
The compensation they receive is therefore wholly theirs, and any funds take out of it by taxation, is a taking of THEIR money. Once we understand that the argument he is making is that no one has any right to anything above what each other member of society has, the nonsensical nature of this argument becomes even clearer.
If you run computer simulation of totally free market you will find very interesting thing. In the end of the process one entity owns everything. You end up with the same result even if you assume that investment may be successful only by sheer luck. Because money earns money — you can invest more with the same risk and gain greater profit , or at the same amount with less risk. Purely by chance some entities accumulate better positions, and at the end one entity takes all.
Think about it for a moment. Maybe you will figure out how funny this is when you juxtapose this finding with assumption that you earn what you deserve. Because it would seem that from the two it follows: you deserve nothing. And of course there is such a thing as market. Existing division of wealth and power, attitudes and misconceptions shared by people, rules of law governing this exchange etc. Most of it has nothing to do with justice and morality.
Even sheer stupidity plays it part here. Sorry, but I must add this. The point of the argument is as follows. So we keep money but make some concession by paying taxes discussion about better or worst forms of taxes is completely different topic. Two other things to think about for you. There is a time aspect in real world. Most of mathematics which facilitates current economic and technological advancements was of no economical value when it was created. For example, a drug for rare disease. Laws are simply opinions backed up by guns.
Nothing more other than sanctimonious pretense towards decency. Taxation is theft and anyone who argues differently is just exposing their utter contempt of their fellow human beings because everyone with more than 2 brains cells knows that taxation is not voluntary and consent is not required. I shudder at the thought of all the excuses and circular reasoning he would come up with if not for the threat of violence that would be directed at him by feminist groups given his clear lack of morals.
This is mind bogglingly inaccurate, and shows a near complete lack of understanding of the parameters defining a lawfully binding contract. It should be immediately apparent that charity is a voluntary act, and as such we have every right to choose not to make a charitable donation. More to the point — ALL lawfully binding contracts must be entered into voluntarily, and with full disclosure.
Herein lies the deception — from the day you were born, you have been fooled into assuming that your given name, and the legal fiction NAME were one and the same. This legal fiction was created by, and is the property of the state and as such we place ourselves in dishonor by claiming to be the legal fiction. At no time was full disclosure of the nature of this registration provided. Yet we continue to accept liability for, and act as surety for the legal fiction, as we do not realize the difference. We are specifically referred to the Interpretation Act for the definition of the word Person in bold no less!
AA3 2 Definitions The Interpretation Act also contains definitions of terms, including in par- ticular the term person, and other provisions that apply to the interpretation and construction of this Act. I forgot to mention, your employment contract is a private contract between you and you employer. As required in a lawfully binding contract, you both exchange something of substance ie; labour for money. No third party can enter your contract without the consent of both contractual parties.
Incidentally, the Wages Protection Act states the following, which clearly shows that deductions cannot be made without our consent. Philip Goff is simply a coward who lacks the balls to come steal my stuff in person. If I resist, his goons will throw me in a cage. I read enough. It doesn't matter what ensues after my money or property is forcefully taken from me. It's still theft. Just like it doesn't matter if I pay my wife dinner in an expensive restaurant after beating her up.
It's still an abusive relationship. No sophistry on your part or meanderings about some sort of "social contract" which neither I nor anyone has ever signed will change that reality. If it's involuntary, not "charity" as you attempt to purport. It's theft, it's violence. End of story. It's in moments like this that I have greater respect for classical marxists or fascists. At least they have the decency — or I daresay, the balls — to admit that they approve of violence, coercion and confiscation of property against peaceful individuals in order to promote what they see as the ideal society.
You own your body, you own your time, and you own the fruits of your labor. It is embarrassing that this needs explained to people. Nothing gives you a right to force me to work for you. Are we free or are we slaves? You consume services, you pay for the services. The rule of law, and all that. What if I do not want anything from the government because I believe free market would provide me the same much cheaper?
Scholars should earn more than bankers? What a hippie concept. The Hebrew God will straighten you out article author, when HE sends you to your eternal damnation. Taxation is theft, money does belong to the person that earns it and politicians will spend the same time in HELL that you do, all eternity. I will laugh until the end of time at morons like you. Besides which the civil war will prove you wrong in this life and you will still not believe it. How much money a person makes is nothing to do with the topic at hand — the distribution of incomes is irrelevant.
Salaries are based on many market forces, such as the demand for specific skills, and the amount of professional experience someone brings with them. This is not a moral issue, it is a contractual issue based upon the eternal market forces of supply and demand. Your subjective ideals do not change the fact that the city bankers generates large amounts of revenue for his or her company, whereas the cancer researcher does not generate any income at least, not until a cure is found and possibly patented.
If I work to earn money in exchange for my time and skills, then that money is mine. If the government takes a large chunk of that money against my wishes, then that is theft. If the government tells me to pay this money or else go to jail, then that is extortion and blackmail, and the government reveals itself to be little more than another mob gang engaged in a protection racket — pay up, or else!
Two other things. Second, your assumption that after eliminating income tax you will save additional money in amount which was taxed before, is wrong the whole economy will change, for example, you may deal with higher inflation. That is stupid. Inflation is in practice a form of taxation. The opposite of coercive taxation. You should not care about my opinions in the slightest. The argument you presented was utterly fallacious, and lacking in substance.
Please explain WHY the money supply will be inflated in the absence of the taxation system? Simply put, because your facts are wrong. The Scandinavian countries are abandoning socialism en masse, and are incrementally enacting free market economic policies. What an incredibly convoluted and dishonest attempt to rationalise criminal behavior!
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul… Actual charitable contributions are entirely voluntary whereas government mandated confiscation through taxation absolutely is theft. Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices.
Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating. Bastiat is irrelevant. He has been since he started. He appeals to fringe cranks whose cherished erroneous belief that taxation is theft is a bedrock principle of economics. It is not. It is the credo of the libertarian freeloader. Libertarians want the freedom to choose what to pay for voluntarily. Freedom without rules is the freedom of the fox in the henhouse. And that requires tax, to build the fences.
To smash the monopolies. To un-rig the markets. To educate the population so they can avoid serfdom. That delivers real freedom. Cool story, bro. Personally I have long agreed with the concept of a laissez-faire society since it is the only moral choice being based on truth. Self ownership is innate and is not morally challengable.
The exchange of ideas and the division of labour is humanities crowning acheivement. There is no endeavor that is more human or of higher moral value. Voluntaryism is something I am in favour of to all those statists who feel that services should be payed for. I think the moral responsibility to pay for public service exists. It is the means in which the money is gathered that is immoral. The initiation of force is not justified. In pretty much all of these cases, taxation becomes extortion since the choice is removed.
If not you, who will? Merriam Webster definition of THEFT: 1a the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. If one person stealing from another is theft, then one group of people stealing from another group is massive theft. The notion that a large group of people can grant magical powers to politicians just by voting is nonsense.
The majority simply has enough physical force to enslave the minority. Majority oppressing minority democracy is still oppression! Fuck your essential services. The free market is driven by productivity. The government is driven by war. The ONLY basis for determining if a wage is just or unjust is wether or not it was voluntarily agreed to. Did you agree to work for 50k while the CEO works for k? If you agree to the salary your offered then what is unjust about it.
By what right does a third party have to come into the middle of this transaction and declare an injustice where the two parties involved have an agreement. There can be no injustice where there is an agreement. The problem here is third actors who have a vision of society they prefer and no one is going along with their ideals and are instead pursuing their own interests. So these busy bodies, like the author of this article, have no trouble with coercing others out of their money on the basis that they think there is an injustice, when no one else involved does. If this were the case then why use the government as a middle man?
Somehow I doubt this author or any other SJW types will have the courage of their convictions to do such a thing even though it is precisely what they want the government to do in their stead. This is the crux of your argument. Unfortunately, for your argument, it is illogical and a fallacious misstep.
The moral right to your pre-tax income plays out like this: you are entitled to a good or service for which you have already paid. Your labor, skllls, knowledge, whathaveyou is yours to provide. You can work or not work. If I decide I want to work, I find an employer who will pay me to do so. I will do X for you, and in exchange, you will provide me with Y amount of dollars. You are entitled to Y. Whether or not the company is overpaying you. Whether or not it seems asinine that Miley Cyrus makes more money than any professor of any subject at any school is irrelevant.
If they wanted to make the money Miley Cyrus makes, and they could do what she does better than her, then they have the choice to pursue that economic goal. To suggest that a deliberate action or policy cannot be moral because the market is not moral implies that the foundation of any morality is affected by accidents. That has nothing do with morality, at least not in the way you suggest.
What an excellent response! You are entitled to the money you receive because every party involved in providing you with that money has agreed on the terms of payment. If you want more money, there are countless opportunities to do so in a free economy. What is the functional difference between a aggregate tax rate of 85 to 90 percent and indentured servitude or slavery? At some point the suckers are just going to vote with their feet….
The whole system is wrong e. Monetary , we should all be resource based and use them collectively for the greater good of humanity. Check out the Venus Project on Google search. Many voters for the democratic party and Hillary Clinton will be determined to have voted illegally, those will be removed by deportation. Declared war by Congress at President Donald Trumps request may yet happen to destroy Mexico when it becomes necessary due to as a result of some treaty Mexico achieves with China. Behold Exhibit A for control freaks. These control freaks believe that the distribution of wealth through the natural micro-negotiations of each individual in the market is skewed.
Somehow, with the aid of angels in the persons of our righteous politicians, this unfair distribution can be rectified. Well dream on. Trim your faith for your utopia is almost nigh. Why do we need politicians to negotiate each of our share? This world is so chaotic, because instead of channeling our resources to efficiently run our society, we give it to politicians.
What a waste. This is a joke. People have no claim on the compensation for which they are trading their labor? You are tacitly advocating slavery. The claims i that there are no property rights independent of government laws, and ii that the government can create property rights simply by declaring that something belongs to someone. There is no obvious reason to believe either i or ii , and both claims are counter-intuitive. The hermit hunts with a spear of his own making, which you find interesting.