Tag Archives: congruence

100-Day Challenge, Day 66. Truth Hurts. A lot.

04 Monday Sep 2017

Posted by in Character and Competence

≈ Comments Off on 100-Day Challenge, Day 66. Truth Hurts. A lot.

Tags

, , ,

I have long been an advocate of integrity excellence, a fundamental (but not exclusive) element of which is honesty. The principle of truth, spoken loud. The valued exercise of telling it like it is, even when doing so discloses, as Al Gore would put it, an inconvenient truth.

And the inconvenient truth on Day 66 is this: while I maintain that the Principles of Excellence in the physical and mental spheres always work, I have failed to work the Principles. I have known what to do, but I have failed to do it.

In my defence, the ‘excellence’ I have sought to perform in the competencies I look to possess has resulted in my being appointed a ‘Masters Mentor’ with the Institute of Advanced Motorists, and I look to produce high-quality work on a professional level. I still do my funky thing for all those I seek to serve.

But physically I am a wreck. I am no further forward in terms of weight loss from Day 1. Exercise-wise I have the genuine reason of a knee injury which, as much as I tried to compensate through different approaches to exercise, just got too painful to move. Even walking was challenging. Where I failed most of all was to not adapt my eating habits (a) to lose weight ‘at all’ and (b) to compensate for the inability to work out.

The ultimate weight-loss principle is and always will be ‘eat less, move more’. I started this Challenge by using the ‘move more’ approach and that worked. But when the injury kicked in I did not then apply the ‘eat less’ approach and that has meant, well, failure. There are 34 days left so I can still do something, but I am not going to hit my original target unless Montezuma seeks terrible revenge, and as far as I know I have not offended any Mexican gods.

Of course, as a personal development writer this has to reflect on my reputation – a bit. I occasionally feel like the clown who is sad inside: the clown, promoting laughter and entertainment while forever crying inside. But part of my challenge might be that I eventually face the possibility that I am comparing my situation, and potential, to that of the truly great writers, performers and coaches in this field, and looking to play like Ronaldo while only having the talent of a (insert name of good, non-International football player here).

I am reluctant to settle for less than ‘perfection’. Nobody should do that. But even perfection is subjective, because as soon as it is achieved someone will always come up with an even better version of it. And even if I did approach an ideal version of me, that very approach would inevitably identify an even better ‘better’. That ‘even higher standard’ could be identified because one of the giants in my field found it, even if I didn’t. And then I would think ‘here I go again’.

Anyway, I will carry on moving ever forward, seeking to finally achieve those elusive, higher levels of personal congruence that will enable me to truly walk my talk and be the individual I would dearly love to be.

Perhaps, as I write that last sentence, I realise that I have to ask myself some sobering questions:

“Am I willing to work hard enough to be the man I want to be? Exactly how dearly do I want to be the best ‘me’ I can be? Do I want it enough? And – finally – do I actually have a clear idea of what that best ‘me’ will look like when I finally get to ‘be’ that person?”

I guess we’ll find out. But one thing must apply. I won’t blindly adopt other peoples’ standards and measure the final ’me’ against those. They have their values, beliefs and behaviours and they are not necessarily mine.

The ultimate identifier and judge of my congruence with my values and unifying principles will be – me. Eventually.

Advertisements

Judge me by MY standards, not yours. I’m not congruent with YOUR beliefs, I’m congruent with MINE.

17 Friday Jul 2015

Posted by in Rants

≈ Comments Off on Judge me by MY standards, not yours. I’m not congruent with YOUR beliefs, I’m congruent with MINE.

Tags

, ,

“Revel in the ordinary.” M J Ryan

This isn’t a criticism of ‘self-help’ literature – a term I detest – but the well-motivated hype of some of the books and seminars just doesn’t suit a lot of us. We don’t all want to be millionaires and we don’t all want to be super-fit and we don’t all want big houses and big cars. We’d like some of those things, certainly. Our upbringing may have instilled in us the false belief that ‘money’ and ‘stuff’ are signs of a life well lived.

Some of us, on the other hand, just want to be ‘good people’. Living honestly, without conflict, with extreme levels of inner peace from living with integrity. And above all, without the expectation and even imposition by others that we should care for the things they are passionate about, and that if we don’t we are at fault.

Stephen Covey’s Circle of Influence and Circle of Concern illustrate my ‘desire’ for that. In the ‘outer’ Circle of Concern is pretty much everything we hear about, see, or affects us, even if only tangentially. In the ‘inner’ Circle of Influence are the things that are in that bigger Circle of Concern, but about which we can do something. Including ‘care’, as in ‘care about’.

So when someone else demands that I care about things that aren’t in that Circle of Influence – guess what, my response will be indicative of my disinterest. And that’s when the fights start!

(My intent is that I won’t let myself get dragged into such debates, but (unfortunately) I am human and if there’s one thing that will grab my attention, it is when someone uses enormous generalisations about a group, attacks them with vitriolic language, and then tries to use an academic argument to justify what, once a general ‘lumping together’ was used to start the attack, is automatically unsupportable simply because of that initial generalisation! For example, as soon as you say ‘ALL politicians are corrupt’ you cannot then use an academic argument to justify that case because you haven’t met them all. It’s an academically unsound argument! Nor can you say ‘all (opposing party) politicians are corrupt, because your ideological separation is all too specific – and obvious.)

Back to the point. Just because I want to be an ordinary man who occasionally does something great doesn’t mean I should be subjected to someone else’s hyperactive and enthusiastic counsel to spend hours trying to build big piles of money. As a result, while I am in no way ‘affluent’ I am ‘comfortable’ and secure and have no fears. My goal, for now, is to be wholly congruent with my beliefs and values and to encourage others to do the same.

Be congruent. But remember that congruence for you does not mean that I have to believe and value the same things as you. AND in recognising that, we can respect each other’s’ viewpoints without necessarily adopting them. We can disagree and both be congruent with what we believe, and neither will be less for that unless the generalised attacks begin.

And just ‘cos I ain’t rich doesn’t mean you are better than me, or more successful (by society’s standards). Nor does it mean I am better than you because I have neither money nor ‘societal success’. But rest assured – being rich doesn’t make you successful.

Being congruent does.

The Three Resolutions and Maslow’s Hierarchy

28 Sunday Jun 2015

Posted by in Purpose and Service

≈ Comments Off on The Three Resolutions and Maslow’s Hierarchy

Tags

, ,

“The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.” Gandhi

Do you recall Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. To pinch Wikepedia’s entry (to save blistered fingertips):

“Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is often portrayed in the shape of a pyramid with the largest, most fundamental levels of needs at the bottom and the need for self-actualization at the top.”

Maslow

The ‘idea’ is that once a lower need is satisfied it no longer motivates, and the individual seeks satisfaction of the next level, and so on until the highest level is sought and/or achieved. So once one is physically satisfied one moves on to security, then relationships are sought, then self-esteem and in the original version, self-actualisation. (PS – apparently Maslow NEVER used a pyramid!)

I have seen it opined that Self-Actualisation results when once activities are wholly in keeping with ones values, and to be frank can’t think of any better interpretation. Once you achieve what you value (whether it be money, property, happiness, adventure, etc.) on a consistent basis, you have congruence between what you want and what you have. Provided, therefore, that what you want is the result of competence (work) and character (attitude, standards, respect), which in turn resulted from some level of self-discipline, you will be content if not happy – certainly at peace with yourself – and you shall have exercised the first two of The Three Resolutions. And you will have demonstrated integrity – you ‘couldn’t not have’.

But two points remain to be stated. First of all, it is unlikely that anyone can reach self-actualisation without, as a result of compliance with the ‘Social’ needs, having become engaged in some kind of service. I can’t see how one could create client relationships or colleague relationships without committing to the provision of service at some level, after all. So the Third Resolution has been approached in some way.

The second point is the lesser known fact that Maslow, as he approached the end of his life, opined that the hierarchy was incomplete. He added Self-TRANSCENDENCE to it. Self-transcendence is the point at and after which we have grown past ‘self’ and live in such a way as to create synergistic results with and for other people. In other words, service becomes not a part of the social need to relate to others, but instead becomes the driver. The social need is promoted above our own need.

And this, to a greater degree than ever, is where The Third Resolution comes into its own. Noble purpose and service to others, provided out of desire and not ‘just’ social or physical (income) need.

Seek to serve. You are allowed to earn income from it, but try and do something for nothing, too.

Teaching Others About Who You ARE.

22 Monday Jun 2015

Posted by in Character and Competence

≈ Comments Off on Teaching Others About Who You ARE.

Tags

, ,

“I preach my philosophy constantly and, where necessary, I use words.” St Francis of Assisi.

An expression comes to mind, specifically the cliché “Tell it like it is.” If you are visibly living in accordance with your beliefs and impressing upon others through your behaviours that you are congruent, you can support your efforts to impress the efficacy of living that way by talking about what you are doing. To again use the example of St Francis, to ‘use words’ where necessary. Living congruently shows others how you have integrity, but what else can you do? You can teach using words, in a way that people listen.

In order to teach using the Auditory Learning Mode it is necessary to have two abilities. First of all, and this is the result of dutiful study when what you are to teach, you have to understand your values deeply enough to be able to explain the logic and philosophy behind them, particularly if questioned.

Next, you have to be able to talk about them confidently, passionately, imaginatively and with authority.

Confidently – speaking about your values confidently exemplifies your own confidence in them. You believe in them, and the way you talk about them is proof of that.

I have a friend whose knowledge and belief in Stephen Covey’s leadership principles is shown in the impassioned and expert way he talks about them not only in seminars but in the one to one conversations we’ve had. There is no pretence, no lack of understanding, no hesitation in being able to talk about them, nor in being willing to talk about them. My friend has absolute belief and conviction in the principles, and it shows when he talks.

The skill of speaking is also a prerequisite. So few people seem to have the skill to elucidate fluently. My own recommendation would be to practice through attendance and observation at speaker clubs such as those provided by The Association of Speakers Clubs (UK) and Toastmasters (international). Doing this raises your confidence and skill levels in speaking, thus supporting any efforts you wish to make in explaining your values and beliefs through the Auditory Mode.

Passionately – speaking with passion underlines and emphasises the confidence you have, but adds emotional intensity to the message. You can teach others your values in a monotone, emotionally passive and logical way, but clear emotional involvement provides an emphasis that is invaluable when it comes to showing how much it means to have integrity.

Imaginatively – if you can speak not only from experience but through the use of metaphor, your message will have more impact. If your metaphors are directly relevant to the people to whom you are sending the message they will be more prone to firstly understanding the message, and then to accepting it.

Authority – some people lack the ability to believe in or even merely accept something unless there is some objective authority standing behind it. Some listeners want to hear the science or legal basis for a statement before they would accept it is true, so being prepared through your studies to answer those questions is prudent. But where no such scientific or legal foundation is easily found then it is just as acceptable to use experience. For example, if challenged about the basis for an argument, refer to metaphor. Ask someone if they drive – they usually do –and then ask them for the scientific basis for the internal combustion engine, transmission and gears, and the physics of mechanical and aerodynamic grip. Assuming you haven’t just challenged an engineer (pick your battles carefully), and they reply that they don’t need to know that in order to drive (or you tell them they don’t need to know it) ask them why it’s okay for them to drive without that engineering knowledge but your belief in your values and in what you are speaking about isn’t allowed that benefit.

Being able to explain your values audibly is empowering not only because of the background knowledge obtained when learning about them but because (like my friend) the more you speak of it then the better you know it – and the easier, and more consistently, you are able to congruently – especially when challenges arise that mean living them is harder.

Bringing Behaviours into Line with Values – or Bringing Values into Line with Behaviours?

19 Sunday Oct 2014

Posted by in Character and Competence, Discipline

≈ Comments Off on Bringing Behaviours into Line with Values – or Bringing Values into Line with Behaviours?

Tags

, , , , ,

Just musing the other day I considered one of my favourite Hobbs concepts, which is that of Congruity. He describes Congruity as being a core element of successful self-management, and used this diagram to show what he meant.

Consider these two Circles. One is representative of how we behave and the other is representative of our personal values, those things and states of being we consider to be important. In this diagram the two circles are quite far apart although there is an overlap. This illustration shows someone whose behaviours are often quite separate from what they believe in.

Congruence

Hobbs (and Smith and Covey) all agreed that the ‘ideal’ state of being is when the two Circles wholly overlap, when what we say and what we believe in is completely demonstrated in how we act. When we walk our talk. Hobbs called them ‘Unifying Principles’ because when what we valued became our behaviour, we were unified. We had integrity.

This got me to thinking as I traipsed around London looking at the self-help (ugly term) sections in the better bookshops – which activity comes first, the chicken or the egg? In our efforts to improve, do we or could we first choose Values or Behaviour?

I concluded that there are 5 approaches to this concept.

  1. We can do nothing about any of it.
  2. We can accept the values that we have learned over the years, and behave in accordance with those values.
  3. We can identify our values, and then ignore them whenever we decide it is convenient to do so.
  4. We can identify what our behaviours are first, and then identify what values our behaviours represent.
  5. We can design our lives by making a conscious decision on what our values should be if we are to get what we want in life, and then act in their accord.

Taking each in turn:

  1. We can do nothing. Many who decry the self-help drive are those who live in the moment, who give little or no thought to what their values are and who would probably have trouble identifying more than three if they were pressed. This isn’t necessarily bad but it isn’t the best. But their lives are often dependent upon circumstances rather than intent.
  2. We can accept the values that we have learned over the years, and behave in accordance with those values. This is probably the most common state of affairs. This is what Covey called ‘determinism’ in various forms, but the crux of it is that when we live like this we are ‘being lived’ by our upbringing and by the standards of those with whom we spend our time. This is fine if the people we spend time with are not unprincipled, dishonest, unfaithful, or demonstrate any of the other self-destructive and undisciplined behaviours that we know, in our conscience, will not serve us or anyone else. It may suit you because the people you mix with are disciplined people of great character. If this is so, you can identify your values from theirs, and live accordingly. But then you have still made a choice by not choosing – see 5.
  3. We can identify our values, and then ignore them whenever we decide it is convenient to do so. This is a poor way to live, and is possibly one great cause of personal stress and/or guilt – the knowledge that we are deliberately not living according to the rules that we actively set for ourselves.
  4. We can identify what our behaviours are and then identify what values apply. This is the life of the person who can misbehave, err, pre-judge and generally act as he or she feels because whenever challenged they will find an excuse for what they just did. It’ll be ‘freedom’, ‘liberalism’, ‘identity’, or ‘to put it to the man’. It is willing defiance of authority just for the sake of establishing their independence, while wholly ignoring the interdependence of life. It is the telling of rational lies.
  5. We can design our lives by making a conscious decision on what our values should be if we are to get what we want in life, and then act in their accord. This is the only sensible option and the one representative of a higher intellectual approach to living (in my opinion), but it is often the hardest one to carry out. First of all, identifying the values themselves can be difficult because finding the right words with the right meaning can be problematic. Then, assuming we’ve defined our identified values appropriately, we come up against the obstacles of peer-pressure, societal norms and our own convenience when trying to execute on them.

Hobbs called them Unifying Principles, most others call them Values. One writer called them ‘valuables’ but I suspect he’s one of those who uses different terms for the same things just to seem (annoyingly) different while not actually being different, but I digress.

“Unifying Principles”. To wholly mix up philosophical terms, the objective is to live in accordance with your own identified and defined, timeless, understood, self-evidently true and extrinsically existing ‘truths’, rather than constantly bob and weave between doing the right thing one minute and having to make excuses the next.

I’m still trying. Are you?

Weekly Challenge

Decide which of the 5 you are compliant with, conclude number 5 is the only sensible option and make sure you identify and define your Unifying Principles/Values if you haven’t already done so.

For those who have done this, watch your behaviour throughout the week and see if the circles are, or are not overlapping!

Blog Part

Mixed week. I have been running in accordance with the plan with the exception of a day off to rest a twisted back, only to try to run on the same twisted back the next day. Interestingly, running on the twisted back made it better. The weight loss continues, but we’ve just spent 2 days in London – stuck with Slimfast on the first day but eating in a diner meant a risky calorie load – or not, I just don’t know yet!

Yesterday I was able to provide service for my Institute with two business meetings so I’m glad I can still contribute despite ‘retirement’.

Mini-Blog 2 – Self-Leadership before hierarchal leadership.

01 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Character and Competence

≈ Comments Off on Mini-Blog 2 – Self-Leadership before hierarchal leadership.

Tags

, , ,

People who can’t lead themselves will never be true leaders because those whom they are supposed to lead will see that incongruence.

I recall one colleague who, when in the CID, draped his clean shirts on hangers off the (open) office noticeboard and kept his collection of breakfast cereals in the top of his in-trays. Not pretty, not professional. (He was a worker, I’ll give him that.)

When he was promoted, the first tangible thing he did was put a notice on the door of the men’s  locker room door (i.e. private and out of the view of everyone else) stating that items hanging off locker doors MUST be stored away tidily or they would be removed. Now tell me what I thought of him as a leader.

Are you consistent with your behaviour? Do your actions reflect your word? If not, in the words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard – “Make It So!”