Tag Archives: service

Serve – but don’t be selfish.

05 Thursday Mar 2020

Posted by in Purpose and Service, Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on Serve – but don’t be selfish.

Tags

, , , ,

“The smallest good deed is better than the grandest good intention.” Duguet.

Having done time management to death for a wee while, I am reverting to promotion of the effective tenets of The Three Resolutions as I have reviewed, amended, added to and then re-published the book of the same name, available in paperback or Kindle.

The Three Resolutions propose that there are three commitments an individual can make in an effort to live a principled life. Those three commitments build upon each other, and while some may say they are common sense my response would be that ‘common sense is not common practice’, which is not me being clever, it was Stephen Covey who said it to me first.

Others may look at the subject matter and contents page and say, “I’m doing that already.” I know. Lots of people on LinkedIn are ‘doing’ a lot of that stuff. But I bet they aren’t doing it all, any more than I am. Yes, folks, I hereby acknowledge the imperfection in my dedication to applied common sense.

Ultimately, and without going through the whole Three Resolutions process, the end objective of the The Three Resolutions commitment is service to others, hence my quote. If i was to ask you the names of people who dedicate themselves to the service of others I am positive you would identify many a celebrity or other ‘name’ who clearly do serve in a charitable fashion.

But when I talk of service to others I am not focused solely on people who get great public acknowledgment (and publicity) for their efforts. I also mean the old lady in the charity shop: the man on a motorbike delivering blood: the lollipop man or woman interrupting their day to keep children safe: the administrator whose accurate records and good memory detects a murder (did happen): and many more unsung providers of service to others.

I’m often amused how someone at the top of their game being paid many thousands of pounds gets a medal for their service to their profession when the lower ranks who work harder, physically, get diddly squat. Their service is just as, if not arguably more, valuable than the knight’s.

The principle, for me, is this – service provided, whether for payment or for free, is service. There are no levels of superiority of service. However, there are services provided purely out of self-interest that I do NOT consider to be service at all. There is no harm in application of a ‘What’s In It For Me’ approach, because the answer could merely be ‘It’s the right thing to do and in keeping with my values system’, but when the question is asked and answered wholly in a ‘if there’s not enough in it for me I’m not interested’ manner – service it ain’t.

Going above and beyond the call, is service. Being paid for and doing a good, professional job, is service. Anything done completely out of self-interest, is not.

That is selfishness.

It’s just occasionally annoying how selfish people get rewarded, but they never said life is fair.

To paraphrase Mother Teresa, “Life is sometimes unrewarding: serve anyway.”

What will you do today, to serve?

 

For more on the subject, buy m’book on Kindle or hardcopy through the above links.

Book Cover Front

Choice keeps the wolf from the door.

28 Sunday Jan 2018

Posted by in Character and Competence, Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on Choice keeps the wolf from the door.

Tags

, , , , ,

“Unemployment is a characteristic unique to the human species only. All the other creatures and creations seem to know what they are supposed to do.” This was a quote ascribed to an unnamed economist who I am sure had his tongue half-squished into his cheek, but it is a thought provoker. Of course, the human condition means we can demonstrate compassion to those who have not and who cannot, whereas the animal world rarely shows that (dolphins, whales?).

My question, which might invite challenge, is – should we be so compassionate towards those who will not?

As a police officer, I met people of all three ‘persuasions’. I met the poor, the challenged and the disabled, who to my mind represented the have not and cannot and for whom I had some sympathy. But for too often, and presumably because of the circumstances surrounding the ‘call for service’ that resulted in our meeting, I met those who would not.

Those who would not work in case it made them have to get up in the morning. Those who would not because it involved being subject to supervision and rules. Those who would not because of the inconvenience. They would do one thing – they would go and collect their benefits and then pop next door – and it was next door – to buy their beer. Then they would go out and steal and rob ‘because they needed money to live, Your Worship’.

In a nutshell, there are those who can’t exercise the Three Resolutions,  there are those who don’t know how to exercise them, and there are those who won’t.

And there are those who defend the latter by lumping them in with the former. They make excuses and seek evidence to justify their findings. Instead of giving them a metaphorical slap and showing them how to get a grip, they pander to their failings instead.

Fortunately, there are also those who come half way, giving that metaphorical slap and then helping them to discover a new sense of personal discipline, a new and better sense of character and new competencies. And my experience suggests that those who are helped to achieve and execute those First and Second Resolution ethics frequently go on and execute the Third Resolution in ‘paying forward’ what they were given, to the benefit of all.

I love seeing that. I love seeing people rescued from hopeless and useless to helpful and useful. I remain scathing towards those who are useless and hopeless but who revel in it and demand respect for it.

And I feel that way because, unlike animals, such people – all people – have the ability and capability to do and be better because they have a choice. Animals are usually led by instinct. A dog chases a car but probably doesn’t know why. A human who ‘is’ useless is well capable of choosing better and should be encouraged and helped to do so.

Once. Maybe twice. Maybe even three times. But after that – let the wolves have them. Wolves know what they’re there for.

 

For more, got to Amazon and buy the book on Kindle or  paperback.

51SrzOWl+nL__SX312_BO1,204,203,200_

You’ve got me all wrong. Probably.

04 Friday Aug 2017

Posted by in Character and Competence

≈ Comments Off on You’ve got me all wrong. Probably.

Tags

, ,

Gretchen Ruben is an American author and lawyer, and I have enjoyed reading a couple of her books, most notably her last one – which has become an accidental precursor to her next book. In said next book, she will expand upon what she has called The Four Tendencies. These tendencies are four ways in which we can identify our predilection and motivation for action, or otherwise. Three of those are Upholder, Questioner and Rebel. Those of you who know me have already decided which of those three I am.

Guess what? You’re wrong.

According to the definitions and the pseudo-test she has provided and which I have circulated through Facebook (as requested by the test – read on and giggle), I am the fourth type – an Obliger.

Stop laughing.

An Obliger is defined as responding ‘readily to outer expectations but struggle to meet inner expectations.’

To me, that means that when a person is called upon to do something for others, they do it. But when they have to do something for themselves, they don’t.

I see me in that definition. A sense of duty exists at the workplace, of course. Most of the time I go about my business routinely. I’ll plan my time to enable completion of the required work. But sometimes, when asked to do something, I might (do) whinge and bitch and suggest there is a better way. Nevertheless, in the end, I always do it. I oblige.

But when I call upon myself to do something and the only person to whom I am accountable and responsible is me – I waiver. A lot, in my experience. Even if I have seemingly volunteered to join some enterprise, I haven’t created an inner obligation – I have self-created an obligation to another.

A good friend recently suggested something to me, and while he isn’t aware of the Tendencies I think he did inadvertently confirm the solution for an Obliger. I had ‘complained’ that once when I get to the gym I can train – but thinking about going to the gym often stopped me actually doing it.

He suggested that when it comes to physical exercise (and my stated reluctance to go to a gym unless I could go there straight from work without having to think of something else in between) I would improve my chances if I exercised with someone else. Think about that – going alone is a problem, but if someone else was involved, my Obliger Tendency would ensure that I honoured my commitment to that other person.

Thinking through this using the paradigm of the Three Resolutions, any reluctance to comply with the First Resolution could and would be offset by compliance with the Third Resolution, confirming my hypothesis that adherence to one Resolution often serves compliance with another. Serving a friend would also and simultaneously serve me. So, where discipline is weak, service can provide support.

Me and Gretchen – we’re thinking along the same lines.

Today’s joke – Matt Damon’s chicken dinner has gone cold. Bourne’s Supreme’s icy.

Please buy me.

100-Day Challenge, Day 20. And ‘Look what THEY have done!’

20 Thursday Jul 2017

Posted by in General, Purpose and Service

≈ Comments Off on 100-Day Challenge, Day 20. And ‘Look what THEY have done!’

Tags

, , ,

It hasn’t been a great week for the challenge. Fitness wise I haven’t run since Sunday because of the knee, and the (possibly psychosomatic) pain in the back where, until the doctor suggested I should have pain, I didn’t have. Damnit! And I am too easily succumbing to the evening ice cream. What part of “Don’t buy any more!” don’t you understand!

On a better note, I have launched myself into the services I provide, soberingly realising that the social benefits of being an Institute Director, a driving Observer and a Speakers Club President in addition to my own ‘stuff’ mean – additional workload! Well, I never.

For those who know me, rest assured that I deliberately chose those service roles because they involved no physical effort whatsoever (even if my brain sometimes gets fried).

 

Ooh, look what they get!

It’s all kicked off at the BBC, hasn’t it? For those out of the loop, they have voluntarily (!) revealed large pay gaps between male and female presenter/celebs/newscasters, resulting in much debate on other programmes presented by those not earning as much (sic).

Shortly, it will be a legal requirement that businesses with over 250 staff will be forced to publish their pay structures/details, and one suggestion to counter the BBC-initiated but now extended issue of gender/race-related pay gaps ‘in the whole world’ is that ALL business should publish their pay details.

When I was young, my father said, “What I earn and what I pay in tax is my own business”. (He wasn’t a fan of Cliff Richard so he wasn’t talking about bachelorhood.*)

Outside of some public services, where pay IS publicised – like the police service where rates of pay are published, if not individual income – this would mean that everyone would be legally entitled to know what you were being paid. Everyone.

I wonder how that would benefit people? I know that the motive is positive, but like many good-natured ideas, has it been thought through? Imagine schoolyard bullies being able to pick on kids whose parents earn less than theirs. The phone calls to HMRC or Crimestoppers because Fred’s mum is deriving a Range Rover on a private plate and she only earns £21,000 a year so she ‘couldn’t possibly afford it’. The thrifty being asked for charitable donations by chuggers. And so on.

There is an economical tenet to which I subscribe, conditionally. It is that you get paid what you’re worth in terms of service provision. Which is why people who do jobs that ‘anyone can do’ get paid less than jobs which required years of training and effort. After that, the next leveller of pay is the number of people who want to do the job or who could do it – if only 5 people could do a particular job, then the rate of pay would probably be higher than if everyone wanted it – and the lowest bidder would win. That might explain public sector pay. (Hey, I am no economist and this argument may hold no water!)

All of which brings me around to the BBC issue. Notwithstanding the gender/race gap, which is an issue, is it just possible that the service provided by the best-paid talent is paid for at a rate that was agreed by the two parties involved, and was the result of a negotiation from which either side could have withdrawn, thus lowering the proverbial bar for the next applicant? In other words, “I want YOU,” resulted in the response, “Okay, this is what I want” and off they went.

Nothing. Wrong. With. That.

Perhaps the race/gender gap is a reflection of all of the aforementioned factors – plus an unwillingness of some to ask for more. “Life will give to you what you ask of it,” as Tony Robbins espoused.

And for some of those so offended by this issue, I have a question. Do you watch the drivel that is driving this pay up so high?

    I know my place.

*Look it up

All proper service is self service.

22 Sunday May 2016

Posted by in Purpose and Service

≈ Comments Off on All proper service is self service.

Tags

, , ,

“It is one of the most beautiful compensations of this life that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

The Third Resolution reads: – “To overcome the restraining forces of unbridled aspiration and ambition, I resolve to dedicate my talents and resources to noble purposes and to provide service to others.”

The ‘imposition’ of compliance with all of the Three Resolutions is that having achieved higher levels of self-discipline, competence and character, we should use the benefits of that achievement by serving others. Otherwise, we have not achieved, or at least achieved enough; nor are we living ethically.

Note that the Third Resolution does NOT state, either explicitly nor implicitly, that the only kind of service one should provide is selfless, charitable or sacrificial. Only that the talents and resources serve others.

We do that every day when we go to work and exercise our competence to the benefit of our employer and clients. We do it when we enjoy doing something for expenses only, as well as when we do things for free. The focus of the Third Resolution is on the provision of service, freely given or paid. So there is no need to feel angst when we don’t give money or time to charity, providing we give our time with the objective of making other peoples’ lives better.

At the same time, compliance with the Third Resolution does not prevent you providing free, charitable, selfless service to others!

(Of course, the cynic in me recognises the irony in doing some stunt to raise money for charity while giving money to someone else for their exploits to the same end. It means that my money goes around in an endless economic typhoon, coming back to me and then going elsewhere. That’s why when I do feel the urge to do something charitable I just give, and don’t ask others for money back. And don’t get me started on the question why, after Help for Heroes was set up to aid wounded servicemen, half a dozen other charities all appeared seeking the same end. Charitable? Not if it only benefits those egos that won’t work with the originals, no.)

Giving your time and competency for free in the service of others is, arguably, enough. Let others focus their efforts on collecting cash if that is their strength. Play to your own. Teach, role model, give your time – whatever you can do to serve, don’t feel obliged to comply with someone else’s expectations or impositions.

Do so because, as Emerson suggests, you become better and feel more compete when you do so. For example, I have just started a process to teach/mentor drivers in advanced driving technique. My objective is improved driving standards, not road safety – although the latter will be served by the former. Doing this serves me as much as it serves my future trainees because that task reminds me of my own need to be a better driver, to maintain a high standard and keep on learning so that my teaching improves. I get better attitudinally and technically, as I help others do the same. Emerson was right.

Serve your own way – in a way that is a reflection of your Mission Statement. But serve.

This week, decide what you have to offer that would benefit others through a charitable (free) route, or just revisit your attitude towards the paid work you do and see if you can improve it. Join a professional association, a charity – anything!

For more on The Third Resolution, go to Amazon.

51SrzOWl+nL__SX312_BO1,204,203,200_

Tempus meum prope est in tempore non tuo*

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Purpose and Service

≈ Comments Off on Tempus meum prope est in tempore non tuo*

Tags

, , ,

“We’re stewards over our time, our talents, our resources. Stewardship involves a sense of being accountable to someone or something higher than self.” Stephen R Covey

One of ‘my’ original tenets is that everything we do in life we do for someone, with someone, or as a result of someone else’s input. We don’t live and work in a vacuum. Stewardship reflects this situation – for our purposes it is defined thus by Wikipedia – “Stewardship is now generally recognized as the acceptance or assignment of responsibility to shepherd and safeguard the valuables of others.” Stewardship ‘is a trust, in the sense that what we have (talents, time, resources) are not ours to do with as we please, but they belong to others. We therefore have a responsibility to use those things wisely for others.

Accepting for a moment one of my other tenets (that there’s nothing wrong with finding ‘what’s in it for me’ in any service or purpose), you and I are therefore stewards, and accountable for the use of our time, talents and resources because they also belong to those we serve.

Even when what we are doing is essentially selfish on the outside (having fun, partying, starting a new business in an effort to make money, going fishing), others are being served by us – they are being paid to provide their services, they are being employed, they are partying with us, etc.) There is no accountability gap. What we do involves others either as servants or the served. Hence the stewardship argument – to do the best we can with what we have, so that others can be served too.

What are you using your time for? Or more precisely, are you using your time to best effect – are you serving, learning, growing, becoming something more than you were a few minutes, days or weeks ago? How about your talents? Are you holding back on the best you could be in the hope that someone will notice what you’re hiding and suddenly make you great? How about other resources – are they sitting idle, rusting and deteriorating through lack of use? Remember that the unused car may look nice, but when you try to start it – will it seize? (Cliché moment – a ship is safest in the harbour, but that’s not what ships are for.)

At the moment I am at a bit of a hiatus – a number of projects are ongoing and awaiting the moment of execution. Once they start I hope I’ll be run off my feet but just now it’s almost quiet. So in an effort to utilise my own time I will be reviewing my writings (books!) and seeing how I can improve and recirculate them as a service to those who may just benefit from the assembly of words and the codifying of random thoughts. I’m also reading a novel or two and I’ve committed to testing myself in one of my hobby areas in an effort to comply with my Three Resolutions.

Time’s a-wasting, and as it belongs to you I have every intention of using your time wisely. Oh, and thanks for letting me have it.

*My time is your time. According to Google Translate.

“You don’t OWN me!” – Or do you?

20 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by in Character and Competence, Discipline, Purpose and Service

≈ Comments Off on “You don’t OWN me!” – Or do you?

Tags

, ,

“There is no house like the house of belonging.” David Whyte

Who would you consider ‘owns you’ in the sense that they can call upon you, for any reason? And that when so called, you will respond appropriately and provide the necessary assistance, succour, or service?

Don’t get caught up on my use of the word ‘own’; I use it is only in the positive sense that we belong to others only when we choose to do so whether it be by active choice (associations, clubs), emotional attachment (family, friends) or by duty (work).

Nor should you object to the word if you don’t like any such relationship – because unless you choose to sever a relationship you are essentially choosing to remain in it and to ‘belong’ to the other parties you apparently dislike.

Given that premises – that we remain in a relationship either actively or by default – isn’t it worth considering that we could utilise our personal responsibility to improve rather than endure that relationship?

The Three Resolutions underpin the mind-sets and methodology of proactively and positively providing service, whether it be ‘happily’ or with reluctance!

The application of self-discipline/Self-denial invokes the attitude that we are prepared to put ourselves out or deny ourselves a potentially more self-serving alternative to the provision of that service.

The application of the Second Resolution means that we will apply Character and Competence to a task. We will put our best ‘self’ into a service and carry it out to the best of our technical ability.

And the Third Resolution – recognition that we have a noble purpose and will provide service – means that when the chosen task is undertaken we will feel that sense of high self-esteem that results from a job well done, and done for the best reason – service to another to whom we have chosen to ‘belong’.

Whether the job to be done is desired or not, applying the Three Resolutions means that both the served and the server will feel good about the transaction. And they may also be transformed for the better, too.

So – accept that you ‘belong’, and make the relationship work. Or politely but firmly walk away from it.

First Service – no, not your car’s.

27 Saturday Dec 2014

Posted by in Purpose and Service

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

“There is so much that we can do to render service, to make a difference in the world – no matter how large or small our Circle of Influence.” Stephen R Covey

This season being one dedicated to friends and family, I would like to remind y’all that service to others starts with service to family. There is no nobler service than to look after family members in time of need. Yes, service to others is noble, of course it is. But what kind of nobility can exist if, while nobly serving the community, your own family wonders what you look like and does not get the attention it deserves, nay, requires.

This particular quote, from Covey/Merrill’s First Things First, follows a description of service by Bryant S. Hinckley, who said:

“Service is the virtue that distinguished the great of all times and which they will be remembered by. It is the dividing line that separates the two great groups of the world – those who help and those who hinder, those who lift and those who lean, those who contribute and those who only consume.”

He goes on to provide ideas on how we can serve, saying:

“To give encouragement, to impart sympathy, to show interest, to banish fear, to build self-confidence and awaken hope in the hearts of others – in short, to love them and to show it – is to render the most precious service.”

If you can’t do that for your family, what are your motives when you give it to others?

Family first.

To serve, know first what you need to know……

08 Monday Dec 2014

Posted by in Purpose and Service

≈ Comments Off on To serve, know first what you need to know……

Tags

,

“To improve we must start from where we are, not from where we should be, or where someone else is, or even from where others think we are.” Stephen R Covey

If we are to provide service to others we should consider, first, what our talents, knowledge and skills are. What do we possess that we can utilise in the service of other people? Or to come at it from another direction, what do those people need, and do we have ‘that’?

Problems occasionally arise when someone expects us to volunteer for something with no understanding of our capabilities, then seem insulted, dismayed or even disgusted when we fail to volunteer because we know that we don’t have what is needed for the services sought. Their assumption that we have the required capacities is a paradigm that they have assumed, a paradigm that provides a warped perspective. And our attempts at explanation are deemed, through those paradigms, to be excuses and not valid reasons for not providing the desired results. Of course, the greater the hole that they are in, the greater the disdain for our reluctance to fill it for them.

If you have a skill and you wish to serve, do so. If you do not have the skill, don’t; and if you don’t have the desire to commit to the provision of a service then don’t. Reluctant provision of a service does nothing for any of the parties involved.

But wherever possible, explain politely why it is you won’t be providing that service. Try to explain it from their point of reference; “I don’t have the skills you need,” or “I’m sorry but I can’t commit to that because of my other (genuine) commitments.” If they can’t accept it, so be it – that’s their Circle of Concern, not yours.

So – know where you are so that you know what you can provide.

Who do you serve?

09 Sunday Nov 2014

Posted by in Purpose and Service

≈ Comments Off on Who do you serve?

Tags

,

When the subject of ‘service’ is brought up, an enquirer is usually seeking some kind of commitment from another party about what they do for others, and the ‘others’ they refer to are those outside the respondent’s immediate family or social circle.

“What charities do you donate to?” they ask. “What charitable works do you carry out for no recompense?” “Who benefits from what you do for no reward?” To me, this is a misunderstanding or, perhaps more accurately, an overly narrow interpretation of the word ‘service’.

Stephen Covey often quoted Dag Hammarskjöld, former UN Secretary, who said, “It is more noble to give yourself completely to one individual than to labour diligently for the salvation of the masses.”

That says, to me, that dedicating oneself to the benefit of even only one other person is as valuable a service as any other. Of course those who serve others in a wider sense are worthy of praise, for without them we would all be worse off. But at the same time I believe that serving one’s own family, spouse, children, client, customer or immediate teammate is as valuable and noble a service as that given to a wider field.

One of the reasons I believe this is because those examples lie firmly within your Circle of Influence, the Circle within which you find all those things you have an ability to control. Not ‘control’ in the sense of ‘do with them what you see fit’, but control in the sense that you have the ability to wholly decide how, when and why you can act in respect of that service. And that having taken that control, doing so to that other’s best benefit. Outside influences are less of a concern when you are in the Circle of Influence. You do not need others to help – desirable and advantageous as it is if they can help, they are not essential.

And let’s face it, if you don’t seem to worry about family and friends, why should anyone else?

It is often written that the person we most remember as we age is the teacher who took extra care with our education, or the team-mate at work who taught us something valuable. They probably didn’t know that they were providing a service. In both situations they were being paid to do what they were doing, weren’t they? In neither case did they (probably) earn an OBE or other honour. But we remember them, and we do so fondly. And we will always remember family.*

The point I am trying to make is that when you consider the expression ‘service to others’, then don’t dismiss the ‘service to your own’ as less charitable than ‘service to others’. You have the opinion of a celebrated UN Secretary-General on your side when you ‘only’ serve your loved ones.

*(And we forget those who get honours for ‘services to their profession’ when it is notable that they were more than adequately, even generously paid for those ‘services’ – ever noticed how the Queen’s Police Medal tends to go to senior officers and rarely to the service providers at the front line, who serve just as long in more dangerous circumstances than Chief officers? Rant over.)

Weekly Challenge

How and when will you serve a family member this week? Decide to do something you’ve forgotten to do in the past.

Blog Part

I was disappointed this week with my weight loss. Not that I didn’t lose any, I lost 2lbs, but because another quarter pound and I would’ve been in the 13st bracket. On the exercise front I can now run 5 miles in one go, and in 45 minutes, so both goals are on target. And the book is getting closer to completion, too.

Please consider whether you would like to ‘do what I did’ in terms of fitness and weight loss, because making excuses for being grossly overweight is rationalising (rational-lies), and the expression ‘cheerfully fat’ is NOT really a compliment. I’ve seen ‘cheerfully fat’ people crying n the corner. It’s hard to watch.