Setting Your Expectations Low Enough

I was delighted to hear that my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a chance to win a gold medal at the 2013 U21 Men's Canadian Fast Pitch Championship.  If they win their semi-final game, they go on to play for the gold medal.

So given the opportunity to claim gold and be considered best of the best, why do local news agencies show headlines like this (look at the lower left – “NL Assured of at Least Bronze”)?

Instead of proclaiming the opportunity for a gold medal, the local news agencies are playing the more negative, more scarcity-driven “at least if we lose, we can still win a bronze”.  What’s wrong with a headline that proclaims “NL Goes For Gold At Fast Pitch Championship”?

I think that too many people focus on what they can settle for instead of what they have the potential to create.

I know from personal experience that when I focused on what I could settle for or what I felt I was worthy of while experiencing a diminished sense of personal value, I produced a result commensurate with that level of thinking. 

Zig Ziglar refers to this as “stinkin’ thinkin’”.

And when I focused on what I was capable of, with an acceptance of my true value, that I produced a result of much greater value and impact.

In your personal and professional Life, do you set out to win or do you set out to not lose? 

Do you have your eye set on what you are capable of producing or what you are willing to settle for?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

Can you prove it?

The difference in thinking has a surprisingly powerful impact on your motivation, your execution and your results.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – August 12, 2013

The NL team indeed took the bronze, a well-earned finish that they should be proud of.  Maybe the next time, the local media will project a message that expresses more positive potential.

The US Elections–Choosing Your Poison

Do you remember when you could tell by the way a person spoke and lived whether that person was a Republican or Democrat - that being one or the other meant that you stood for certain positive ideals (and yes, both have some positive things that they stand for)?

As a result of this clear demarcation, one knew what one was in for in terms of domestic and international policy when one voted in a representative of either party in the national election.

I remember those days well.

Now ….

Do you remember when a political candidate ran solely on the merits of their personal and party values and past performance, focusing on their proactive strategic and tactical intentions to make the country and the world a better place instead of merely focusing on trying to convince us why the other guy is “a loser who will destroy the country”?

That’s what I thought.

I don’t remember those days either.

Our modern day election process is no longer one of inspiring people to follow a vision, a vision representing personal and party values, backed up by past performance of the candidate and communicated via a strategic and tactical roadmap with measurable outcomes that resonates with the electorate.

It has transformed from being a process of making a proactive choice for the best person for the job to one of proactive avoidance, avoiding the person who, as we are led to believe, will cause us the most pain.

This is like saying you have two choices:

- death by cyanide (because arsenic poisoning can cause severe diarrhea)

- death by arsenic (because cyanide poisoning can cause severe headaches)

In this case, you have been told that death is unavoidable and so you examine the pain caused by each and choose the option that allows you to avoid that which you fear the most.

Such a process doesn’t move us purposefully towards success.

It’s a strategy for avoiding pain (and failure), which is the complete opposite of striving for success.

And in politics, as in business and even Life itself, you ultimately achieve what you focus on.

Unfortunately, it may or may not be the result you had hoped to achieve.

It’s no wonder we can’t move towards more positive results in the country and in the world-at-large.

It’s because we’re too busy trying to avoid failure and the person whom we have been told will bring us failure instead of embracing the candidate who has demonstrated that he or she has the best chance to lead us towards success.

Oh well … maybe we will do better in 2016.

Maybe.

In service and servanthood,

Harry