Do You Make Other People Better?
Better question is … can you make others better without improving yourself?
By Jim Geschke
Not long ago, while searching the web for cosmic wisdom, I came across a short article written by businessman/leadership guru Jon Mertz called “Do You Make People Better?” A vague enough title … ambiguous ... maybe clickbait … but intriguing.
My knee-jerk reaction was how do you ‘make’ anyone do or be anything? Is it a mental gyration, such as channeling, hypnosis … or a Jedi mind trick? That would be pretty heady stuff. Remember, we are simple primates, one tiny genomic cipher removed from chimpanzees. So imparting mind-to-mind altruism would seem a huge leap in evolutionary biology.
Perhaps a left hook to the gut might work better?
My next thought was more in earnest: is ‘making others better’ even plausible? And how is it accomplished? Mertz’ article was more rhetorical than instructive. The de facto answer is “lead by example.” Think “what would Jesus do?” and the unwashed masses will fall in line. Worked for the Nazarene, didn’t it?
Then again, this presupposes that a divine chromosome is wired into our DNA. Not in everybody's mojo, is it?
Or perhaps is “making others better” really just an extension of self-improvement? I mean, just making ourselves better is a transformative leap, requiring real primate stuff … like self-awareness … thinking … planning … and effort. Suppose you’re a late riser, aimlessly turning on “The Price is Right” while opening a can of Spaghetti-O’s for breakfast. How can we make others better if we ourselves are a hot mess?
Self-Help?
Now, bookstores and online repositories offer plenty of “self-help” guidance, from “how to” books by Dale Carnegie and Stephen Covey to fiction, such as Paolo Coelho’s iconic The Alchemist (Harper One, 1993), the allegorical story of Santiago, an Andalusian shepherd boy who sets out on a quest for treasure and finds enlightenment instead.
Simple, right? Well, when “self-help” comes up in conversation, I recall the late funnyman George Carlin, who calls “self-help” a paradox of diction (“If you’re looking for self-help, why would you read a book written by somebody else? That’s not self-help … that’s help! If you did it yourself, you didn’t need help!”)
Besides, self-improvement requires qualities such as desire, effort, discipline, structure, a perpetual internal motor … but all with a nagging predisposition for f**king up. Yes, a conundrum.
Perhaps I’m setting the cart before the horse here, but you gotta start somewhere. Besides, I addressed some self-improvement ethos in previous writings called “Unsolicited Advice.”
The Point Guard
So if helping ourselves is perplexing and labor-intensive, then isn’t the ability to make others around us better even more of a reach? How does magnanimity translate to others?
Again, setting an example seems obvious, but we are creatures of habit, lots of bad habits, and influencing behavior rarely happen in real-time. Many analogies are drawn from sports.
For example, basketball coaches often speak highly about the ultimate team player, the point guard. The point guard is the quarterback of any basketball team. He calls the plays, runs the offense, and expertly distributes the ball to the player with the open shot. Beyond that, the point guard possesses intrinsic and motivational qualities, his actions and words are uplifting and motivational. His reward is not the number of points he scores, but the number of assists and, most importantly, team success.
So how do you become a point guard for others? The process, it seems to me, is progressive, binary and -- here’s the key -- reciprocal. Moral competence raises your ability to make others around you better … your spouse, your family, friends and co-workers.
Moreover, this creates a provision for them to return the favor. Thus, the whole process becomes its own reward. Synchronicity.
Making others better: Some examples
Typically, making others better is the domain of Leadership. But not always (see below).
n business, good leaders always set up others for success. How? The best supervisors are mostly pragmatic and universally fair, which always commands lasting respect. They never talk down during discussions and are never condescending or hostile in accepting feedback. They make fellow workers’ tasks challenging rather than menial, demanding but doable, hopefully with a tangible reward. This always provides a sense of added value.
Moreover, leaders can focus on singular objectives but still make them common goals if good faith remains intact. Decency is one of our strong virtues, and others can sense it. In essence, making somebody else “look good” while not taking any credit is the quintessential win/win.
In education, improvement and betterment of lives is the institutional raison d’etra. The cognitive foundation of every institution is, and will forever be, positive reinforcement. Of all the research, analyses, data and scholarship behind K-12 cognition/learning, there’s no bigger game-changer than “can do.”
This may take time for the educators, and interminable patience, sometimes to the point of hair-pulling (the teachers’, not the kids’). It often meets resistance; in the industry it’s euphemistically called “learned helplessness.” Take it from a 14-year teaching veteran … positive reinforcement eventually, and inevitably, works. Look at it this way: it is why teachers do what they do.
Better yet, it is transferable to home life and family. At home, “sink or swim'' may serve as a motivational M.O. for some, and might even produce periodic success.
But a “risk/reward” conjunction may work better … reward good behavior while setting boundaries that cannot be crossed without consequences. Believe it or not, adolescents crave structure, behavioral and otherwise, meaning a system in place that requires building implicit discipline and respect. (I posit self-discipline is maybe the most important requirement of self-improvement … but that’s a topic for another essay).
The extra mile
Finally, do you need to be a leader, a mentor, a guru, a sensei, or an alpha dog to make others better? Not necessarily.
My first real job was as a copyboy for the San Diego Union starting at age 18, in 1973. (Unacceptable gender-specific title today, right? But that was then, this is now.) An archetypal “gopher” job, pre-computer, where everything was accomplished by hand and hustle. On an organizational hierarchy, I swam at the bottom of the food chain … Basically, I was among the lowest forms of grabastic amphibian shit (see: Full Metal Jacket).
But it was a big deal for me, an aspiring journalist, to be working at a major metropolitan daily. So I decided that though I was a newt turd, I would be the best newt turd I could be.
We had a gruff, warhorse city editor, Al Jacoby. Jacoby was quintessentially old-school, Italian, short-sleeved white shirt, skinny black tie and a face and demeanor of knotted hemp rope. One of his unrelenting habits was to hold up his pencil silently so the nearest copy boy could swoop in, sharpen it, and return it promptly. One time I was the closest copy boy, but instead of returning with one sharpened pencil I brought back three. Obviously surprised, and grudgingly pleased, Jacoby didn’t say anything, but the knotted face relaxed. I could tell he was impressed. I made his job just a tiny bit easier, and elevated myself above the rest. It was an effort, a practice, which I continued for the rest of my life.
Moral of the story: Take that extra mile. You might just make someone’s life just a little bit better.
###
Postscript: “If” (making yourself better)
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
-- “If” by Rudyard Kipling
I often turn to England’s most treasured poem for inspiration. This stanza from Kipling’s iconic “If” is about the right of passage from adolescence to manhood and carries so much tradition that it is emblazoned above the players’ entrance to Centre Court at Wimbledon. The speaker in “If” engages with themes of challenge, masculinity, discipline and success/failure. This quatrain addresses contemplation and temperament … imploring young men to exercise command over whatever life presents. Curiously, Kipling personifies Triumph and Disaster equally, calling them “impostors.” Presumably he means these highs and lows are fleeting, not permanent, and thereby not lasting tests of your character. Rather, your true character develops in an unwavering response to either. A fascinating dichotomy. (Caveat: Kipling was a product of Victorian England where male dominance was among the established mores. We have progressed, thankfully, and the modern world translation and themes of “If” are universal and apply equally to everyone.)
-30-