A recent issue of the ezine, The Certain Way published by my friend Rebecca Fine, featured the following from Scottish psychologist R. D. Laing:

“The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice, there is little we can do to change — until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds.”

If you’re wondering if you’re supposed to try saying that three times fast…no, don’t bother. but you might want to do what I did, and that is, read it three times slowly and really take in its meaning.

I’ve often spoken and written (and read) about belief systems and how they affect our thinking – and often, non-thinking – process. It is harmful to our progress in many areas to be stuck believing a certain way for no reason other than that is what we’ve been been taught and unquestioningly accepted (perhaps through a combination of upbringing, environment, schooling, news media, television and movies).

As such, we might fail to “notice” alternative ways of thinking, figuring and problem-solving.

However, what’s more harmful – perhaps devestatingly harmful – is to not even realize that the reason we are holding onto certain beliefs and failing to notice other aspects is because of those beliefs we have unquestioningly accepted and embraced.

These beliefs are are so unconcisouly ingrained that we don’t even know that they’re there, and we certainly don’t know that we don’t know that they are there (okay, that you can try saying three times fast).

We need to be aware; we need to notice. And we need to notice that we don’t notice. To paraphrase Dr. Laing (and perhaps Yogi Berra), it’s only when we notice that we aren’t noticing that we are able to notice.

Our belief systems don’t necessarily need to change. Many of them are valuable and serve us well. We just need to be aware/conscious that much of what we think, say and do are a result of those beliefs. Let’s simply take notice so that we can act out of strength and choice as opposed to unconciously accepted programming.

In their book, The One Minute Millionaire, Mark Victor Hansen and Robert Allen relate that Marshall Thurber, a partner in a very successful real estate company in San Francisco, CA told of a powerful experiment in his office. In
fact, according to Thurber, “It immediately transformed my entire organization.” 

They took a saying, based on the wise teaching of an American Indian medicine man, “If it doesn’t serve, don’t say it”, and agreed that anyone who was observed not following the policy of “speaking with good purpose” would donate two dollars to a bowl in the office. At the end of the month the money in the bowl was given to charity. According to Thurber, nothing he has done before or since had such a powerful impact on a group of people.  

Wow…what a great idea!

This would also be a wonderful thing to do with your family, as well. Perhaps a “sliding-scale fine” could be arranged depending upon the age of the family member. Wouldn’t that be a constructive, yet fun and entertaining way of teaching your children (and perhaps, the adults, as well) how easy it is to fall into the “gossip trap?” Not to mention how much more effective everyone will be both as individuals and family members when it is avoided. 

You can do this by yourself if you feel you need the practice, and those within your workplace or family don’t want to go along with the above idea.

For example, if you feel you are falling into the “gossip trap” you can make an agreement with yourself. Whenever you slip up, you’ll donate a certain amount of money (the higher the price, the more painful, and the quicker you’ll get back on track). At the end of the week, give the money to a homeless person, a shelter, your religious organization, your local Human Society, or to any worthy cause you choose. And make the donation anonymous. Keep a little charity box in your office or home so you won’t have to look around for a place to pay your fine.

How about trying any of the above suggestions for just one week? Okay, then another…and another . Please let us know your success stories.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.) Or click here to read Part 1 of the Health Care series.

Check Your Health Care Premises (Part 5)

I had planned to end the series on Health Care after Part 4 but felt compelled to add the following because it’s so important an issue that I believe if there’s one more point; one more example  that will help educate us all to realize that the path to Socialized Medicine is contrary to both our individual and national health, then it needs to be made.  And, the following might or might not be it.

Health care is simply a microcosm of everything else and operates under the same basic principles, both economic and life.

As a general rule, with government programs, the following statement holds true: “The product is worse, the expense is higher, inefficiency is the rule, and everything is typically ‘up for sale’ to the highest special interest bidder via their lobbyists.” This has proven true with medicine so far as it has become more and more socialized in the U.S., and will most likely only accelerate should we actually get Universal Healthcare in our country.

The above rule also conforms with the immutable law of economics that says, “Nobody spends someone else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.

One of the most poignant stories I’ve ever read, heard, or (in this case) seen about  the inherent danger of Single-Pay insurance programs was on the online service YouTube.com from a filmaker/political commentator by the name of Stuart Browning. He has – in my opinion – simply “hit the nail on the head” regarding this topic. It’s  5:37 in length and worth every second to watch.

In this video, entitled, “A Short Course in Brain Surgery” he tells the not uncommon-enough story of a Canadian citizen who, despite being totally covered by Canadian’s provincial government for all medical procedures, couldn’t get an appointment to see what’s wrong with him…in this case, even though it was suspected that he had a brain tumor! It would be four months before he could get an MRI!!!!!

Well, brain tumors don’t necessarily wait that long to be diagnosed before they kill, so Mr. McCreith, a retiree on a limited budget, and his wife, Sandra, decided they would rather pay out of their own pocket and get it taken care of. The government said no. (The government said no. Think about that; a body of politicians and bureaucrats actually have the “right” to hold the fate of one of their citizens in their hands – which is bad enough – but they also told him, “no”).

The McCreiths eventually went south of the border to the U.S. where, fortunately, we have not yet (yet) sunk to Socialized Health Care (yet, please make no mistake – we are very far from our once excellent free-market based system).  He was able to get the MRI. It was indeed a brain tumor. He had it operated on, again in the U.S.

He was also out $28,000. (Remember, he also pays lots of taxes to the Canadian Government so he certainly expected services for his payments.) But he had no choice because, unless he headed south, he wasn’t going to get checked out – and then operated – in time to save his life.

You see, in Canada (as in every country that has Socialized Medicine), while everyone supposedly has a right to “free” healthcare coverage, what they really have is a right to join a waiting list.

Please note – this is so important: Basic economics tells us that when something is free or of a price that’s so low it is well under market value, it will create a demand; A demand that typically cannot be covered. The only way to decrease demand would be to raise prices but – with Universal Health Care – where the government is the only legal provider – that can’t be done.

So, the average citizen simply has to leave his or her health (thus, their very fate) up to the system; a system run by bureaucrats without a vested interest in making sure the individual is happy. After all, in a “socialistic” system, by its very nature, the individual is not as important as the collective.

This system has caused a backlog in Canadian healthcare that has been nearly catastrophic, such as  was nearly the case with Mr. Lindsay McCreith, This should not happen in a country as great and civilized as Canada, nor should it happen anywhere else. Let’s not allow this to happen in the U.S.

—–

*Before any of my many Canadian friends email me that I’m picking on Canada, please know that, personally, I love Canada, enjoy visiting on business and constantly brag to my American friends how wonderfully hospitable you all are (and how delicious Tim Horton’s coffee is). :-) I’m also not trying to tell you how to run your country. I would never do that. I’m only pointing out something I feel very strongly about in that I don’t want my beloved country, The U.S.A., going the Single-Payer route as you have north of the border.

And, if you do write, please don’t point out how inefficient our “free-market” healthcare system is. Before you do that, please read the previous four parts of this series and see that I clearly make the case that we have not had a free-market health-care system here in the U.S. for over 50 years.

Socialism is never the answer. Liberty is the answer.

Most salespeople have been correctly taught never to speak ill of their competition. Doing so will only make the salesperson himself or herself look bad. Unfortunately (in my opinion), most salespeople have been taught not to say anything good about their competition, either. I disagree with this counsel and have found just the opposite to be true in my selling career.

Whenever I’m speaking to a prospect and they bring up my competitor, I go out of my way to say something nice about him or her. Why? Because I’m a nice guy? No, not at all (although I do hope I’m also a nice guy) J. The reason is that by complimenting my competitor, I’m actually building myself in the mind of my prospect. If your prospect brings up the name of your competitor and you speak highly of them, what does that tell your prospect about you?

#1 You are Confident: You must have a lot of confidence to, not only not speak ill, but actually speak highly of this person.

#2 You are Successful: If you are confident, you also must be successful. After all, unsuccessful people don’t have that type of confidence in themselves.

#3 You are Safe: “Wow”, thinks your prospect (correctly, I might add), “If he/she speaks that well of their competition, I never have to worry about negative things being said about me or any of my staff.”

Obviously, if you know for sure that your competitor is a thief, you can’t lie and speak well of them. But, that aside, if you can possibly say something nice about him or her, do so. It will only reflect well on you.

Last night’s bout of “writer’s block” turned into a fortunate gift for all as, during a “stop focusing on having writer’s block” break, I came across the most recent blog post of my excellent and gifted Go-Giver coauthor, John David Mann.

While having dinner with his Mother-in-Law, Sylvia, he was treated to a story about her days as a student nurse that moved him so much he – as he told me last night – “literally got up from the table, went right to my computer, and blogged it.”

While indeed it is a story about compassionate nursing, I believe the lessons go deeper.

What are your thoughts and interpretations?* I’d love to hear them

—–

* First one might be, “Burg, you should get writer’s block more often.”

As human beings, we have the ability, and the choice, to lift people up or to put them down. And we don’t even have to speak to them directly in order to do either. In this article (originally published in 2000), you’ll meet my Dad, Mike Burg. He’s always had the most amazing gift for making people feel good about themselves and, while I’ve tried to emulate that trait, I’ve never been able to do it to the degree he has (though…he’d tell me different).

Here’s the article, with only one update, which is near the end, and noted in parenthesis:

 —–

The Master of GoodSpeak

Have you ever known of someone who sets an example you can learn from, emulate, and utilize for the rest of your life?

Such a person is my Dad.

Dad’s ability isn’t only finding the good in everyone, but also verbalizing it. He’s mastered building people both directly and to others. Most people gossip. Dad finds and speaks the good. When he must correct, it’s always with tact and kindness.

Most people relate to others the bad spoken of them, creating conflict. Dad always relates the good someone said about them, bringing people closer together.

Question: Have you ever heard husbands, when speaking to others, make unkind remarks about their wives? It’s one of those macho things, right? Sure, they’re “only kidding,” but words matter. Examples, good and bad, are set, especially for children.

Dad ALWAYS speaks of Mom in the most complimentary, glowing terms. As does she of him. They began poor and built a successful business. Although Dad was the one in the public eye and Mom more comfortable behind the scenes, Dad always made sure
everyone knew who he considered to be the true driving force behind the business.

My favorite “Dad story” took place when I was 12. We were having carpet installed in our home. The crew boss was one of those stereotypical beer-guzzlin’, hard-livin’ guys, who would have probably belonged to Ralph Kramden’s Raccoon Lodge from the old Honeymooner’s TV show (nothing wrong with that – just painting a picture).

For lunch, my folks bought pizza for the crew. Dad went to talk with the boss about the job. I was around the corner listening.

The boss said, “This is an expensive job. Women will really spend your money, won’t they?”

Dad responded, “Well, I’ll tell you, when they were right there with you before you had any money, it’s a pleasure to do anything for them you possibly can.”

This wasn’t the answer he expected. He was looking for negative talk about wives which, to him, was normal. And, Dad, with his natural “street way” that never fully left him as  well as the type of personality to which everyone always felt  they could relate, most likely seemed like someone with whom the crew boss could bond. He tried again, “But, gee, they’ll really play off that and spend all they can, won’t they?”

Dad replied, as I knew he would, “Hey, when they’re the reason you’re successful, you want them to do the things they enjoy. There’s no greater pleasure.” Strike two.

The crew boss tried one more time, sort of stumbling, “And…uhhh, they’ll take that as far as they can, huh?” Dad responded, “She’s the best thing that ever happened to me. I’d do anything to make her happy.”

I was trying not to laugh. I knew he wanted Dad to give in just a little bit and say, “Yeah, I guess that’s true.” But I knew that wouldn’t happen…not in a million years!

Please understand; my Dad did not in any way speak in a condescending manner. He was simply himself; a person who loved and respected his wife (my Mom) so much that there is no way he would give in and participate in that type of talk.

Finally, the boss gave up. Maybe he learned something about respecting one’s spouse. Maybe not. But it taught a young boy a lot about the power of respect and edification.

Mom and Dad recently celebrated their 52nd wedding anniversary (updated since original article, of course) J. They still hold hands, and are more in love than ever. In fact, they adore one another. Would there be any doubt?

 —–

{From Bob to his Dad}: Pa* I wish you a Very Happy Father’s Day and for you to know how much I love you; which, though you already know, I don’t feel I could ever say enough times. 

*Dad’s name unofficially became “Pa” 17 years ago because his granddaughter, Samantha, could not say “Grandpa.” The name just sort of took.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.)

Check Your Health Care Premises (Part 4)

Over the first three parts of this series, we’ve seen that:

• 1. Our once magnificent healthcare system is broken.
• 2. Government is the one that broke it (and, amazingly enough, is being asked by the multitude to fix it).
• 3. Universal Health Care is much costlier and results in many people not getting the important care they need, when they need it. It also, in many instances, denies the individual the all-important right to make the choices and decisions they feel are in the best interests of themselves and their loved ones; instead putting those decisions into the hands of a bureaucrat. 

The problem is, although Universal Health Care is not nearly as effective as a Free-Market system, we need to go back to point number one and agree that our present system is broken and change is needed. Then we need to be extremely clear about something. As mentioned in the first article of this “series within a series”…

The current U.S. Healthcare System is NOT Market-Based!

Fortunately, the solution is actually quite simple. Get the government out of our healthcare system and let the free marketplace, private charity and loving-kindness do what it once did; provide us with a healthcare system that really works.

A couple of goodies include the fact that with a free-market health care system, prices for health care would be much, much lower than they are now. So more people could naturally afford adequate health care. The government has messed up the natural market (including supply and demand) so badly that costs have rises sky high.

So, first, lower prices solves a lot of problems. Then, it’s taking away government’s power to give the insurance companies control over the drug marketplace. Again, with alternative medicines able to do their work, the drug companies would have to come way down on prices. Then, with decreases in needless regulations, there would be more doctors and other health practitioners, creating competition and lower prices, with service much better than it is now. And, for those relative few percentage-wise who still can’t afford it, sliding scales and charities would cover the rest (as it used to, and quite well).

Yes, it sounds simple . . . because it is! Get government OUT of healthcare in every way but the protection of force and fraud (their two legitimate functions when it comes to business) and then just watch what happens. Our health care system will once again be the envy of the world and – more importantly – it will again work for all of us, including the children the elderly and the less fortunate.

Please, please don’t buy into this government and politically-based nonsense of Universal Healthcare. And, don’t buy into those such as Michael Moore; as well-intentioned as he probably is and the politicians, as well-intended as they might possibly be. Or, to the masses, as well-intentioned as they absolutely are.

This is simply too, too important to not think through in depth and detail. Please don’t let emotions make this decision for you.

Instead, check your premises.

*Note. Although this article was inended to complete the series on Healthcare, I added one more, which you can find here.

My friend, Art Jonak (@artJonak) tweeted the following, which I’ll display in long-hand since this blog does not have the challenge of keeping thoughts to 140 characters (hmmm, are you thinking that, perhaps this blog should have that challenge?)

 “Aberrant Behavior breaks trust. True leaders make decisions based on their principles. This creates consistent behavior & trust.”

Let’s first look at the quote to make sure we agree with its meaning. Aberrant relates to something different from the norm; in this case, it would mean an inconsistency of the leader in question. The quote, up to that point, simply means that when a leader is inconsistent, it breaks trust.

This would seem to be true, just as when parents are inconsistent with their children, a teacher with his students, or a coach with her players. As human beings, we relate to consistency. Actually, we are hard-wired to be secure with consistency.

All else being equal (in other words, assuming we buy into their mission and are in alignment with their goals, mission and basic character), we trust the person who is consistent. To this point in the quote, it has nothing to do with the leader, parent, teacher or coach being a “good” person or not; we’re just discussing trust as it relates to consistency. 

Now, let’s look at the second part,that (true) leaders make decisions based on their (guiding) principles. I suggest this is also very true. Again, this is not even to suggest that this leader is a “good” person with “good intent.” There have been many evil people; tyrants who were great leaders when the term “leader” is defined as one who leads others in a particular cause or pursuit, or towards a particular goal.

(It goes without saying that hopefully their goals and ambitions, as well as the internal principles that guide them, are in fact what most of us would consider to be “good” or “worthy.”)

And, when these leaders – for good or evil purposes – make decisions that are consistent and based on their guiding principles (remember, these guiding principles aren’t necessarily good or bad…they just “are”) then they are most likely very effective leaders.

When a leader bases every decision he or she makes on the foundation of their guiding principles, this – by its very nature – creates consistent behavior. And, as suggested at the very beginning, the consistent behavior creates trust.

This does not mean that he or she doesn’t admit mistakes; not at all. Only that every decision is based on the clear set of principles and guidelines. Consistency breeds trust. And, those who can respect their leader for their integrity and consistency are a lot happier and more secure than those who really doesn’t know where their leader stands.

In a family, for example, it doesn’t mean that Mom or Dad don’t admit to making mistakes and even change some decisions they’ve made based on new information. But they are absolutely and completely consistent on principle (their children are not allowed to lie, steal, bully others, they must address elders with respect, etc.).

What about you? Are there leaders you have followed who – when you think about it – were effective, at least in part, because of their consistency? Any whom you didn’t quite trust as deeply for the opposite reason? What about you as a leader – is consistency based on guiding principles something about which you are ruthlessly watchful?

Please feel free to share your thoughts.

“Expecting someone to be helpful doesn’t change them, it changes you.  And that is what changes them.”           

                                           –Bob Burg (Did I just quote myself?)

You’re about to go into a sales presentation with a prospect you’ve heard can be a real bear. Or, you’re about to ask the customer service representative with a sour look on her face to exchange an item you don’t like but you lost the receipt.

Perhaps you need to ask one of your vendors to rush an order for you knowing he gets panicky when asked to do that. Or…or…any one of hundreds of situations where it would sure be a lot better if the person you needed to approach would be kind, smiling and ready to be helpful.

Both for long-term and immediate results, when you want to bring out a response in a person that meets your needs, act towards that person as though that’s how you expect them to respond. Yes, approach them believing they’re going to want to give you what you desire.

Before you think I’m totally crazy (actually, I’m just a little crazy) , talking “hocus-pocus” or suggesting that “just by thinking about it that’s what will automatically happen” please know that’s not it. That isn’t what I’m saying. What will hap­pen, however, is that when you predetermine someone’s attitude or action in your own mind as being positive and helpful, you yourself take on a corresponding attitude (of course, the opposite would also be true). Yes, you change, which transfers directly into him or her changing their original attitude and acting in the appropriate solution-oriented manner. 

Let’s look at two opposite approaches to the following situation and see how they might work out: You are about to approach an office worker at your local city hall. His reputation is that he takes pleasure in acting the part of the bureaucrat, goes “by the book” on everything and generally make it difficult to attain satisfaction.

#1 If you were to go in with a scowl expecting to get into a “knock down-drag out”, do you agree that you would be met by a person who would be very difficult to deal with? Sure, because you are setting the Matrix (the premise from which everything else will originate) of a battle.

#2 Instead, not only do you put a genuine, sincere smile on your face, but you actually expect that person to be warm, welcoming and helpful. Do you think He’ll have a much different attitude than in the above example? I hope you said yes because it happens practically all of the time; not just to me but to most everyone who practices these methods that we discuss in these articles.**

Your question might be “Why does that happen?”

You see, the reason is that, by adjusting our attitude – by genuinely liking this person and thinking highly of them, and expecting only the best from them – we are acting in that way, as well. And, if that person is like most everyone else (and he most likely is), how can he not like someone who likes him so much and expects from him only the best?

Yes, this works. In fact, it works in amazing ways with a vast number of people. (Hey, I know this works when people do this with me, and I’m the one supposedly teaching it.)

Before doubting this, do it with sincerity several times. I guarantee you’ll walk away in amazement and it will change the way you approach the normally difficult people. More importantly, it will change the results you usually get and you’ll find this makes your actions much more productive and your life a lot less stressful!

This happens to be one of the most powerful methods of positive persuasion there is, and we need to practice it until it becomes habit. It’s a habit that will pay off for you continually throughout your life.

 —–

** This doesn’t necessarily mean you are automatically going to get what you want (though indeed that happens quite often). It does mean that as you try and work things out together you are you are coming from a matrix – or foundation – of cooperation and not competition.

This morning on Twitter I posted the following:

“Trying 2 persuade w/o 1st eliciting like & trust is as futile as…as…darn, hate when I can’t come up w a clever ending. ”

Almost immediately, I received a bunch of terrific responses that very effectively filled in the blank that I couldn’t. Rather than listing all the great endings – there were some really good ones and I don’t want to leave anyone out due to space limitations – I’ll just say that they all had one thing in common . . .

“It simply wouldn’t work.”

And I believe they’re correct. You see, in order to persuade (actually cause someone to take action, whether physically or in their thought process, different than what they are presently set on doing or thinking) we must first inspire them to like us and to trust us. This is true even if they already like us and trust us. Because, yes, we’re also talking about family members, friends and associates as well as those we might just meet or have to deal with in a unique, one-time situation.

The quickest and most effective way to elicit these good feelings toward us is to help that person feel good about themselves.

This is perhaps the key element when it comes to the art of influence and persuasion; what I call Winning Without Intimidation.

At their most basic level, people want and desire to feel good about themselves; to feel liked, loved, respected, acknowledged, cared about, and to have a healthy self-image. When you help them to feel this way, they are more likely to feel good about you and thus be much more amenable to your ideas and suggestions.

Of course, this is where the difference between persuasion and manipulation comes into play.

As Dr. Paul Swets, author of the excellent book, The Art of Talking So That People Will Listen advises:

“Manipulation aims at control, not cooperation. It results in a win/lose situation. It does not consider the good of the other party. Persuasion is just the opposite. In contrast to the manipulator, the persuader seeks to enhance the self-esteem of the other party. The result is that people respond better because they are treated as responsible, self-directing individuals.”

The point is, as long as your intentions are pure, then making the other person feel good about themselves is the right course of action, both for its own sake, as well as for persuading that person to take the action you deem correct.

So, the next time you are attempting to persuade, consciously ask yourself, “is this person ready to be persuaded by me? Is he or she feeling good enough about themselves (thus, good about me) to move from defending their position to doing what is correct?”