One of today’s most popular concepts.

Why don’t more people use it effectively?

The book and DVD, The Secret, offer a plethora of examples of very successful people who have used the law of attraction to great effect.  It’s a message that resonates well with virtually everyone. 

Why, then, do so few people employ it effectively in enhancing their lives?  The title of this blog offers a clue.  It’s the action.  In my opinion, The Secret does not place enough emphasis on taking appropriate action.  Without action, neither God nor the universe, knows that you’re serious about your expressed desire.  Allow me to share a personal example.

I have a program, 7 Steps to Becoming INVALUABLE.  As I’m sure that you know, it’s the program that teaches people how to develop the skill of counter-intuitive thinking – the focus of this blog.  It’s a message that resonates extremely well with audiences.  It’s not unusual to have over half the audience feverishly taking notes. 

I’ve wanted to take this program national for about six months.  I didn’t make this goal a priority until 45 days ago.  As you’ve probably guessed, nothing happened until the last 45 days.  In that brief period, I’ve had the good fortune to have a literary agent become interested in a book concept that utilizes counter-intuitive thinking.  I’ve increased my speaking engagements six-fold and I’ve recently been interviewed twice by a national continuing education provider.

It’s counter-intuitive, but the law of attraction’s success lies in the action.  Visualizing what you want, keeping the message in front of you everyday – multiple times a day – aren’t enough to get you the success you desire.  You must take action and be consistent in taking actions that move you in the direction of your desired goal.

Do you have topics you’d like to see addressed?  If so, send me an email at dale@furtwengler.com.

Not if we continue to relinquish our rights.

We are inviting government control.

Last week an ABC World News Tonight report said that some independent pharmacists are refusing to sell contraceptive devices.  They also refuse to fill prescriptions for that purpose.  The Illinois legislature is considering legislation that would require pharmacists to sell these items. 

This is a battle over individual rights.  The question is “Whose rights should prevail?”  Or is it?  To me, it’s another example of our willingness to relinquish our right to make choices for ourselves.  A choice we could easily retain IF we learned to respect each other’s choices.

The third step, in the 7 Steps to Becoming INVALUABLE, is learning to suspend judgment.  We suspend judgment when we respect the rights of others to make their own decisions.  When we deprive others of that right, we risk forfeiting that right for ourselves.

Every time we turn over the decision-making process to legislators or the courts, we not only relinquish the right to choose for ourselves, we relinquish a future right – the right to change that decision.  Anyone who has ever tried to overturn prior legislation or set new court precedent knows exactly what I mean.  Conversely, if we craft solutions on our own, we reserve the right to craft new solutions as the situation changes. 

If pharmacists, when notifying their customers of their choice not to sell contraceptive devices and medications, would have provided alternative sources to their customers, they would have shown respect for the choices their customers make while honoring their own choices.

Similarly, if customers who choose contraception would respect the religious or moral beliefs of these pharmacists, they’d quickly realize that there are alternatives that fit their needs while respecting the choices of the pharmacist.  We live in a world of on-line pharmacies!  Orders are delivered right to our doors.  These “aggrieved” customers can’t even argue inconvenience.

It’s counter-intuitive, but when we initiate a battle over personal rights, we:

• Waste time fighting when we could be crafting solutions
• Give others the right to decide what’s right for us
• Forfeit our future rights to decide our fate

Is that what we want?  If not, let’s learn to respect each others choices and find ways to help each other find the solutions that are right for them while honoring our own choices. 

Send me an email at dale@furtwengler.com and let me know what topics you’d like addressed.

An oft overlooked aspect of praise…

Dealing with poor performers

One of life’s great joys is receiving praise from others.  Praise not only affirms what we’re doing, it gives us a sense of being valuable.  Praise motivates us to higher levels of performance.

What many leaders don’t realize is that praise can be a just as powerful when dealing with poor performers.  Withholding praise sends the message that we’re not happy with their performance, without being critical or denigrating.  The desire for praise can be exactly the motivation a poor performer needs.

It’s counter-intuitive, but praise is equally powerful when offered or withheld.

If you have examples of how praise or withholding it benefited you and your team, please post a comment sharing your experience with us.  Is there a topic you’d like addressed?  If so, email me at dale@furtwengler.com.

You know me well.

It’s about Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers.

I’ll begin with all the appropriate disclaimers.  I haven’t followed the news reports on the Favre situation closely, I’m not a sports agent nor have I read Mr. Favre’s contract.  I do know that he’s reported to have been offered between $20 million and $25 million not to play football.

This is one of the most uninspired solutions Packer management could have devised.  Any time “leaders” throw money at people to get them to do what they want, they’re either uninspired or lack courage.  As leaders yourselves, I’m sure you cringe at both labels.

Let’s look at some alternatives to the proposed “marketing” deal Favre was offered:

1. Most contracts call for players to be paid, not that they’ll necessarily play.  If that’s the case in Brett Favre’s contract, then appeal to his concern for the future of the team and ask him to teach the new quarterback what he knows.  It’s called succession planning!
2. If there are performance bonuses built into Mr. Favre’s contract, pay him as if achieved them all, assuming he’s teaching his replacement.
3. If he’s not willing to take on the role of teacher, if his passion is playing and that’s what he wants to do, trade him.  So what if he leads another team to a Super Bowl victory next year?  What’s the likelihood that the Packers or any team will get there with a new quarterback?

Packer management has demonstrated courage in holding their position that Brett Favre will not be their quarterback this year.  Yet, their “marketing deal” is uninspired and unproductive.

Throwing money at unhappy employees makes the situation worse.  In this case, I’m sure that Brett Favre’s dissatisfaction deepened as Packer management withheld the one thing he wanted – the opportunity to compete.  Other players, many of whom share that passion, can’t help but wonder what will happen to them when their time comes.  Will they be able to go to another team?  Finally, management set a precedent that they’re willing to pay unhappy players to get rid of them.  Do any of these create a culture that’s conducive to winning another Super Bowl?  I doubt it.  

It’s counter-intuitive, if you want to be respected as a leader, don’t offer money; offer alternatives.  Any of the alternatives listed above would have achieved the goals of all parties without paying any more than previously agreed.  Sweetening the deal cheapens the relationship and fosters ill-will.  Why?  It ignores the true goals of each party.