If you have problems with your self-discipline, I’ll share something with you that will give you hope.  Throughout my teen years and most of my twenties, I was instant-gratification oriented to an extreme.  I was self-disciplined in some areas — in sports, for example.  Also in my profession as a real estate broker, where I relentlessly followed through on deals until they were closed.

But in most other areas of my life, I displayed a shameful lack of self-discipline.  Clichéd as it may sound, believe me, if I can become self-disciplined, anyone can.

I believe the greatest catalyst for an undisciplined person is pain, which comes in a wide variety of packages.  The most obvious example is physical pain, which can be the catalyst for becoming self-disciplined when it comes to exercise and healthy eating.

Financial pain can be the catalyst for having the self-discipline to work when you’re tired or sick, or when you’d rather be out having fun with everyone else.  And then there’s the pain that comes from a lost love, which can be the catalyst that gives you the self-discipline to put forth the effort to be a better partner when love comes your way again.

If pain does not motivate a person to improve his self-discipline, the outlook for his future is grim, at best.  In the most extreme cases, a lack of self-discipline can lead to homelessness and/or premature death.

When I finally got serious about being a writer, I made a commitment to go to bed between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m.  I got up around 4:30 a.m., jogged a few miles (sometimes starting out in the dark), and was at my desk by 8:00 a.m.

Under tremendous time pressure, I did about twenty-five drafts of each book, and always succeeded in meeting my deadlines.  In addition, I undertook a number of speaking engagements and traveled nationwide as a frequent guest on radio and television shows.

Through it all, acquaintances would often urge me to go to one party or another or go out on the town and “live it up” with them.  But in most cases, I told them I had to work.  As a result, they would chide me with statements like, “C’mon, don’t be a party pooper.  Lighten up.  You’ve got to let it all hang out sometimes.”

Fortunately, a wise person once told me that when you get your shot in life, you have to pull out all stops and go for it.  The door closes very quickly once you’re out of the limelight.

A defining moment for me occurred during my stretch drive on one of my books, when I was putting in fourteen- to sixteen-hour workdays, seven days a week.  I vividly recall a friend, who happened to be an excellent writer, looking very frustrated after one of my refusals to party with him, and saying to me, in a discouraged tone, “How could I ever compete with someone as self-disciplined as you?  You’d just wear me down through attrition, because you’re so damn relentless.”

It was almost as though he were saying, “It’s not fair.”  It struck me how bizarre it was that this brilliant, multitalented person was telling me that he couldn’t compete with me.  The truth of the matter is that, had he been willing to pay the price, he could have written two or three great novels in the time it took me to write just one book.

But the fact is that he made a choice.  Specifically, he chose instant gratification over enjoying the huge long-term benefits that come with self-discipline.  (Interestingly, before, during, and after this three-year period, I found the time to vacation in Hawaii for periods ranging from ten days to several weeks — but I never went until the major project I was working on was 100 percent completed.  My point is that I still made time to enjoy life, but not until I did what had to be done.)

Could it be that some people are just lazy?  Sorry, that’s not a valid excuse, because the truth of the matter is that most of us are lazy at the core.  In fact, there is evidence that most successful people are lazy, which is what motivates them to become self-disciplined.  They recognize the wisdom in Jim Rohn’s great insight:  Self-discipline weighs ounces; regret weighs tons.  Working hard now allows you to be lazy later.

Some people develop the art of going through the motions in such a way that it appears to the outside world that they’re going full throttle when they’re really dogging it.  It doesn’t work.  Sooner or later, the truth comes out in the quality of what a person produces.

But why take the trouble to go through the motions when, with just a bit of practice, you can develop the self-discipline to do what it takes to outperform people who are far more intelligent and talented than you?  Jim Rohn was right.  In the overall scheme of things, self-discipline weighs ounces.

The post Winning Through Relentlessness appeared first on RobertRinger.com.

In 1910, Dr. Gerson, who suffered from severe migraine headaches for years, came across a book written by an Italian doctor who claimed that some migraine headaches could be relieved by a milk diet, while others could be relieved by a fresh-fruit and vegetable diet.

Gerson first tried the milk diet, but without success.  He then put himself on the fruit and vegetable diet, with an emphasis on apples, both raw and cooked.  In a short period of time, his migraines disappeared.  He further experimented by adding salt and a variety of other substances to the fruits and vegetables, only to find that his migraines returned very quickly, sometimes within a half-hour.

After serving in World War I, Dr. Gerson set up practice in Bielefeld, Germany as an internist and specialist in nervous diseases.  Expanding his experimentation with diet, he claimed to be successful in curing 446 out of 450 supposedly incurable cases of lupus (an autoimmune disorder characterized by skin lesions).

For his work in this area, Dr. Gerson was hopeful that he might earn the Nobel Prize for Medicine.  To his disbelief, he instead was challenged by the German medical establishment and hauled into court.  The charge was that he was not a specialist in skin disorders and therefore his work in this area was in violation of the German medical code.

After having similar success with “incurable” tuberculosis, he again was challenged by the establishment medical community.  Unfortunately, before he was able to prove that his natural-diet therapy did, in fact, cure tuberculosis, Dr. Gerson, who was Jewish, had to flee his homeland because of the increasingly dangerous political situation in Germany.

After his escape, Dr. Gerson lived in Vienna and then moved to Ville d’Avray near Paris to become chief of staff of a sanatorium.  Finally, after a short stay in England, he emigrated to the United States.

In New York, at age fifty-five, Dr. Gerson had to go to school with first and second graders to learn how to speak English, a prerequisite for his earning a medical license.  He finally received his license to practice medicine in January 1936 after passing the New York State Board examination.  After setting up practice in New York City, he continued his diet experiments with arthritis and cancer patients.  His success rate was astonishing even to him, but it made the medical establishment very uneasy.

On July 3, 1946, Dr. Gerson demonstrated his healing techniques before a U.S. Senate subcommittee headed by Senator Claude Pepper, bringing with him five cancer patients whom he had cured with his organic fruit and vegetable therapy.  To put it mildly, the AMA was not pleased.

In its November 16, 1946 edition, the Journal of the American Medical Association stated, “Fortunately for the American people, this presentation received little, if any, newspaper publicity.”  Later, in its January 8, 1949 edition, the same publication declared, “There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to indicate that modifications in the dietary intake of food or other nutritional essentials are of any specific value in the control of cancer.”

The AMA pressured hospitals, laboratories, and other doctors not to do business with Dr. Gerson.  This made it difficult for him to document his work, because he was prevented from bringing his patients to established medical facilities for testing.

The final blow, however, was when Dr. Gerson was invited to be a guest on a radio talk show hosted by the popular Long John Nebel.  The show lasted for several hours, and the public’s response was overwhelming.  The result?  The radio network was threatened by the AMA, and Nebel was fired the next day.

On March 8, 1959, after years of harassment from the AMA and other segments of the establishment medical community, Dr. Max Gerson, the ultimate medical messenger, died of pneumonia.

In reflecting on Dr. Gerson’s work, Albert Schweitzer, the renowned doctor and humanitarian who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952 (and whose wife Gerson had cured of tuberculosis) said, “I see in him one of the most eminent medical geniuses in the history of medicine. … Unfortunately, he could not engage in scientific research or teach; and he was greatly impeded by adverse political conditions.

“In ordinary times he would have been able to expound his ideas for many years as a professor at one of the important German universities; would have taught pupils who could carry on his research and teachings; would have found recognition and encouragement. … All this was denied him.

“His was the hard lot of searching and working as an uprooted immigrant, to be challenged and stand as a fighter.  We who knew and understood him admired him for working his way out of discouragement again and again, and for undertaking to conquer the obstacles.”

Dr. Gerson was the most hated kind of messenger, because the message he delivered threatened not only the incomes of doctors, but also of hospitals, clinics, and those involved in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceuticals and surgical equipment.  After all, if people ate healthy food, where would the medical community get its patients?

That’s why, long after the silencing of Dr. Gerson, corporate giants in the dairy, beef, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries, along with the American Medical Association, continued to shoot down one medical messenger after another in an effort to repress the hated, profit-killing truth.

Today, of course, every halfway knowledgeable, rational person recognizes that alcohol and foods loaded with saturated fat, cholesterol, salt, and sugar are the very things that lead to diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and cancer.

Today, of course, the importance of a natural diet for the prevention, and even cure, of most diseases is now pretty well accepted.  Thus, the problem is no longer a lack of knowledge.  The relationship between what a person eats and his health and longevity is well known to all.  The real problem, particularly in America, is the renunciation of self-discipline and the addiction to instant gratification on the part of the general public.

This is graphically demonstrated every time another obese woman appears on television, sobbing and telling the world that it’s not her fault that she vacuums down two Big Macs, a large order of fries, and a milkshake every morning by 10:00 a.m.  It’s because “McDonald’s makes it look so good in its ads.”  In other words, the devil (or the clown?) made her do it.

The reality, of course, is that the only thing the devil made her do was file a frivolous lawsuit, and the devil I’m referring to is usually sitting right next to her on the talk show where she’s playing out her role as victim.  And that devil isn’t Ronald McDonald.  He’s a money-grubbing humanoid we have all come to lovingly refer to as a “personal injury attorney.”

The fact is that lethal food doesn’t kill people any more than guns do.  Fast food can’t kill you unless you choose to eat it.  If the object is to kill as many Americans as possible, Al Qaeda is not the enemy we need to worry about.  Nor is it the fast-food killing machines that try to make deep-fried food look so delectable.

The real enemy is our own lack of self-discipline, which, along with self-delusion, is the number-one killer on earth. These two culprits are not only killers in the absolute sense, they can also kill a person, figuratively speaking, in many other ways — including financially, spiritually, and emotionally.

To end on a high note, the good news is that, as a human being, you have the capacity to choose to employ self-discipline and think and act in a rational manner.  And you can be certain that the results of self-discipline and rational action are a lot more fun than crying, playing the role of victim, and disrobing yourself in front of millions of people on talk shows.

The post The Real Enemy appeared first on RobertRinger.com.

But I also believe that people sometimes take a wrong turn in the road — perhaps inadvertently or maybe as a result of an ill-advised, impulsive action — then discover that they can’t find their way back.  There can be many causes for making that wrong turn — teenage pregnancy, the loss of a loved one, disappointment over not landing an anticipated promotion, lack of social acceptance, or failure in an area such as sports, academics, or spirituality.

Whatever the cause may be, we know that some people give up on life and turn to alcohol and drugs, become bitter recluses, or even resort to suicide.  Then there are others who, after experiencing everything from a poverty-stricken background to racism … to the loss of an entire family … to financial catastrophe, fight back and succeed against all odds.

What we don’t know is why one person is motivated to take the turn in the road that leads to a happy, fulfilling life, while another chooses a turn that leads to self-destruction and misery.  Is it genetics over which we have no control?  Is it inevitability dictated by a Conscious Universal Power Source or a random universe?

The truth of the matter is that we simply don’t know.  Years ago, at a seminar in Sydney, Australia, Jim Rohn, in talking about how easy it is to become irritated by individuals who are nasty to you, suggested that you have to learn to “meet people in the hurt.“  Everyone who has children can relate to this, because kids experience so much pain growing up.  What they have to go through as adolescents and teenagers borders on cruel and unusual punishment.

The good news is that most of them survive and go on to lead normal, healthy lives.  The bad news is that millions of them never find their way back to the main road and end up on drugs, alcohol, or both.  They end up in abusive marriages.  They end up homeless.  And, yes, many end up dead at an early age.

Whenever I cross paths with a street beggar, I find myself wondering what happened in this person’s life that brought him to such a wretched state?  What was the wrong turn he took, why did he take it, and when?

I began giving money to street beggars at a relatively young age.  I especially made it a point to give to them when I was struggling in my own life, because I would think to myself (and still do), “There but for the grace of God go I.“

People have often chastised me for giving money to “human blight“ who appear unwilling to try to help themselves.  But I’m motivated to do so by the lingering question:  What is it that happened in this person’s life that brought him to the point where he has lost the sinew to fight for his existence?

It’s easy to say that a person should stand up and do whatever it takes to overcome his plight.  But that begs the question, “Why?”  Why doesn’t he do it?  Is it a genetic problem?  Is it willed by a Higher Being for reasons we do not understand?  If he’s “lazy,“ why is he lazy?

Is there not something mentally wrong (by “normal“ standards) with both a schizophrenic and a person who cannot muster the energy to fight for his life?  If a person’s brain does not work in such a way that he is determined to rise above his dismal circumstances, is he not just as “crazy“ as a schizophrenic?

Let me make it clear that I’m not on a crusade to help the poor.  On the contrary, I am a staunch believer that people who rail on endlessly about the injustice of the growing gap between the rich and poor almost always do more harm than good.  As Nobel Prize novelist and poet Anatole France so rightly pointed out, “Those who have given themselves the most concern about the happiness of peoples have made their neighbors very miserable.”

And then there are the youthful rich and famous like Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears — celebrities whose lives have become too-good-to-pass-up monologue material for late-night talk-show hosts.   The nonmedical term for this problem is:  too much money, too fast, too easy.

The truth is that captains and kings can be as miserable as the most poverty-stricken among us.  A good lesson to draw from all this is that it’s a mistake to spend your life yearning for money.   It’s far better to seek the path that leads to being a better person and living a meaningful, fulfilling life.

But with a guy sitting on a sidewalk and begging for a few coins, it’s different.  He wants my help; he wants your help.  Not help in getting sober, cleaning himself up, landing a job, or bettering his life.  Forget about all that.  It’s not going to happen — not with my help, not with your help, not with the help of professional do-gooders, and certainly not with government help.

Nevertheless, I feel a compulsion to meet that street person in the hurt, which is why I usually go out of my way to give him a dollar or so.  I know he’s going to spend it on cheap wine or drugs, but I don’t care.  What I care about is that the meager sum I hand him will give him some instant gratification, something that I fight against with a passion in my own life.

The difference between the street person and screwed-up celebrities is that the street person has no life.  When someone is dying of cancer, you give him instant gratification in the form of morphine.  It’s the same with a street person and his desire for drugs and alcohol.

I don’t give out of guilt.  I give because I know that this person is going to live out the remainder of his relatively short lifespan enduring a kind of pain that is incomprehensible for you or me to imagine.  I give because I know that but for the grace of God, there go I.  Something human inside me senses this and makes me want to meet him in the hurt, if only for a moment.

I know that something, somewhere along the line, caused this pitiful soul to take a wrong turn in the road.  And something genetic or environmental has kept him from rising up and fighting the good fight.  Something has totally defeated him, something that will forever remain a mystery to the thousands of people who pass by him each day.

Whenever I come across a street beggar, it’s also a reminder to me of how minor my problems are in comparison to the problems of those who have permanently lost their way on this side of the secular/nonsecular divide.

What I have said in this article is not an appeal for you to follow my lead.  What you do in your life, and with your life, is strictly your business.  But what I hope you take away from this article is an increased capacity to keep your own problems in perspective.  In addition, I hope it will make you think about how fortunate you are that you haven’t taken that wrong turn in the road — or, if you have, that you were able to find your way back.

Above all, I hope my words remind you just how important it is to make the effort to at least meet your friends and loved ones in the hurt, particularly your children.  Love and understanding could very well be the difference between a child’s becoming an honor student and going on to have a super-successful business and personal life … or evolving into an angry kid in a black trench coat whose life ends in tragedy.

The post A Turn in the Road appeared first on RobertRinger.com.

Two of my favorite examples of B.S. are when Bill Clinton looked into the camera and spewed out those now classic zingers, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and “That depends upon what the meaning of is is.”

But let’s be fair and balanced here.  Remember Richard Nixon looking into the camera and saying, “I’m no crook”?  What a refreshing revelation to hear from the president of the United States.  I’ve never been able to figure out why he chose to use the very word that everyone was already thinking.

He should have put it in a more positive light and said something like, “I’m an honorable man.”  Which still would have been B.S., but if you’re going to B.S., why not do it in a positive way?

But B.S. is certainly not restricted to politicians.  In fact, most of what you see on TV is B.S.  Take Oprah, for example — please, take her!  To say anything negative about Oprah is considered heresy … even unpatriotic.  Oprah gives new meaning to the term sacred cow.

How about Paris Hilton, who has become rich(er) and famous just for being a bimbo with chutzpah?  Or O. J. Simpson’s acquittal — and new book on how he did it?  Or the droning acceptance speeches at the Oscars?

But it’s the B.S. that we see and hear in our own little worlds that is the most annoying and most difficult to ignore.  For example, I’ve personally had dealings with three people over the years who used the title “Dr.” in front of their names, yet none of them ever graduated from college.  In fact, two of them never even attended college!

One died at the age of eighty-five, before the general public discovered that the doctorate he had carried through life was nothing more than B.S.  Another was found out only as a result of his multimillion-dollar company’s bankruptcy.  Amazingly, he was never even indicted, let alone convicted.

The third “Dr.,” however, wins the prize.  After nearly forty years, not only is he still “practicing,” he is esteemed as a world-renowned psychologist.  In fact, as incredible as it may sound, from time to time he still appears on radio and television shows to offer his “expert” opinion on psychological matters.

The reason I know for a fact that this charlatan has never received a degree in psychology is because many years ago I had a business reason for having him thoroughly checked out.  A short summary of the report that came back was that his doctorate degree, his reputation for being on the cutting edge of great breakthroughs in the field of psychology, and his fame were all pure, unadulterated B.S.

And what about the mundane, day-in-day-out B.S. that we all have to put up with — airport security personnel who grope us … six kids behind an ice cream counter, gabbing with each other while ignoring a line of twenty-five customers who are growing increasingly irate … the voice mail runaround that large companies put you through while telling you that “your call is very important to us.”

Then there’s the business world.  I hear enough B.S. from people I come in contact with every week to last a lifetime.  Most of the people you deal with promise short and deliver long.  They overstate their figures.  They spin the facts.

But perhaps the biggest B.S. of all is the guy who finally gets around to calling you back three weeks (or months!) after you’ve left two messages for him, and opens by saying, “I apologize for not returning your call sooner, but I’ve been up to my ears in work.”

He’s so mesmerized by his own B.S. that he doesn’t realize that his words are an insult to you.  Why?  Because they imply that he doesn’t believe you are just as busy as he is, and that you therefore have nothing better to do than lounge around and wait for his call.

So, the question is, what can you do to protect yourself from drowning in the tsunami of B.S. that relentlessly comes at you each day? 

First and foremost is to make a sincere and ongoing effort to curb your own B.S.  Knowingly or unknowingly, we’re all guilty of slinging a bit of B.S. at times, but that doesn’t mean we have to make a religion out of it.

Second, always do your best to steer clear of those who demonstrate they have mastered the art of B.S.  And to accomplish that, you have to pay more attention to what people do and less attention to what they say.

Sycophants, in particular, are people who excel at B.S.  Simple observation makes it fairly easy to discover that there is often a wide disparity between a sycophant’s flowery words and his anemic follow-through.

Above all, learn to translate.  In Hollywood, for example, people love to say things like, “Let’s do lunch.”  Which usually means, “Don’t call me; I’ll call you.”

Or the seller who tells a real estate broker, “Trust me. I’ll take care of you.”

Or the attorney who assures you, “I’m not one of those deal-killing attorneys, so you can relax.”  To borrow from Mario Puzo, this is your cue to go in with a gun and a mask to make certain that you get what you deserve.

Finally, of course, there’s the B.S. line that has become part of the lexicon of the comedic world:  “Your check is in the mail.”  All too often this means, “I’m going to mail your check today.”  Worse, it may just be the person’s way of saying, “Get lost.”

Above all, if you really want to protect yourself from the ravaging effects of the B.S. tsunami that perpetually threatens to drown you, depend on no one — and on no one particular deal.  The best way to accomplish this is to strive to become as independent as possible.

Recognize that the best answer to your problems is in the mirror.  Which means taking matters into your own hands and not expecting anything of anyone.  And the only way that can happen is if you refuse to allow the guy in the mirror to B.S. you.

One last word of caution:  As you walk away from your mirror, be very careful not to accidentally step in anything.

The post A Tsunami of B.S. appeared first on RobertRinger.com.

Carnegie focused a great deal on the acceptance of the inevitable as a key to eliminating stress and worry.  Though I agree with him on this point to some extent, it’s a bit more complicated than he made it sound.  The reason I say this is because what some people think of as inevitable, others see as a challenge that can be overcome.

For example, a person might believe that failure is inevitable for him and thus resign himself to a life of frustration.  Unfortunately, this is precisely what millions of people do.  Yet, the reality is that failure is not inevitable in anyone’s life.

But what about things that really can’t be changed, such as blindness and quadriplegia?  Thousands of people have endured major physical handicaps, yet found the mental and physical strength to accomplish great things.  By accepting the reality of their physical handicaps, such people were able to rise above their handicaps.

The challenge is to be able to determine what is and is not inevitable.  When I use the word inevitable, I think of it in the future tense — as something that has not yet happened.  Carnegie, however, seemed to be referring to the inevitable in the present tense.  (It’s already a fact of life, so learn to accept it.)  Thus, it could be that his oversimplification of the subject was simply a matter of semantics.

Technically speaking, the only thing that is 100 percent certain to occur in the future is death.  Frank Sinatra expressed his view of this certainty with typical candor when said, “You better enjoy livin’ baby, ’cause dying is a pain in the ass.”

I wouldn’t exactly compare Sinatra to Shakespeare from a linguistic standpoint, but in reality he summed up perfectly the solution to dealing with the inevitability of death:  Become so focused on life that you don’t have time to think about it.

When you direct your energy away from the inevitability of death, it paves the way for focusing on constructive living.  The least expensive medication for worry and stress is activity.

While death stands alone as the one fact of life that is truly inevitable, many other things are virtually inevitable.  Even so, none of them deserve your stress or worry.

So, yes, Dale Carnegie was right when he preached resignation of the inevitable, but it’s important to be able to differentiate between what is and is not inevitable.  The reality is that most perceived problems can be overcome through a combination of (1) relentlessness, (2) an “expansive mental paradigm” that is open to new possibilities that people with a low awareness level cannot see, (3) the law of averages, and, above all, (4) being conscious of your connection to the Universal Power Source.

Any way you slice it, and whatever your spiritual beliefs may be, what it all boils down to is focusing on constructive thoughts that will better your existence and the existence of your loved ones.  It’s okay to plan for the future, but worrying about the future can actually get in the way of sound planning.

Above all, exerting mental energy to worry about the inevitable is illogical.  We’re all familiar with the Serenity Prayer that includes the words:  “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.”  If something is truly inevitable, that means there is nothing you can do about it.  And if there’s nothing you can do about it, what’s the point in worrying?

Just make certain that you don’t cavalierly apply the term inevitable to a situation that doesn’t warrant it.  As I pointed out, very few things in life are inevitable, and only one — death — is 100 percent certain.  And since, as Sinatra put it, death is “a pain in the ass,” who wants to spend time thinking about it?

A better idea is to invest your mental and physical energy in thinking about how to be the best spouse you can possibly be, the best parent you can possibly be, the best son or daughter you can possibly be, the best sibling you can possibly be, the best friend you can possibly be, the best employee or employer you can possibly be, and the best overall person you can possibly be.

Which is more than enough to keep you busy.  However, as a bonus, to the extent you are successful in these pursuits, that other little issue we worry so much about — financial success — somehow works itself out without your having to fret and stew about it.

The post Stop Worrying and Start Living appeared first on RobertRinger.com.

I use the past tense here because, sadly, I rarely volunteer my observations anymore.  The inherent urge to be of help to a fellow entrepreneur or business owner still resides within me.  The problem, however, is that too many business owners have demonstrated that they are neither interested in, nor serious about, receiving such feedback.

A few years ago, I was doing business with a public relations firm that assigned a seemingly intelligent young lady (“Ms. Snit”) to my account.  Subsequent events made it clear that she had it all — negligence, laziness, incompetence, and a huge chip on her shoulder.  Her purported job was public relations, but her entitlement mentality caused her to focus on her technical “duties” rather than on pleasing her company’s customers.

After enduring one abysmal experience after another with her, I finally decided to go to the trouble of writing a letter to the CEO of the company, a letter in which I detailed Ms. Snit’s myriad deficiencies and belligerent attitude.  I subsequently spoke to him on the phone and emphasized that I would prefer he handle the matter in a general sort of way in order to avoid hard feelings.  I specifically requested that he leave my name out of his discussion with her, given that I have an aversion to axe murders.

I suggested that he simply point out some areas of weakness where he felt Ms. Snit needed some improvement.  He assured me that he wouldn’t even mention my name and that he would handle things “gingerly.”  I guess we had differing definitions of the word gingerly, because he not only told her straight out what I had said about her, he actually showed her my letter!

A short time later, I called Ms. Snit to inquire about an unrelated matter, whereupon she went into a tirade about how I had “defamed” her.  In rare form, she demonstrated an uncanny knack for coming up with four-letter words that I didn’t even know existed.

Needless to say, from that point on she went out of her way to make things difficult for me.  Worse, having been allowed to get away with her outrageous behavior, it was a green light for her to continue to treat her company’s most valued assets (its customers) with glaring contempt.

About a year later, I hired an audio/video company to do some extensive work for me, and dealt primarily with the vice president of new business development.  Notwithstanding his impressive title, he never once delivered work when he promised it to me.  Worse, he was unresponsive to an extreme.

I finally got so fed up with the bad service I was getting that I felt compelled to let the owner know about it.  Since he had been the one to personally solicit my business, I knew he would be concerned about the lack of follow-through on the part of one of his top people.  Here again I emphasized to him that he should handle the problem gingerly since we were only about half way through my project and I had a lot of money invested in it.

Once again, however, there apparently was a wide disparity between our definitions of “gingerly.”  Wham!  Immediately after the owner of the company talked to him, the vice president of new business development called to let me know, in very harsh terms, that he didn’t appreciate my “going behind his back” to complain to his boss.

I didn’t bother to remind him that on numerous occasions I had expressed my dissatisfaction directly to him, but it seemed not to have had any effect.  Needless to say, working through the remainder of the project was a very uncomfortable undertaking for me.

Advice:  If you’re a business owner, when a customer does you a favor by pointing out that one of your employees is not doing his job properly, don’t make the mistake of creating an employee-versus-customer battle.  Be grateful to the customer, thank him for taking the time and trouble to tell you about his dissatisfaction, then approach the employee gingerly.

Meaning, tactfully point out the area or areas where you feel he needs improvement, but leave the customer out of it.  Why?  For at least two reasons.

First, because you can count on the employee’s having his own version of the story, and that version is almost certain to cast him as an innocent victim.  Which means you then have to make a decision as to who to believe.

Second, if you intend to have an ongoing relationship with the customer, the offending employee is likely to act in ways that will drive him away from you by exacting retribution for his “tattling” on him.

I believe that one of the reasons so many employers make this mistake is that they tend to be naive.  By and large, anyone ambitious enough to go into business for himself is usually conscientious, competent, reliable, hardworking, and customer-oriented.  Where the naivety comes into play is that such business owners also tend to assume, at least subconsciously, that their employees possess the same traits.

And, fortunately, many employees do — at least the ones who are focused on getting ahead in life.  However, the employees who treat customers disrespectfully are most likely to be the same ones who excel at kissing up to their bosses.

How do some employees manage to get away with this kind of charade throughout their careers?  Sadly, I believe the egos of many business owners simply can’t resist the gushy verbiage of professional sycophants on their payroll.  It makes them feel secure to know they are surrounded by a cadre of pit bulls who make great theater of protecting their bosses.

In fact, many bosses are addicted to the fabricated adulation of their employees.  The unspoken understanding is that in exchange for treating the boss as if he were the Pope, they can count on him to stand up for the guys and gals on “his team” at all costs.

All of which sounds very noble, except for the reality that it’s simply not good business.  An owner cannot serve his customers effectively if he is focused on not offending his employees.

I want to emphasize that making certain your employees are treating your customers with tender loving care does not prevent you from being respectful and loyal to those same employees.  But your relationship with an employee should be based on how well he treats your most precious asset — your customers — rather than how well he treats you.

The corollary to this is that if you happen to be an employee, you should skip the sycophantism and focus your efforts on pleasing your company’s customers.  You’ll get ahead much more quickly by having customers tell your boss how great you are rather than by your continually telling the boss how great he is.

Finally, if you’re work-alone entrepreneur, everything is in your lap, because you are both the employee and the employer.  Without customers, you have nothing.  Treat them like the valuable assets they are.  The only rigid policy you should have is that the customer must be satisfied at all costs.

In fact, you should look at every customer complaint as an opportunity to strengthen your relationship with that customer.  I’ve done this a thousand times in my career by not only apologizing and thanking the customer for letting me know about his dissatisfaction, but also by doing something special for him.

Almost without fail, it results in having a more loyal customer than one who has never registered a complaint.  In other words, view a customer’s complaint as an opportunity rather than a problem.

One last piece of advice that I feel is critical:  Don’t ask customers to fill out evaluation forms unless you, personally, are prepared to read them.  On at least two occasions that I can think of, I was about to fill out one of those “tell us how we’re doing” forms, because I thought the owner of the company would appreciate knowing that someone in his organization was not performing up to par.

The problem?  In both cases, the form was to be returned to the very person I was having a problem with!  As I said, many business owners are very naive.

If you own a business — or plan to own one some day — never make this mistake.  If having your customers evaluate your products and services is really important to you, make sure all customer evaluation forms are sent directly to you.  Otherwise, you’re tempting the employee who reads the forms to shred the ones that don’t please him — and then plot ways to get even with those who do the complaining.

The post The Customer-Employee Challenge appeared first on RobertRinger.com.

Being the peaceful, gentle soul I am, I let it go at that.  But what I really felt like saying to her was, “What I meant was that I wanted you to put some cracked pepper on my salad.  I don’t like to work for my food, especially when I’m paying $80 for it.”

About a month later, I checked into a fairly high-priced hotel in Los Angeles.  Because I’m an ex-artillery guy, wherever I go I tend to set things up as though I were going to be there for an indefinite period of time.  And when it comes to hotels, the first thing I do is call housekeeping and read off my standard list of requests.

One of those standards is two extra boxes of Kleenex.  Being an efficiency aficionado, I always put one box on the nightstand next to my bed and another box on the desk.  Why walk into the bathroom every time I want to blow my nose?  Okay, so I’m strange.  But so was Howard Hughes.  (Hmmm … maybe not such a good example.)

No matter how much traveling you do, every trip brings with it one or more surprises that you’ve never had to deal with before.  And so it was that when I called housekeeping and related my list of requests to the lady on the other end of the line.  She nearly took my breath away when she snapped, “I can only give you one extra box of Kleenex.”

Out of morbid fascination, I asked her why.  She explained that it was simply the hotel’s policy.  She added, however, that after I used up the extra box of Kleenex, she would be happy to have another box delivered to my room to replace it.  How kind of her.  It was beginning to feel like a Saturday Night Live skit.

In truth, however, her absurd statements were a result of a contagious employee disease known as “Make Up the Policy as You Go Along.”  Trust me, there is no hotel in the world with has a policy that states:  “If a guest asks for two extra boxes of Kleenex, tell him he can only have one at a time.”

I didn’t want to make Ms. Housekeeper’s mental condition any more painful than it apparently was, so I simply said to her, “Not a problem.  Just put your supervisor on the line and I’ll place the order with her.”  Remarkably, she immediately opted to change her One-Extra-Box-of-Kleenex-Per-Guest policy and leave her supervisor out of our fascinating discussion.

“Offering” to speak with a supervisor about some petty issue is something that is very easy to do and that produces quick results.  Just make certain that in your business, a customer never finds that to be necessary.  I seem to have a vague memory of an old business rule about the customer always being right … oh, and another one about going the extra mile.

Kind of remarkable how so many maxims never go out of style.  But, then, there’s a simple reason for it:  They produce results for those who are serious about getting ahead in life.

The post Customer Service Is a Mindset appeared first on RobertRinger.com.

It was a very clever way of turning a negative into a positive.  And the nice thing about it was that it was true.  The greatest teachers have a knack for demystifying complex issues by applying common sense to them.  But just what is common sense?

A good technical definition of common sense is “sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge.”  In other words, you don’t need to be a Ph.D. to exercise common sense.  It’s a trait you develop through purposeful awareness and habit.  And I would add to that that in order to be aware and develop a habit requires self-discipline, the self-discipline to do the right thing rather than doing what makes you feel good at the present moment.

Common sense equates to wisdom, whereas an academic understanding of specific areas of life equates to knowledge.  In simpler terms, what common sense boils down to is a sound understanding of how life works.  This requires that a person learn through his experiences and not delude himself about the causes that lead to his consequences.

Having said this, I believe that most people have a reasonably good understanding of what is the right thing to do in most situations.  In other words, they know the difference between responsible and irresponsible actions.

The problem, however, is that too many of these same people — at the moment of truth — have a habit of ignoring their intellect and instead acting on emotion.  That, again, is where self-discipline comes in.  I can’t stress it enough:  All the common sense in world is useless if one doesn’t have the self-discipline to apply it.

Children — especially teenagers — have a tendency to make this mistake more often than adults.  But teenagers have an excuse: They’re short on experience.  With each passing year, an adult has more and more experience under his belt, and thus less and less justification for acting on impulse.

In fact, a good definition of maturity is the willingness to forego instant gratification.  At some point in time, an adult — to be successful — must learn through his experiences or be willing to live a Wile E. Coyote kind of life (as in, “Beep, beep!”).  So it all gets down to experience, the wisdom one takes away from his experiences, and having the self-discipline to apply that wisdom to other situations.

When I watch the daily news, it amazes me how many sad, even tragic, stories are a result of people’s common sense taking a leave of absence when they most need it.  I always try to focus on the common-sense angle of these stories and mentally file away the lessons I learn from them.

My hope is that by doing so I will be able to avoid similar lack-of-common-sense mistakes in my own life.  As a result, I often find myself thinking of these mistakes at critical moments.  Learning is one of the most wonderful aspects of life, but it doesn’t count for much if you don’t apply what you’ve learned to real-life situations.

Many people who appear to lack common sense simply fail to apply what they already know.  In other words, common sense is not something that you either have or don’t have at birth.  Like most traits, anyone can acquire it and improve upon it.

One of the reasons I became so enamored with Albert Einstein’s quote “Nothing happens until something moves” is because it is the epitome of profound common sense.  Tens of millions of people seem to be waiting around for something good to happen in their lives, while expending enormous amounts of energy complaining about their “bad luck.”

Most people tend to miss the most obvious things when it comes to success in any area of life.  While in search of the magic formula for success, they mistakenly overlook the importance of something as simple as common sense.

Demonstrating this trait on a consistent basis doesn’t guarantee success, but a lack of it can come pretty close to guaranteeing failure.  Deferring to common sense before making decisions is nothing more than a habit — and, fortunately, all habits can be learned by anyone who brings willingness to the game and applies a good dose of self-discipline.

The post Common Sense appeared first on RobertRinger.com.

It goes without saying that some people are more naturally creative than others, but the same can be said of any human trait.  A person with a high IQ might breeze through school with a “B” average, but a person with an average IQ can become an “A” student if he’s willing to invest enough time and effort in his studies.

The same is true of athletes.  There are great athletes in every major sport who never rise above mediocrity, while guys like Larry Bird (who was slow and had no jumping ability) and Emmett Smith (who was small and not particularly fast) became legends.

And so it is with creativity.  What it gets down to is price paying.  If you want to become more creative, you have to be willing to put forth the effort necessary to do the things that lead to increased creativity.

One of the most encouraging facts about the brain that researchers have discovered is that intelligence is not a prerequisite to creativity.  IQ tests focus on convergent thinking, which views a problem as having only one solution.  There is no creativity involved in this process.  To be creative, you have to think divergently, which entails considering many solutions.  And that, in turn, requires you to disregard conventional wisdom and consider far-ranging possibilities.

Studies have demonstrated that the left hemisphere of the brain is responsible for convergent thinking, while the right hemisphere is the home of divergent thinking.  Thus, a person with severe left-brain damage can still be creative.

Anyone who has ever watched young children at play knows that they tend to be very creative.  However, their creativity becomes suppressed by a school system that values conformity and specific answers to specific questions.

Further conformity is demanded, or at least encouraged, on job applications and in the workplace.  The cerebral risk-taker who dares to go against conventional wisdom does so at his own peril.  If his unconventional idea is adopted and proves to be a winner, he may very well be on his way to the presidency of the company.  But if he’s wrong, he may be looking for a new job.

Of course, those who are self-employed don’t have to worry about getting fired, but they do have to worry about going broke.  Thus, one of the prerequisites for creativity is having a well-endowed lower anatomy.

Knowledge is another factor that is critical to creative thinking, in at least two ways.  First, because the left brain is the cerebral filing cabinet for specific knowledge, it keeps the creative right brain from running wild.  We’ve all known people who come up with an idea a minute, but most of their ideas either fail or never get off the ground.  Usually, it’s a result of their lacking enough specific knowledge in their brain to silence their creative right brain and tell it to move on to the next idea.

Second, and even more important, if your left brain is overflowing with knowledge, your right brain has access to the material it needs to be creative.  Good ideas and concepts are only as good as the knowledge upon which they are based.

What comes into play here is the Schlock Blocker, which states: For every hour spent watching schlock TV — e.g., Survivor, The Bachelor, The Apprentice — the left brain is deprived of an hour’s worth of valuable knowledge that could be gained by reading a serious book.

But it gets even trickier.  There is convincing evidence that too much specialized knowledge can actually inhibit creativity.  Viktor Frankl alluded to this problem when he described an expert as a person who no longer sees the forest of truth for the trees of facts.

When it comes to the arts, in particular, too much knowledge can be detrimental to creativity.  Researchers have discovered that people who experience severe left-brain damage become less inhibited and more creative in such skills as drawing and painting.

This is because the left brain organizes our social skills and tends to repress “eccentricity” and nonconformity.  There is a strong suspicion that Vincent van Gogh’s wackiness was a result of left-hemisphere brain damage, which in turn gave him the freedom to be totally uninhibited in his right-brain artwork.

Today, Hollywood is overflowing with artistically creative people who talk as though they’ve had group left-brain lobotomies.  If one gives them the benefit of the doubt and assumes they are well-meaning, one is also forced to conclude that their incoherent babbling about such topics as politics, world peace, and the environment stems from a lack of knowledge.  But this lack of knowledge does not get in the way of their artistic creativity.

Finally, it is much easier to be creative when you’re not under pressure.  That’s why it’s a good idea to get away from your office periodically and relax.  Some of my best ideas have come to me while cruising at thirty-five thousand feet — no telephone, no e-mails, no projects piling up all around me.  Vacations, ball games, attending conferences, and just going for long walks all serve the same purpose.

Above all, develop the habit of grabbing hold of random, creative thoughts and quickly getting them down on paper.  Nothing frustrates me more than realizing that a great idea I came up with yesterday is gone because I was so certain I’d remember it that I didn’t take the time to write it down.

To discourage this lazy habit, I keep pads and pens everywhere — throughout the house, in my car, and next to my bed.  Be rigidly self-disciplined when it comes to writing down your ideas, especially those that are the most extreme or that you’re positive you’ll remember.

It’s also a good idea to always be ready to put your DVR into action, because you never know when some great tidbit is going to make its way in between the standard schlock programming and appear on your television screen — provided you watch the right channels, of course.

Lastly, and most important, I believe that creativity flows from action.  Action stimulates your brain cells and gets your creative juices flowing.  What happens when you take action is that the atoms in your brain increase the speed of their vibrations, which causes your “mental paradigm” to expand.  And when that occurs, you begin to see new ideas, new concepts, and new possibilities that you may not have previously considered.

That’s why you can’t afford to wait until you become motivated to take action.  Instead, you have to employ your free will and force yourself to take action.  And when you do, motivation is almost sure to follow.  In other words, don’t make the mistake of waiting for something to happen; make it happen!

Remember, to be successful in business, the three most important areas you have to focus on are strategizing, innovating, and marketing.  And since all three require creative thinking, it’s imperative to your success that you constantly hone this remarkable human trait.

The post Creativity appeared first on RobertRinger.com.

Merkle’s infamous mental lapse took place on September 23, 1908, in the last half of the ninth inning against the Chicago Cubs.  With the score tied and two outs, the Giants had runners on first (Merkle) and third (Moose McCormick), when Al Bridwell singled to centerfield.

On the hit, Merkle was still on his way to second base when McCormick crossed home plate with what appeared to be the winning run.  But when Merkle saw McCormick score, he thought the game was over and didn’t bother to go all the way to second base.  Instead, he headed straight for the clubhouse.

Unlike Fred Merkle, however, the Cubs’ Johnny Evers was alert to what was going on.  He immediately realized that even though the runner had already crossed home plate, the run wouldn’t count if a forced runner (Merkle) was thrown out at second.  He yelled to the Cubs’ centerfielder “Solly” Hofman to throw him the ball.  By at least by one account of the chaotic scenario, the ball went over Evers’ head, and Cubs third-base coach Joe McGinnity scooped it up.  Realizing what was about to happen, McGinnity threw the ball into the stands.

Relentlessly, Evers climbed into the stands and retrieved the ball (or, according to some accounts, “a” ball), called to one of the umpires that there was a force play at second base, and touched the bag.  The umpire, who also had been alert enough to note that Merkle had not bothered to touch second base, called him out.  Because of the ensuing chaos, and with darkness setting in, the game was ruled a tie.  The Giants disputed the tie ruling, but the National League office upheld the umpire’s decision.

After that historic game, the Giants, who had been in first place prior to the game, fell apart in the last two weeks of the season.  Further, to rub insult into injury, the Cubs won the pennant.  (Little did Cub fans realize, of course, that it would be their last pennant of the century.)

Today, more than a century after the fact, this historic moment is still referred to in baseball lore as “Merkle’s Bonehead Play.”  And Fred Merkle became forever labeled “Bonehead Merkle” for his infamous mental lapse.

Poor Fred Merkle.  He got labeled a dunce for making the same kind of mistake most of us make many times throughout our lives.  Everyone forgets to “touch all the bases” at one time or another.

In politics, for example, we see this same lack of follow-through occur all the time.  Most of us are not old enough to remember Harry Truman’s upset of New York Governor Thomas Dewey in the presidential election of 1948, but we’ve read about it and seen it on television many times.

While Truman traveled the country and “gave ’em hell” from the back of his campaign train, Dewey coasted.  He was focused on prematurely celebrating rather than on touching all the bases and making certain that Truman wouldn’t rise from the dead.  Not only was Dewey an odds-on favorite to beat Truman, the failed haberdasher from Missouri, but some headlines the morning after the election actually declared Dewey the winner.

And so it goes.  As an author, I can assure you from firsthand experience that writing a book is all about following through and touching all the bases.  For each book I write, I have a checklist of over one hundred items that I painstakingly address after I work my way through twenty to twenty-five drafts.  If an author’s aim is quality, he has to be willing to invest an enormous amount of time and effort in making certain that no important steps are missed.

The broader message I’ve been leading up to in this article is that you shortchange yourself if you fail to touch all the bases during your short stay on this planet.  Take reading, for example.  The last thing in the world you want to do is miss the one book that might have had a major impact on how you lived your life.

Get up out of your chair, walk over and pick up the camera, and take a picture of that special moment in time that will otherwise be lost forever.  Take the time to listen to your kids … play sports with them … laugh with them … communicate with your spouse … exercise … listen to good music … be active.

Never become so self-satisfied that you inadvertently fall into the comfort zone and find yourself prematurely celebrating a victorious life.  Those who were closest to you will decide, after you’ve passed on, whether or not your life was victorious.  Your job is to make a conscious effort to touch all the bases while you’re here, because you have no way of knowing if you’re ever going to pass this way again.

The post Touching All the Bases appeared first on RobertRinger.com.