Money and Happiness

Money does not automatically make you happy. So here's some information about how you can use it to make you happy.

Basics

Without the basic in life, of a roof over your head and food in your stomach, then your world may be quite miserable. Money helps you escape such hazards and a safe, healthy person is generally much happier than one who is not.

Once the basics of survival are covered, however, more money does not mean more happiness.

Potential

Having money is like having a battery or standing at the top of a mountain. It is stored power, ready for action. Money in itself does not create happiness. It is the thought of what you can do with it that can lead to happiness.

But the thought of spending it also may lead to thoughts of the unhappiness of not having it. Without money there is no anticipated pleasure of potential and basic hardships return, which can be a sad place.

Materialism

Money is often associated with buying things. Whilst there is often an initial thrill during the purchase process, just owning something does not make you happy. In fact it can make you anxious as you worry about it being stolen or others being envious. People who own rich estates worry about intruders, even after putting up barbed wire and employing security guards.

Just as the miser grimly hoards money, there is a danger of jealously guarding your possessions and thinking ill of others in angry imagining them stealing your goods.

Relativism

Feeling successful is related to happiness and we determine our success relative to others. If our friends are all billionaires, then being a millionaire may not seems that successful. If my yacht is smaller than your yacht then I may not be that happy. It is often the status that having money brings that leads to happiness (Boyce et al. 2010). The reason I am less happy about my yacht is because my richer friends look down on it (and hence me).

How we define relative success does vary with cultures, although money often (but not always) plays a significant part, at least in how it may be used. An example in the USA how much you have recently earned is more important than in the UK, where how much you have is more significant.

Experience

Money is better spent on experiences than goods. The happiness of having is not as intense and does not last as well. If you go on an exciting adventure holiday then the memory will keep you going for longer.

A reason for this effect is that experiences satisfy higher order needs, whilst having money mainly satisfies only lower-order needs.

Philanthropy

A simple way of using money to find happiness is, perhaps counter-intuitively, is to give it away. Happiness often has a significant social component and you can get a lot of social approval by helping others. Even if others do not directly praise you, you may well praise yourself for complying with strong values to help others.

The effect works at all levels of income. Dunn et al. (2010) measured happiness of a wide sample of Americans and found that those who spend money on themselves did not increase in happiness whilst those who spent on others became happier. They also measured happiness at a Boston firm where employees received a bonus of between $3000 and $5000. Those who spent more on others were happier. They also found that even small and regular spending on others had a distinct ongoing positive effect.

Happiness at Work? Is it Possible? Yes, if You Know the Nuances of Happiness

Do you ever feel lethargic and lost at work? Do you ever feel vulnerable and powerless, like a tiny cog in a huge machine? Do you wish that you could be truly happy at work?

“Happiness at work is elusive,” says psychiatrist Dr. Kerry J. Sulkowicz. Sulkowicz teaches that a better goal is to enjoy your work and strive for high performance. That is more realistic. Why? Happiness is complex. It is difficult to sustain for long periods of time. It often ebbs and flows with the people around you and ultimately, happiness must be generated from within.

In your quest for happiness at work, it is important to understand root causes. When identified, root causes give you clues to why you feel vulnerable and powerless. I learned this when I worked in a corporation where I was expected to be merely a puppet, doing exactly what the manager said and acting precisely when he pulled my strings.

The behavior of my manager was my root cause for unhappiness as he drained essential life force from me but I displaced my anger on my family and work associates. Seeing my relationships suffer, I had to step back and analyze why I was so unhappy. As I consciously looked at my feelings and emotions, I realized that the root cause of my anger was a manager who did not allow me to collaborate, have input, think through and solve problems related to my work.

Once I identified, admitted to myself, and accepted this root cause of my unhappiness, my annoyance and irritation subsided. I was no longer a victim, but had a sense of power coming from my ability to cope with negative feelings. By insulating myself mentally and emotionally from the behaviors of my manager, I returned to a pleasant person. I restored my good relationships with friends and family, regained my mental energy, and climbed on top of my workload.

The ups and downs of work life are inevitable. Work is work! Only in Cinderella fairy tales is work free from pressure, demands, and anxiety. Believing you are entitled to happiness at work every hour of the day makes you neurotic and causes your mental state to go up and down like a yo-yo.

Next time you feel unhappy and lethargic at work, look for the root cause which may not be your manager but an overdue project or an assignment just out of your skill set. Stabilize your identity as a valuable cog in organizational progress, believe in your inner power to manage your mental and emotional energy, and then focus on consistent and excellent results.

It is possible to find happiness at work when you understand the subtle nuances of creating a mental and emotional environment where happiness can thrive within.

Karla Brandau - CEO Workplace Power Institute

Six Powerful Prospecting Tips

Why is it that some sales reps consistently earn a six-figure annual income while other reps, putting in the same hours, selling the same products and trained by the same sales manager struggle each month financially to make ends meet? The answer to this question is painfully simple; the six-figure sales reps spend more time on the phone and never forget to ask for referrals!

Top producers don't need to be told to ask for referrals or follow up on hot leads, because they understand that prospecting is a necessity and not just an activity. The good news is that prospecting for new business, like any other skill, can be trained and developed into a habit.

Six Powerful Prospecting Tips to Build Your Business

Tip One: Don't Forget to Ask for Referrals.

When it comes to asking for referrals, timing is everything. Research indicates that the most effective time to ask for referrals is right after you've made the sale or provided a valuable service for your customer. Asking for referrals prior to closing the sale is a big mistake and may even jeopardize the sale itself. Once the sale has been completed, your customer will be on an “emotional high” and far more receptive to the idea of providing you referrals.

Tip Two: Train and Reward Your Advocates.

An advocate is a person who's willing to go out of his or her way to recommend you to a friend or associate. Most customers are initially reluctant to provide referrals without some basic training and motivation.

Once you're given a prospect, it's a good idea to take the time to role-play with your advocate to demonstrate how to approach and talk to their referral. A brief role-playing exercise will build your advocate's confidence and keep them from overeducating their referrals. During your role-play session, be sure to prepare your advocate to expect some initial resistance. This training will pay big dividends by making your advocate more effective and less likely to become discouraged when faced with rejection.

Always take the time to thank your advocates and give them feedback on the status of their referrals. I recommend that you call them and then follow up by sending a thank you card and or gift.

Tip Three: Strike While the Iron is HOT.

Prospects, like food in your refrigerator, are perishable and therefore need to be contacted quickly. Each day you let slip by without making initial contact with your referral dramatically reduces the probability of you making the sale. Develop the habit of contacting your referrals within two-business days or sooner. Have a system to keep track of your referrals so they don't end up falling through the cracks. It's critical to have a computerized client contact management system to record your remarks and track future contacts and appointments. Relying on your memory alone is a very poor business decision that will cost you dearly.

Tip Four: Schedule a Minimum of Two-Hours a Day for Phone Calling.

Make your phone calls in the morning while you and your referrals are both fresh and alert. Treat your prospecting time with the same respect you would give to any other important appointment. This is not the time to check your e-mails, play solitaire on the computer, make personal phone calls or chat with your associates.

Avoid the temptation to try and sell your product or service over the phone. Your objective for every phone call is to create interest, gather information and make an appointment. If your prospect asks you a question, get in the habit of going for an appointment rather than giving a quick response.

Don't shoot from the hip use a script. It's important to use a phone script when you contact your prospect so you don't leave out any key information. It's a good idea to role-play your script over the phone with your sales manager until he or she feels you sound confident and professional.

Tip Five: Qualify Your Prospect at Maximum Range.

Unfortunately, not every prospect will be interested or qualified financially to purchase your products or services. Successful sales reps don't waste time chasing after low-probability prospects and know when it's time to cut their losses and move on.

Tip Six: Don't Take Rejection Personally.

Selling, like baseball, is a numbers game pure and simple. Rejection is to be anticipated as a natural aspect of the qualification process, so don't take it personally. Learn from rejection by using it as a valuable feedback mechanism. Salespeople who take rejection personally lack perseverance and seldom make the sale.
For the majority of salespeople, prospecting for new business is without a doubt the most challenging and stressful aspect of the selling process. Selling is a contact sport and daily prospecting for new business is the key to every salesperson's long-term financial success. By integrating these six powerful prospecting tips into your daily business routine, you'll be able to keep your appointment calendar packed!

John Boe

John Boe presents a wide variety of motivational and sales-oriented keynotes and seminar programs for sales meetings and conventions. John is a nationally recognized sales trainer and business motivational speaker with an impeccable track record in the meeting industry.

Companies aren’t charities

In poor countries the problem is not that businesses are unethical but that there are too few of them

STEVE COOGAN, a British comedian, once told a joke about David Beckham, a footballer who is unlikely to win a Nobel prize for physics: “They say, ‘Oh, David Beckham—he’s not very clever.’ Yeah. They don’t say, ‘Stephen Hawking—shit at football.’” Successful corporations are like Mr Beckham. Both excel at one thing: in Mr Beckham’s case, kicking a ball; in the corporations’ case, making profits. They may also be reasonably adept at other things, such as modelling sunglasses or forming task forces to solve environmental problems. But their chief contribution to society comes from their area of specialisation.

Ann Bernstein, the head of a South African think-tank called the Centre for Development and Enterprise, thinks that advocates of corporate social responsibility (CSR) tend to miss this point. In her new book, “The Case for Business in Developing Economies”, she stresses the ways companies benefit society simply by going about their normal business. In a free and competitive market, firms profit by selling goods or services to willing customers. To stay in business, they must offer lower prices or higher quality than their competitors. Those that fail disappear. Those that succeed spread prosperity. Shareholders receive dividends. Employees earn wages. Suppliers win contracts. Ordinary people gain access to luxuries that would have made Cecil Rhodes gasp, such as television, air-conditioning and antibiotics.

These are not new arguments, but Ms Bernstein makes them fresh by writing from an African perspective. Citizens of rich countries often fret about the occasional harm that corporations do, yet take for granted the prosperity they create. People in developing countries do not have that luxury.

In South Africa, where more than a third of the workforce is jobless, the problem is not that corporations are unethical but that there are not enough of them. One reason is that South Africa’s leaders blithely heap social responsibilities on corporate shoulders. Strict environmental laws cause long delays in building homes. This is nice for endangered butterflies, but tough for South Africans who live in shacks. Such laws also slow the construction of power plants, contributing to the rolling blackouts that crippled South Africa in 2008. South African labour laws make it hard to fire workers, which deters companies from hiring them in the first place. And a programme of “Black Economic Empowerment”, which pressures firms to transfer shares to blacks, has made a few well-connected people rich while discouraging investment. Ms Bernstein ducks this last topic, which is highly sensitive in her home country.

Sometimes the pressure on business to solve social problems comes, not from governments, but from non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Ms Bernstein cites the example of a pipeline that Exxon built in Chad. The giant oil firm spent six years trying to figure out the best way to comply with the “Equator principles”, an ambitious set of goals for avoiding harm to nature and indigenous people. Exxon strained every sinew to preserve gorillas’ habitat and compensate displaced villagers. Yet NGOs still mounted a furious campaign condemning it. “Many reasonable companies must surely have concluded…that investment in poor countries is not worth the effort,” sighs Ms Bernstein.

Anti-corporate activists sometimes claim that big companies are mightier than governments. This is absurd. Governments can pass laws, raise taxes and declare war. Companies have virtually no powers of coercion. If people do not voluntarily buy their products, they go bankrupt. Business is thus extremely sensitive to public opinion. This is often a good thing. Ms Bernstein cites the example of white-owned shops in South Africa under apartheid. When black shoppers started boycotting them, “it was remarkable how rapidly most white shop owners were prepared to ditch racist practices.” Yet companies can also be bullied into doing the wrong thing. When multinationals bow to pressure from campaigners against “sweatshops” and sever links with suppliers in poor countries, the workers who previously stitched shoes for export may end up scavenging from rubbish heaps.

Accountable to all means accountable to none

Advocates of CSR argue that firms should pursue the “triple bottom line”: not only profits, but also environmental protection and social justice. This notion, if taken seriously, is “incomprehensible”, says Ms Bernstein. Profits are easy to measure. The many and often conflicting demands of a local community are not. A business that is accountable to all is in effect accountable to no one, says Ms Bernstein.

She does not take the absolutist view that companies should strive only to maximise profits while obeying the rules. In poor countries, the rules are often unclear. Multinationals will face choices where what is locally acceptable would be criminal back home. Obviously, they should err on the side of rectitude, but it is far from obvious where to draw the line. In the most benighted areas they will sometimes build roads and schools to keep the locals friendly. They will brag about such acts, but they are simply a cost of doing business, not an instance of corporate altruism.

Ms Bernstein glosses over the innovative work a few companies have done in integrating CSR into their strategy, and she is better at identifying problems than offering solutions. She urges businesses to defend capitalism as energetically as they promote their own products. She thinks companies should provide incentives for market-oriented journalism, films and even novels. Good luck with that. Businesses strenuously lobby for particular favours from government, and chambers of commerce campaign for lighter regulation. But the companies that are so brilliant at selling the fruits of capitalism—from iPads to medicine—are seldom much good at popularising the system that yields them.

The Economist

The Mystery of Economic Growth

EDAYANCHAVADI, INDIA — Around here, in rural South India, development over the last few decades has been an uneven process.

Some people rise, others fall. Some get rich, some stay poor.

The rich build concrete houses, buy motorcycles and send their children to private schools. The poor live in thatch huts, work part-time as agricultural laborers and pull their children out of school young.

Development is an unpredictable business. The rich and poor often grow up in the same village. They are beneficiaries, or victims, of the same government policies. Their lives are determined by the same weather patterns and infrastructural constraints.

One of the central questions facing India — and, indeed, the developing world as a whole — is why some people, or countries, move ahead, while others fall behind.

An answer to this question would have huge implications for public policy. In India, torn between an attachment to socialism and a new infatuation with capitalism, it could help find a balance between the state and markets in poverty alleviation schemes.

More generally, as India continues to grow rapidly, a better understanding of its path to development might be applied to other regions of the world, where poverty is proving less tractable.

For all its temptations, however, the search for a policy toolkit toward development is fraught with pitfalls. Over the last 60 years or so, the international development community has come up with model after model, theory after theory, in search of just such a toolkit.

It has, at various times, promoted the benefits of huge, often conditional, inputs of foreign aid, the rigors of shock therapy, the virtues of free trade and the promise of the Washington Consensus (a set of policies prescribed and often imposed by agencies like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the U.S. Treasury).

Yet for all the efforts to come up with a general theory of development, the truth is that economic growth remains something of a mystery. This is the conclusion of a recent anthology, “What Works in Development?”, published by the Brookings Institution. The essays lead to the conclusion that there is no clear way to ease poverty, and — as the editors, William Easterly and Jessica Cohen, state in their introduction — “no consensus on ‘what works’ for growth and development.”

Mr. Easterly, a former World Bank economist, has elsewhere shown that there is little correspondence between a nation’s economic growth and the extent to which it follows international development prescriptions. Analyzing data for 1980 to 2002, he found that countries that grew the fastest received considerably less foreign aid and spent less time under I.M.F. tutelage than those that grew the slowest. This doesn’t mean that following the orthodoxy harms development, but it does suggest that rapid growth is possible without international aid or advice.

Part of the problem, it turns out, may be the very attempt to follow a model. Progress — economic or otherwise — is a notoriously subjective phenomenon. It is context sensitive, and highly dependent on local conditions. It is, in particular, resistant to the uniformity implicit in even the most sophisticated models.

This view, once held by a fringe, is entering the mainstream. It was given voice last month by none other than Robert B. Zoellick, president of the World Bank, when he spoke of the need for “rethinking” development economics and “a questioning of prevailing paradigms.”

Facts speak for themselves. It has become increasingly evident that many of the most successful growth stories have resulted not from slavishly following an external set of policy directives, but from pursuing unconventional — and locally attuned — solutions.

The rise of Southeast Asia (and more recently China), for example, represented a repudiation of textbook views about the proper role of the government and of the relationship between markets and the state.

India’s recent growth, too, can be seen as a result of a determination to follow its own path. While it is true that the country began its climb out of socialist torpor under World Bank and I.M.F. supervision, many aspects of its growth since then contravene the conventional model. A notable example is the country’s refusal to fully liberalize its capital markets or allow unrestricted foreign investment. This refusal, lamented by advocates of the Washington Consensus, is now credited with having spared India the worst of the recent financial crisis.

Jessica Wallack, an economist who heads the Center for Development Finance, a research organization in Chennai, suggests, also, that India may have benefited in some ways from moving slowly toward the privatization of public assets (again, a contravention of development orthodoxy). She argues that, given social inequality, corruption and limited institutional capacity, rapid privatization could, much as in the former Soviet Union, have “resulted in greater concentration of wealth in a few people’s hands.”

A further example might be the nation’s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, a major public works program that has dismayed those who advocate market solutions to unemployment, yet that is undeniably easing poverty in much of rural India.

Each of these policies has a price. But their salient feature (and, arguably, the reason for their relative success) is a sensitivity to context — the fact that they are responses to genuine needs, and that they are designed taking into account particular local conditions, such as the reality of corruption.

Ultimately, it is this sensitivity, this ability to accommodate context and local detail, that works best in development. The type of grinding, sweaty work it implies — time in the field, in villages and on farms, learning about cultures and social structures — is certainly less glamorous than designing overarching theories to rid the world of poverty.

But poverty is an unglamorous business. It is only fitting that the most effective way to address it would be through small, low-key and often backbreaking interventions.

How to say No

An important way of managing stress is knowing that you can say no and then knowing when and how to say it.

Choose to refuse

Know you can refuse

The first step in refusal is to know that you can say 'No'. Some people are so keen to please others they not only find saying 'no' difficult, they even believe they cannot say 'no'.

This can be a particular problem in the workplace where it can seem impossible to refuse requests from senior people, but it is possible. You have only a certain amount of time and knowledge, and pushing these can affect other things you are doing.

Likewise in many social situations it can seem difficult to refuse. Social norms tell you that you must agree, but you always have a choice.

So first realize that 'No' is always an option.

Decide to refuse

The next step is to decide to refuse. You may say 'yes' on some occasions and on others you can say 'no'.

When asked to do something or agree with something, first consider whether this is reasonable. Also consider whether you have time to comply and whether you consider the request to be acceptable or not. Then consider whether you want to agree.

Remember, the choice is yours, and yours alone. Even for the most reasonable request, you have the option and ability to say no.

Just say No

The simplest way of refusing is just to say no. That's it. Just no. If pushed, you can just say something like 'Because I have decide I do not want to.'

You do not have to give reason for your refusal. Remember that just as you can say no, you can also refuse to be drawn on why you have chosen to say no.

ADO method

The ADO method breaks the refusal down into three parts:

Acknowledge

First acknowledge the request, showing that you understand what they have asked for and accepting that it is ok for them to ask this.

Decline

Next turn down the request. You can apologize or just say no. Whatever method you use, do make sure that it is clear that you are refusing. Saying something softened like 'I don't think I want to' leaves the door open for further pressure.

Offer

The third step is to make counter offer, such as '...but I could visit next week'. This gives the other person a consolation prize, something to take away and accept so they can feel they have achieved something at least.

Not-Unless method

Rather than just saying no, you can refuse unless they give you something in return. So you may say something like 'I may be able to do that but in order to do that I'd like you to...'.

A particular form of the 'not unless' is based on time. It works on the principle that you are busy and that in order to do what has been requested, you will have to stop doing something else. For example, 'Sure, I can run down the shops for you, but then there'll be no time to cook. If you can peel the potatoes and put the chicken in the oven, then we'll still be able to eat tonight.'

Joint problem

Another method is to turn the challenge around and make it a joint problem. Rather than them asking you for something, show that you are concerned for what they want to achieve, then frame the question as one of how you can both work together to find an alternative solution (rather than you just doing what you are told). For example, 'Yes, I agree we should give them a good reception. But rather than tidy up here, maybe we could just go next door? Or maybe take them out? How else could we resolve this?'

Broken Record (etc.)

There are also many other ways of resisting persuasion, such as the broken record where, if they keep trying to persuade, you just keep saying no.

Limiting Beliefs

What are limiting beliefs?

Limiting beliefs are those that constrain us in some way. Just by believing them, we do not think, do or say things that they inhibit. And in doing so we impoverish our lives.

Limiting beliefs are often about our selves and our self-identity. They may also be about other people and the world in general. In any case, they sadly limit us.

I do/don't

We may define ourselves by what we do or do not do. I may say 'I am an accountant', which means I do not do marketing and should not even think about it, and consequently fail to sell my services well.

Another common limiting belief is around how we judge ourselves. We think 'I don't deserve...' and so do not expect or seek things.

I can't

We often have limited self-images of what we can and cannot do. If I think 'I cannot sing' then I will never try or not go to singing lessons to improve my ability. And this is the crux of many 'I can't' statements: we believe our abilities are fixed and that we cannot learn.

I must/mustn't

We are bound by values, norms, laws and other rules that constrain what we must and must not do. However, not all of these are mandatory and some are distinctly limiting. If I think 'I must clean the house every day' then this robs me of time that may be spent in something more productive.

I am/am not

The verb 'to be' is quite a pernicious little thing and as we think 'I am' we also think 'I am not'.

'I am' thinking assumes we cannot change. Whether I think 'I am intelligent' or 'I am not intelligent', either belief may stop me from seeking to learn. 'I am' also leads to generalization, for example where 'I am clever' means 'all of me is all of clever and all of clever is all of me'.

When coupled with values we get beliefs about whether a person is right or wrong, good or bad.

Others are/will

Just as we have limiting beliefs about ourselves, we also have beliefs about other people which can limit us in many ways. If we think others are more capable and superior then we will not challenge them. If we see them as selfish, we may not ask them to help us.

We often guess what others are thinking based on our beliefs about them -- and these guesses are often wrong. Hence we may believe they do not like us when they actually have no particular opinion or think we are rather nice. From our guesses at their thoughts we then deduce their likely actions, which can of course be completely wrong. Faced with this evidence, it is surprising how many will still hold to the original beliefs.

How the world works

Beyond the limiting beliefs above there can be all kinds of belief about 'how the world works', from laws of nature to the property of materials. This can lead to anything from the beliefs that all dogs will bite to the idea that aeroplane travel is dangerous.

Why do we limit our beliefs?

Experience

A key way by which we form our beliefs is through our direct experiences. We act, something happens and we draw conclusions. Often such beliefs are helpful, but they can also be very limiting.

Particularly when we are young and have few experiences we may form false and limiting conclusions. Nature builds us this way to keep us out of harm's way. We learn and build beliefs faster from harmful experiences. Sticking my finger on a hot stove hurts a lot so I believe all stoves dangerous and never touch the stove again. Punching another child results in a sound beating so I believe myself weak.

Education

When forming our perceptions of the world, we cannot depend on experiences for everything. We are hence read and are taught by parents and teacher how the world works and how to behave in it.

But our teachers are not always that well informed. We also learn from what peers tell us and are 'infected' by their beliefs, which may be very limiting.

Education is a double-edged sword as it tells you want is right and wrong, good and bad. It helps you survive and grow, but just because you were told something, you may never try things and so miss pleasant and useful experiences.

Faulty logic

In decisions, we make 'return on investment' estimations and easily conclude that the investment of time, effort and money is insufficient and that there is a low chance of success and high chance of failure. The return may even be negative as we are harmed in some way.

People make many decision errors, for example based on poor estimation of probabilities. We take a little data and generalize it to everything. We go on hunches that are based more on subconscious hopes and fears more than reality.

The word 'because' can be surprisingly hazardous. When we use it, it seems like we are using good reason, but this may not be so. We like to understand cause-and-effect and often do not challenge reasoning that uses the mechanisms of rational argument.

Excuse

One reason we use faulty logic and form limiting beliefs is to excuse ourselves from what we perceive to be our failures.

When we do something and it does not work, we often explain away our failure by forming and using beliefs which justify our actions and leave us blameless. But in doing so, we do not learn and may increasingly paint ourselves into a corner, limiting what we will think and do in the future.

Fear

Limiting beliefs are often fear-driven. Locking the belief in place is the fear that, if we go against the beliefs, deep needs will be harmed.

There is often a strong social component to our decisions and the thought of criticism, ridicule or rejection by others is enough to powerfully inhibit us.

We also fear that we may be harmed

So what?

There is also the question of whether limiting beliefs are actually good for us and that they keep us from harm. In practice some beliefs which limit us are actually valid beliefs which are worth keeping. The problem is telling the difference. The reality is that many of us err on the side of perceived (and not necessarily real) safety. Limiting beliefs are erroneous, being based on wrong 'facts' and so prompt us to treat things with undue caution.