Tuesday I was interviewed by Gannett News/USA Today columnist Anita Bruzzese on her national podcast, “Smash the Ladder.”
Anita asked for my thoughts on the philosophy discussed in the soon-to-be released book, How to Get Rich: One of the World’s Greatest Entrepreneurs Shares His Secrets, by British billionaire Felix Dennis.
Apparently, according to a recent article in Time, he says such things as, “Being a team player is for losers,” and, “If you’re going to be [rich] it’s going to be at the expense of such things as happy family relationships and friendships, and you’ll need to accept the fact that many people will think of as a jerk.”
How does someone who espouses to be a go-giver respond to that? Here’s what I said to Anita (in brief—you can hear the entire interview here).
1. Without having read his book (which I look forward to doing — I love learning from billionaires, and guarantee there are some terrific nuggets in there), I can’t know whether those words are totally out of context, or just a way of promoting his book by making it sound “sexy” (i.e., “forget all the nicey-nice stuff, I’m going to show you how to really get rich!”).
2. Even if he truly is the nastiest person who ever lived (which I doubt, as a brief Internet search shows he is loved by many), the fact is this: For him to have gotten wealthy, he had to provide lots of great value (Go-Giver Law #1) to the lives of many, many people (Go-Giver Law #2).
3. In Good to Great, by Jim Collins, there is a fascinating chapter on what Jim calls “Level Five Leaders.” These are top CEOs who’ve earned tremendous incomes and are hugely respected within the business world and the other circles in which they travel. These people — as well as the many hugely successful people I’ve had the privilege to know — tend to base their lives and actions on values and characteristics such as honesty, integrity, humility, encouragement and, more than anything, adding significant value to every relationship in which they’re involved.
Can one get wealthy by being nasty? Well, one can get wealthy AND be nasty, providing they also find a way to add lots of value to the lives of lots of people. But, by and large, success – financially and in other areas of life that are so important – is easier to obtain by being a go-giver . . . and it’s a lot more gratifying.
Your thoughts? We’d love to read them.
I am not familiar with this billionaire or the details. I’ve noticed that just because someone is extremely successfull at something doesn’t mean they know how to teach it. Joe Pass was a legendary jazz guitarist, but if you watch any of his instructional videos — good luck trying to keep up with him. Horrible teacher, legendary player.
It seems that this is a matter of one of those instances. Also I think the idea that is being debated is: does one want to “go AGAINST the grain” versus “go WITH the grain” or “be feared” versus “be loved”?
Or even better: The Dark Side of the Force vs. The Light.
This might be oversimplyfying things and I might be wrong, but I think this discussion comes down to a simple question:
Do you want to be Darth Vader or Obi Wan?
Again, that might be an oversimplification.
Apropos a trade off, I don’t believe in that. I think that suffering is unnecessary. For example, most believe that when you go on a diet, you have to deprive yourself and suffer. It’s the “no pain, no gain” paradigm. I think that mental program is now obsolete. Most people aren’t even aware of all the crazy abundance of foods they’ve never even tried before AND taste outstanding AND are the most nutritious foods in the world. Simply by adding in some other foods all the bad stuff just naturally falls away. No deprivation, no suffering. Just bliss on tap. Awakening from isolation consciousness is the first step to ending suffering.
In my opinion, if you have to suffer to get something you want, you’re not truly experiencing abundance. Wallace Wattles says in his essay “How to Get What You Want”:
“Avoid being a mental prostitute.”
Wattles was one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century.
Firstly, Congratulations David on your comment. Your thoughts really resonated with me.
It has always been an enigma to me that the go-givers of this world “generally” do not receive the abundance that is rightfully theirs.
I was first given a CD of “The Go-Giver” which I listened to over and over.
My way is to take the learning and intergrate the teaching into my being to see what aspects of my cellular memory are still holding me back from the gift of receiving what I inherently know is the abundance for ALL aspects of our inner earth heritage.
Curiously when we ask the questions, many answers or even thought provoking questions come into our awareness.
The Law of Attraction energy took me to the book title “The Science of GETTING Rich”.
The word “GETTING” simply screamed out to me, and my senses alerted me to the energy/vibration of BEING.
I meditated on the words “The Science of BEING Rich”.
The outcome to me was liberating as it opened the doorway to identifying the crucible of Creation through The Law of Authenticity and The Law of Receptivity.
First question I asked of my Inner self was: Who IS Tetka Rhu?
then, Define who IS Tetka Rhu.
Answers which satisfied me were given, then I asked the question: Who and what is my Authentic Self?
I was elated as at long last after a 30year metaphysical journey I believe those questions allow us to BE who we are in order to be in the Law of Receptivity without hidden agendas.
Now to look at the words of Felix Dennis – Apparently, according to a recent article in Time, he says such things as, “Being a team player is for losers,” and, “If you’re going to be [rich] it’s going to be at the expense of such things as happy family relationships and friendships, and you’ll need to accept the fact that many people will think of as a jerk.”
In my understanding of the Codes of Creation it is very important for each of us to OWN and BE who we are, however this man “feels” very bankrupt in his emotional life. So, the balance is equally valid and indeed sustaining as we attract the Team to us to support and value each other, for ALL to know and experience the massive abundance that this earth offers us.
And to quote David’s words – Awakening from isolation consciousness is the first step to ending suffering.
I appreciate that our mental attitudes allow us the leap of faith to Trust each other with integrity and value as the new paradigm of co-creation is certainly Now embedded in the consciousness of many on the earth.
So here’s cheers and thunderous applause as we begin to link with each other to know the Freedom of Being Rich in a supportive role to each other, while accepting our own unique Strengths and Value.
Tetka Rhu
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Bob …
My immediate, knee jerk reaction to the comments made by Felix Dennis was that of disdain and disgust. With that outlook, who cares if he’s a gazillionaire! All the money in the world can’t buy some people an ounce of class.
Then it hit me like ice water in the face that Felix Dennis is just your basic run of the mill “Red” personality. Typically, reds are known for their off-the-cuff harsh remarks. They’re dynamo salespeople, go-getters, and control freaks. They’re stubborn and MUST be in charge and insist on doing things their own way. They’re smart and successful. However, they’re interpersonal skills stink with a capital P.U.! Reds are all about money and power … period. If I haven’t said enough, they’re absolutely NOT COACHABLE. Don’t even try.
If the hair on the back of your neck is standing on end, trust me, you’re dealing with a Red personality.
Just my 2 cents,
~Melanie Kissell
As always, I’ve very appreciative of your thoughtful and though-provoking comments. If I may, I’m going to take respectful issue with just a couple things:
—–
Tetka wrote: “It has always been an enigma to me that the go-givers of this world ‘generally’ do not receive the abundance that is rightfully theirs.”
—–
Tetka, While semantics might be playing a role here, I’m going to suggest that go-givers as described in the book by John and me, actually DO received the abundance that is rightfully theirs.
Yes, there are many “givers” who don’t, but they are not who we are describing in the book. People who follow all five laws of The Go-Giver absolutely receive abundance.
What we have found 100 percent of the time is if someone is not receiving in abundance, they are either not following all five laws, or are not following one or two of them correctly.
Keep in mind, “Success” (in this case we are talking in terms of finance) is not just a matter of being nice; it’s also a matter of doing the correct things in the success process that allows you to be successful.
Melanie, I appreciate your toughts, as well. I’m going to suggest, however, that before judging Mr. Dennis that you read his book. The fact is, who knows what/how the guy thinks, and if TIME magazine took everything he said out of context? Or, if . . . well, I don’t know; I haven’t read the book myself. I did just pick it up today. Meanwhile, regardless of anything else, if he’s that financially successful he’s had to have added some significant value to the world. If he’s as deprived in other ways as he is made out to be in the article, then that is between him and his Maker.
Again, thank you everyone for your thoughts and comments.
I have to pop in to add a thought as well — and in this case, it’s about Melanie’s comments on “red” types. In some systems, these are referred to as “Rubies” — not unlike the “choleric” of the classic four temperaments or “humours” of the ancients.
The four types — ruby (choleric), sapphire (sanguine), pearl (phlegmatic) and emerald (melancholic) — is a fascinating and useful way of looking at people. But be careful not to use it to oversimplify or pigeonhole people.
For example, I would respectfully disagree that reds are stubborn, insistent on their own way, and are absolutely uncoachable. My experience of “Ruby” types is that they are dynamic, driven, often charismatic, easily come across as forceful — but those traits are just as likely to manifest as positive qualities than as the negative ones you mentioned. It depends on the person, and his or her level of self-development, maturity, self-awareness and acceptance.
Also, there is of course no such thing as “a red,” in the absolute — we all exhibit aspects of all four types, just in different degrees and mixes. So even the most flamingly aggressive “red” has other aspects and attributes as well, including the thoughtfulness of the pearl, the steadfastness of the emerald and the joyfulness and sociability of the sapphire somewhere inside.
I have to pop in to add a thought as well. I tend to think and say a lot of controversial things, so let me apologize in advance if I happen to offend anyone.
I believe that the labeling and categorization of people is destructive. I.Q. tests, personality types/tests/analyses, character analyses, horoscopes — these things do not serve us. They only tell us what and how to think; more agents of control. When you say, “But be careful not to pigeonhole or oversimplify anyone,” isn’t that almost exactly what you’re doing? Isn’t that like saying, “Taste, but don’t swallow”? I was taught in my Management of Organizational Behavior class that stereotyping is used for efficiency. I realize that. And I realize that saying stereotyping is bad is an oversimplification in itself. But mind/soul labels and mind/soul types hinder awareness and keep us “under control.”
We act according to our own expectations, and if we don’t know any better, we will act according to someone else’s expectations based on some test. Because of a test, I believed I was mentally retarded from 3rd grade through 8th grade. But somehow I was born with an unremitting curiosity, and by 9th grade I knew there something wrong with the world. I didn’t know what it was, but like Morpheus said, “It was there like a splinter in my mind driving me mad.”
In the case of Felix Dennis, it’s tempting to analyze his character and/or personality. But obviously none of us know him personally or even read his book. What we can do is look at the ideas that he presented in the quotes he gave and try to use them to improve our own understanding of the Truth. Ideas can serve us; judging and/or analyzing people really does not.
And this relates to the judging of people. It is a vice that I continually struggle with, but am improving each day with forgiveness, gratitude, and love.
David: While I hear you on the dangers of judging, I see it differently. For me, a system such as the four temperaments, while it can be misused to pigeonhole, is a valuable tool to help understand and gain insights into another’s unique personality. In other words, there is a world of difference between perceiving the distinctness of a person and “judging” him.
Knowing details about someone’s background, upbringing, experiences, likes and dislikes, talents and skills, personal history, aspirations and disappointments . . . these can all help me gain a deeper understanding of that person, as can the choleric. phlegmatic, etc., typologies. But there’s no judging there.
On the other hand, the kind of experience you’re talking about is powerful indeed (and is discussed quite brilliantly, for example, in the new book Sway, by our friend Ori Brafman). Study after study has shown that people tend to live up to (or in some cases, DOWN to) others’ expectations. If teachers are told a certain student is especially slow, or exceptionally brilliant, even if that student is in fact quite average, the student will tend to alter his performance to match the teacher’s view.
This is a very different thing than the choleric/melancholic issue. This is an issue of learning to see the very best in people — and knowing that in many cases, that “optimistic” perspective will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus, a choleric type of person can grow to become pushy and stubborn, or a brilliant and empathetic leader — depending in part on what expectations the people around him have of him.
My philosophy is, always expect the best in people — more times than not, you’ll turn out to be right!
Hi John, I apologize for the confusion. I was addressing two separate issues in my response: Melanie’s comments that seemed to judge Felix Dennis and the other issue of using systems to classify people. Those topics were meant to be mutually exclusive in my response. I should have addressed the people I was speaking to. Sorry about that.
I am not familiar with the four temperaments. But I’m learning as I go. On Wikipedia it says:
“Many great charismatic military and political figures were cholerics. On the negative side, they are easily angered or bad-tempered.”
I might be wrong, but to me that sounds like a parameter. Obviously, we have a choice not to be either. But how can we have the choice if we’re not aware of the choice? And I think it’s more than an intellectual choice. It has to be a feeling–just as there’s a feeling associated with expectation. We may just disagree on a fundamental level, and that’s fine. I’m not attached to my point of view.
In any case, I totally agree, if you expect and look for the best in people you’ll usually get that. Whatever you focus on you get more of. People act according to the expectations you set up for them, which is why I believe that systems of labeling can be, and usually are destructive.
Thank you John for making me think a little more.
Just an FYI – I’m about a quarter of the way through Mr. Dennis’ book and indeed TIME Magazine (assuming the article in question was a 3rd party review, which I don’t know since I never read the article) took his words totally out of context.
Thus far, his book is excellent and the author appears to be a very benevolent soul. Opinionated and outspoken? Sure. And, entertaining, as well, maybe even saying a couple of tiny things he doesn’t quite believe himself but thrown in for comedic effect. While that last element is unfortunate (as that will most likely get pick up and ‘highlighted’ by many future reviewers), the book so far is outstanding and I look forward to completing it.
Everything I’ve read to this point tells me that I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who desires to become financially successful through adding value to the the lives of others (which, of course, in a free-enterprise based society, is the only way one can legally make money).
Cool, Bob. The book looks entertaining and funny, and I might read it now that you say it’s actually useful.
I’m interested in what he meant by sacrificing happy relationships and being a team player. I think I might read the book now just to get a better idea of what he really means by that.
The four temperaments John refers to are an integral part of Rudolf Steiner’s work, i.e., the basis of the Waldorf School movement. My daughter went to Waldorf Schools in Europe and America. I also ran a Spanish program for a Waldorf School in California many years ago. Teachers always observe all the children carefully for their natural temperamental inclinations–and then strive to help them develop other sides, as well, so I’m inclined to agree with John as to the value.
Wow, that’s nice. It sounds like a very edifying environment. I wish I went to a school like that.
I have enjoyed reading over the different comments and thought I’d add a comment of my own . . . 🙂
Regarding our personalty traits: Florence Littauer wrote an excellent book on the subject a few years back entitled, Personality Plus. Its not only a great way to learn to read other people’s personality traits but, more importantly, its a way to read and get to know ourselves better. By learning about ourselves first; and which personality traits are the strongest and which are the weakest (whether we are a sanguine, a melancholy, a phlegmatic or a choleric personality — usually we have traits of all four at one time or another), we are better able to deal with other people. Once we know ourselves better we can then take the knowledge into the world. If we are able to read a person’s persona; or their personality traits, it makes it easier for us to know how is the best way to win them over — without intimidation — and make them into a friend. Literally stepping out on the right foot right from the start.
Regarding David’s point of view: I thought it was excellent. It is damaging to a person to be labeled; no matter what the label is. Most times the labels people give to one another are considered as being derogatory rather than uplifting. Many times the labels these people have been given stem from the time of their childhood and they haunt them to this day as an agreement. There is a part in all of us that rejects the label but the child in us (our pain body and our agreements), see it only as the truth — unless, or until, they can break the bonds of the agreements which hold them captive. Many times, people who are viewed as having a victim mentality are, in reality, trying to break the bonds of the agreements and the labels which other people have given them.
Thank you.
My main point regarding labels was that they hinder the development of awareness. As soon the person being label becomes aware of the label, it sets up the parameters whether good or bad. And why do we want increasing awareness? It all goes back to my first comment regarding isolation consciousness. I believe the reason is for freedom and choice.
In David Wolfe’s book Amazing Grace, he says, “The situation on planet Earth and at all levels of perception has always been and will continue to be ‘standing room only.” I tend to agree with that. Consciousness is the mental fortitude to question presuppositions and break the pattern of automatic pilot. And we when we use logic in lieu of tradition, we can break through some of the social hypnosis and change our reality.
Again, I really am not looking for anyone to agree with me. I am not attached to my view point.