Positive Motivation's what you need

So I've elected to do a 100-mile charity bike ride. It seemed like a good idea at first. Then it became a reality. Part of the deal is having to raise money for Action Medical Research. £25 minimum required and they do everything to help including setting you up with a personalised on-line donation site (http://www.action.org.uk/sponsor/robfountain).


So I circulate the details and some kindly souls begin to donate and I sweep beyond the twenty-five mark and have to reset a target somewhere over a hundred quid. The covering note is tweaked to reflect that the kindness of friends and acquaintances is proving a real motivation. And it is - I don't want to let down those that have given generously. I better bloody do it now, or I'll have failed everyone who has given money.

Then it hits me. I've resorted to finding negative motivation for this.


Then it hits me harder. That may well be a trait I carry into my professional life.


Taking stock I recognise in some previous jobs and situations a tendency to focus on delivering what is expected so as not to let other people (a boss, team mates) down. Nothing wrong with that... or is there?

The thing is that on reflection I cannot get beyond words like: safe, reliable, risk-averse, limited, unimaginative, conservative... They aren't terrible words, but they are not - well - about sucking the marrow out life! They just don't have the appeal, the potential, of words like: challenge, experiment, opportunity, pushing boundaries, invention, or simply 'trying'.

So my new hypothesis is this: Negative motivation can lead to a steady life and career, but not a brilliant one; whilst postive motivation (striving to achieve, to do new and different, to push yourself and the limits around you) might from time to time lead to 'failures', but the journey there will at least be stimulating. In short, I need to stick to seeing the positive motivations for things I do and not let those negative motivations put me in a box.

All this from a 100-mile bike ride? Well, yeah, actually. Because the first thought was that it seemed like a good idea. It instantly sounded like something that would hurt, but that would feel worth it afterwards. It clearly presents a new experience and is highly likely to have some element of incident along the route that will give me memories and dinner table conversation in years to come. It sounded like something I would be proud of achieving and that was more prominent a thought than any potential that I might not make it.

That first thought drifted for a bit there - it became easier strangely to say I was doing it because I didn't want to let my sponsors down. Well, time to come clean: I'd have paid the £25 myself if no-one had sponsored me. That people see fit to donate to the ride, well that speaks well of them, but I cannot honestly say - or allow myself to dwell upon thoughts that - it is motivating to know they have done so. This is about personal challenge, pushing boundaries, seizing an opportunity, trying....

Disagreeing about what we agree on

My dad and I enjoy a good debate. We used to do it whilst washing the dishes. There's less opportunity to do it now, so when the occasion arises we tend to have quite explosive exchanges. We had one today. It was about the current political situation.

My dad got animated about the fact that people are wrong to seek to undermine Gordon Brown's leadership on the grounds that he has never been elected by the country. The public never elects a Prime Minister, he asserts, the party choose the leader. I said the masses cast their vote in most any election as a comment on the named leader of a party; that policies and manifesto commitments are secondary to personality to most.

My dad said that dark forces were behind the moves to destabilise government, that vested interest of the minority was being given credence and momentum by a soulless and careless media. I said it was right that the moral corruption of the few was being exposed for what it is.

My dad called me naive for not thinking there was a conspiracy in how the expenses scandal was being used to bring the Labour government down. I called my dad naive for not thinking it was always the way that situations such as this were manipulated by outside forces.

It was uncomfortable at times. My dad got really worked up; passionate as ever, but angry too. He is a staunch defender of the political values he supports and saw my arguments as opposed to his.

They aren't.

Looking back over where we argued, the key issues are not opposite. What is different is how we see the appropriate response to the political world we see.

My dad has genuine socialist convictions. He is intensely loyal to the values of the true left and the party that represents the interests of the majority against the privilege of the few. I have acquired a similar sense of social justice and am truly grateful for that. Where we differ is that I am currently ruled more by pragmatism, my dad more by anger at the injustice he has seen in his lifetime.

When my dad talks about the technicalities of becoming a Prime Minister he is (I believe) voicing his frustration at the reduction of politics to the cult of personality. His strength of feeling I think comes out of unresolved bitterness that Neil Kinnock was not voted into office largely due to being ginger-haired and Welsh. I agree with him, but with the knowledge that The Sun is the most read paper never far from my thoughts, I believe we need to think of ways of reaching and engaging the lowest common denominator, not lambasting them for being inaccurate.

When my dad moves in his chair with barely contained hostility when talking about the shadowy influence of the Barclay Brothers, or the opinionated nature of modern journalism, I share his dissatisfaction. But I also think that is a secondary issue in this case to the need to expose greed and venality in a minority of elected representatives, including and especially those on the so-called side of the common family.

I don't think my dad is naive. He has considerable knowledge of occasions through history where significant political decisions have been influenced by vested interest. He probably does think I'm naive. He heard my acceptance of the manipulation of events as being antipathy. What we didn't get to discuss was an alternative view (a third way?!), which seeks to get to the heart of the manipulation and the way around it.

Here's what I didn't get to discuss with my dad: That people seek to exert control over political power is not a surprise. That it is easier for socialist parties to be the victim of this is equally not unexpected given that those who control newspapers and big business interests generally are those with most to lose from left-wing governments. Being successful as a Labour goverment, therefore, requires that you play the game better than anyone else. New Labour under Blair is the epitome of this - appeasing the privileged minority in order to secure the means to reform for the majority. When New Labour came to power the success was getting the privileged to agree to things they previously disagreed about.

The current incarnation of Labour government is continuing a policy agenda that is rooted in social interest - I work in the arena of disabled children's services and saw Ed Balls talk impressively last week about the unprecendented investment in services shaped by the needs of parents and children. However, unlike under Tony Blair, the current government I believe lacks the guile to operate in a way that is tolerable to the influential minority.

I respect my dad enormously for putting values first and not wanting to dilute that by worrying on the delivery of politics. However, it is impossible to reform from opposition and therefore seeking to understand and respond to the maneuvres of the 'other side' is a necessary evil.

My discussion with my dad was coolled by a request that we 'agree to disagree'. Debating with my dad helps me understand these points, so I think it is more constructive and apt to conclude that we may always 'disagree to agree'.