craft, personal development

One Step To Being A Better Person

How many different motivational speakers and life coaches are in the world today? Approximately a brazillion.

I counted.

How many of them actually have something meaningful to say for your life?

Maybe 5 or 6.

Who are they?

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez on Unsplash

Who knows. Those 5 or 6 will be different for everyone, and will touch everyone in a different way, at different times of their lives, impacting different spheres of experience: relationships, health, spirituality, career, finance, hobbies & play, etc.

I don’t know who they are, but I guarantee you they all have some 7 steps to success and happiness.

Their own flavor of 13 tips for living a better life.

A “27-point Foolproof Path to Fabulousness!”

Or something.

Do they work?


For the right people

At the right time.

But for you?

Right now?

Not likely.

You want my advice? Just be a better person.


I was reading Reddit and came across this nugget of self-hate. [] I’m not going to quote it, but it’s basically some guy in his early 20s complaining that he doesn’t know how other people do it. Everyone else seems to be better than him, and he wonders why.

And how.

How are they better people than him?

I offered my (admittedly unsolicited) advice with 5 steps to being a better person. I will, however, quote myself, because I think it’s worthwhile to have the discussion.

What to do? Stop reading “self-help” books that are written to exploit your addiction to “self-improvement”. The industry only exists to convince you that you’re going to get better if you just buy their next new source of tips and tricks. In reality, they want to sell you more books because, well, they don’t sell you any more books if you actually, you know, HELP YOURSELF to get better. You want 5 simple steps? Here, here’s 5 steps to becoming a better person:

  1. Read Marcus Aurelius, Meditations. It’s not a self-help book, but it is about being good with yourself.

  2. Go for a walk an hour a day, every day, for a year. No music, no audiobook, but just think.

  3. Write in a journal, not on the internet. Nobody here cares about you. you are the only one who does, so you are the only one who needs to know your thoughts.

  4. Stop smoking dope and drinking alcohol. You’re poisoning yourself and using intoxication to mask your real feelings.

  5. Stop swearing. It’s laziness. Put in the mental effort to think of a real insult. Swearing is simple, so it’s the mark of a simpleton. Be better than that.

So that’s my advice. But again, it’s “5 Steps to Being A Better Person”. And I realized, he doesn’t need 5 steps.

He doesn’t even need 3.

Or 2.

He, and everyone else, just needs ONE STEP to become a better person.

Are you ready?

It’s pretty radical an idea.

One that might revolutionize the self-help industry.

Here it is:


Just be better.

That’s it.

Don’t like who you are?


Don’t like your attitude?

Change it.

Don’t like your emotions?

Change them.

Don’t like your anger?

Change it.

Recognize that you are choosing, every moment of every day, what you are going to do with that moment and that day.

If you don’t like what you’ve chosen, choose differently.

Be different.


Be a better person.

I’m not the only one saying this. Here’s the Holstee Manifesto, which says a lot of the same stuff, in a pretty picture:


The Holstee Manifesto, available at

Just be that better person.

No, it’s not easy.

It’s not laid out in 5, or 17, or 49 “simple” steps. Those specific steps might have worked for them. They might have worked, somewhat, for others around the world. But I’m 99.9% confident they won’t work for you.

It’s not that simple.

Because it can’t be.

My 5 steps don’t apply to you. They can’t. It’s impossible.

I don’t know what you want, where you’re starting from, and what you’re willing to put in to get there.

Only you know that.

Only you know what’s going to impact you.

Only you know what’s going to work.

And only you can do the work.

So –

Stop looking for answers in a book, or on a website, or in a seminar.

Stop searching for tips on how to be better, and just … start … being better.

Right now.

Don’t wait.

Nobody else is going to do it for you.


Stephan is a writer, editor, speaker, and publisher living in St. Louis, Missouri. His fiction (and fiction-ish) can be found at and at


better language, business development

Salary “Negotiation”? More Like “Battle”

There’s a problem with the phrase “Salary Negotiation”. And no, I’m not talking about how the public school system has left millions woefully unable to spell “negotiation”.

I’m talking about the fact that this phrase even exists. In today’s modern age of taking all kinds of feelings into account, shouldn’t we have advanced past this simplistic, unenlightened mentality?

The Problem Of “Negotiation”

The problem lies in the word negotiation. Inherent in this is the perception of adversarial conflict. Two sides, each on their end of the battleground, coming together to “negotiate” a resolution to their disagreement.

courtesy of Wikipedia

The implication is that each side is going to have to give up something, in order to get something else. It’s a zero-sum game. Everyone loses something, and nobody goes away happy.

Because if you could have achieved everything you wanted without the negotiation, then there wouldn’t have been one in the first place!

But why should you care about this when discussing salaries? Doesn’t everyone have the same goal during salary negotiation, whether for new employees or at performance review time?


Not even close.

For the employee (or potential employee), their perspective is to get as much compensation for as little as possible. And for the employer, their desire is to pay as little as possible for that same employee.

Thus, conflict.

Why Normal Doesn’t Work

The standard salary negotiation doesn’t work, because, as in any negotiation, one side must make the first move. Generally, this puts the first mover at a disadvantage.

Poker players know this, which is why they want to be able to make their moves after the other player. (This is called being “in position”.) The advantage comes from the chance to gain more information about the other player, or the other negotiator, by their first action.

And now we get into game theory! Those who have to act first know that their adversary will get more information from their actions, so they try to bluff by making their position seem stronger (or, sometimes weaker) than it actually is, to induce a targeted action by the other.

In our salary discussion, this shows up in a couple of ways. Neither side wants to go first – employers don’t want to commit to too high a value, and potential employees don’t want to feel like they’re not getting what they’re actually worth.

I’ve noticed that employers have stopped putting salary ranges on job descriptions. That’s fine, because it eliminates one of the disadvantages they had before.

When they listed a salary range, they’re often automatically excluding qualified candidates who would have worked for slightly more than that range, but feel constrained because there might not be any flexibility.

And second, they’re attracting unqualified candidates who think they’re worthy of the salary, which leads to excess HR waste and time spent dealing with it.

From the candidate’s perspective, though, this is removing the advantages they had of knowing what the minimum and maximum are. It gives them some opportunity for additional conversation, though, and that’s really what I want people to start doing more.

Let’s Get It All In, Shall We?

The other problem with listing “salary ranges” is that it doesn’t accurately reflect the total compensation of the position. Two companies might each promise to pay a coder $75,000 for full-time employment. Seems fair. But one has benefits (health insurance, retirement, flexible time off, taxes paid, etc.) that are worth about 20% of that salary ($15,000), while the other has benefits worth 40% ($22,500). If you’re just “negotiating” on salary alone, without taking into consideration all the other elements, you’re missing out.

So, what to do about this? I think there are two changes that need to be made when discussing compensation, and one easy process to help make that happen.

First, Let’s Call It A “Compensation Conversation”

Because, frankly, there is much more to compensation than just “salary”. It’s the whole package that must be considered, and, unfortunately, since most of the additional benefits aren’t ever actually quantified, it has been a hidden factor for far too long.

Thus I think we should start including the financial value of benefits as part of the job offer or raise discussion, rather than simply talking the dollars on the paycheck. This will force into the open many elements that previously have been hidden, allowing for full disclosure and consideration by both sides.

An image from the promotional poster for the movie "Disclosure"
courtesy of Google, just like everything else

Next, Let’s Make Sure Neither Side Has To Overcompensate By Going First

Remember, the problem of going first leads to overinflating your position, because you know your opponent is going to try to negotiate you off your power, and since you know they’re going to do that you’ve expressly inflated your position, and they’ve expressly inflated their own, leading to a growing divide between the two parties. Rather than helping mitigate the conflict, I contend that having a “negotiation” widens the disagreement and further entrenches each side in their own position, lowering the chance of success.

Let me give an example. Suppose the software company wants to hire the coder for $90,000 ($75,000 salary + $15,000 benefits). But they know that coders will try to get every extra dollar possible out of them, and there will be a negotiation, so they purposely start out low ($70,000 salary listed), expecting the coder to ask for $78,000, and then they go back and forth.

The coder, too, has to play this game. Suppose he would have been happy with $80,000 total compensation ($66,667 salary + $13,333 benefits). But he knows the game, he knows that the posted salary from the company is “lower” than what they finally expect to pay, so he counter-offers the $70,000 with $80,000, expecting them to go back and forth from there.

Now, it may seem like everyone’s happy here. But are they, really? Sure, they got to a final agreement, but it took a lot of time, and wasted the chance for a lot of goodwill that could have been created through a better process.

But if I’m suggesting neither side go first, how do I plan to fix the process?

Instead Of One Side “Going First”, Have Both Sides “Go Together”

The difference in this situation is that both sides will, at the point of being willing to extend (and receive) an offer, agree to a Mutual Declaration. In this instance, instead of either the employer or the (potential) employee going first, both will reveal their position at the same time.

How this works would be that each side determines a range of total compensation over which they would feel is fair for the position, the expectations, travel, etc. Once each side has their range determined, both sides then exchange with the other, or an impartial third party.

If their ranges overlap, then the middle is automatically selected. If they don’t, then you actually get to have a conversation about what each side believes is fair. And that conversation can, and should, include much more than simply salary.

How It Might Work

Let’s go back to our coder. The company obviously has an upper limit somewhere around $90,000 for their position. They create a range that says [$80,000 – $92,000].

The coder, for his part, looks at the requirements of the job, the people, the benefits offered, and decides that he thinks it’s worth [$78,000 – $86,000] to him. Others might have a different perspective, but for him, anywhere in that range is fair.

Once they’re both done, they reveal their ranges. Since there’s an overlap from between $80,000 to $86,000, they pick the middle ($83,000), solve for a salary ($69,167) and benefits ($13,833) that each is perfectly happy with.

The main advantage is that both sides feel the process is fair, it’s taken a lot less time, and you’ve eliminated the confusion about total compensation, since you’ve added in the value of the benefits up front.

And what happens if the ranges don’t overlap? Suppose the coder feels that in order for him to accept this job he would need somewhere between [$95,000 – $105,000]. Well, now the differential is between $90,000 and $95,000. If there is flexibility on either side (work from home, more retirement benefit, more vacation, less vacation, higher salary offered from the company, lower salary accepted by the candidate), then all of those elements can be quantified and the conversation (not negotiation!) can continue.

In the end, they’ll either reach an agreement or not. But at least they’ll do it with the full faith and confidence that all of their positions have been taken into consideration.

An Obvious Limitation

I do suggest that there be some limits on the ranges. For example, you shouldn’t just list [$0 – $1,000,000], in the hopes of forcing the other side to accept the middle of their range automatically. That’s just ridiculous. At the same time, nobody should have a range that’s too narrow [$60,000 – $60,500] to, again, not really give anything away about their interpretation of the process.

So I recommend a range where the upper limit is no less than 10%, and no more than 30%, above than the lower limit. This creates a reasonableness check on the two sides and ensures nobody’s manipulating the other and the process. So if the software company above really wanted to pay around $90,000, they should have that as the middle of their range, something like [$85,000 – $95,000], and should be comfortable if they have to pay a couple of thousand dollars more than their “target”.

A New Term – Hopefully Used Often

I know this is a bit of a departure from my typical blog posts, but it’s an issue that’s been on my mind lately. It’s especially important because lately I’ve been doing so much thinking about terminology (“retention”, teaching, and inappropriate “Thank You” spring to mind). This is another area where a shift in perception will only happen with intentional shift in language.

I hope this perspective catches on. I truly believe it could add much value to the process.


Do you like this article? Or don’t? Send me a note and let me know what you think.

business development, craft

Why “…Those Who Can’t, Teach” Is A Terrible Saying, and How To Fix It

Raise your hand if you’ve ever heard this old adage, generally used disparagingly…

Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.

98% chance your hand, like mine, is in the air right now. Everybody’s heard this phrase. Most people have said it. Keep those hands up if that phrase has come out of your mouth. While not as high as before, I’m pegging the over-under on this one at about 75%, self included as well.

Generally, this saying is issued to somehow insult teachers, as if they “couldn’t handle the real world” of mathematics, or writing history books, or of producing documentaries. You’re not good enough, is the implied meaning. You’re not dedicated enough. You can’t handle the pressure. You’d be out making a lot more money in the “real world” if you could, but you can’t, so that’s why you’re settling for teaching.

And while some of those may be true, on an individual basis, it’s a rather gross stereotype, one I now see as encompassing a terrible mindset about those who teach.

Problems Inherent

One major problem is that it’s rather limiting to a professional to say that he or she is required to perform within the world outside academia, as if that is the first choice and the standard for performance within this world. We hear so often, “Be what you want to be,” but then receive contradictory messages denigrating those who may just really want to remain immersed in the subject itself, rather than applying the principles in an increasingly competitive, cutthroat economy. If a teacher, who is happy teaching, sees all of her peers miserable because they’ve succumbed to the rat race, who has made the wiser choice? Who has followed her dream more faithfully? Who should we really admire and look up to?

Second, what does this phrase tell students about those who are instructing them? Oh, these people can’t really do economics, so they’re here in your high school class to teach you about it. Yeah, we can’t afford real professionals, so you get the amateur hour. Is that instilling confidence within our youths, or, really, anyone on the outside, to think of our educators as incapable of performing at the level required of them? Or causing them to doubt their education, and, consequently, their own opportunities for the future?

So Nobody’s Teaching Anymore?

Far from it. Many still choose to teach what they know. Not just in the formal school system, either. We’re now seeing a mass democratization of education, with online courses on hundreds of platforms, where one can learn everything from traditional college-level biology or philosophy delivered by big-name institutions ( to immensely practical, individually-led on-demand learning about flowcharts or e-commerce store inventory management (

The number of these individual courses grows every day. And they’re not just on dedicated sites – new tools now mean just about anyone can teach a course on, well, virtually anything they know about. I just logged on to Facebook (ugh, I know), and the 3rd post was literally titled “Finally, a Predictable Way To Get Writing Clients”. This is, clearly, another writer selling me his system (free at first, then the upsell once I’m hooked) for getting clients.

I can buy virtually anything these days, because people are selling training courses for nearly everything under the sun. The question is, Why? Why, if we have denigrated teaching so much and for so long, would so many be putting time and money towards presenting themselves as teachers? Why would they be leaving the doing of whatever it is (getting clients, trading energy derivatives, building business analytic systems, etc.) they have clearly achieved some level of success, in order to shift over to the lowly position of teacher?

Because It’s The Economy, Stupid

Now, just to be clear, I’m not calling you stupid. (I’m referencing a phrase from an old Bill Clinton candidate message.) I am, however, pointing out that people selling those courses are, in fact, selling something.

And those who are working at teaching economics or poetry or computer science at our high schools and colleges are actually selling that education, as well. They may be selling in bulk, and the payor (school system) may be different from the client (high school students), but the idea is the same.

Instead of doing the work once, and getting paid for it once, by an employer (or client), these innovative entrepreneurs are doing a different kind of work once, and selling that work product multiple times, with little to no marginal cost to them.

It’s like how if you custom-design cars, or computers, or clothes, it takes a lot more time and cost to produce them. But if you figure out how to do one thing over and over and over, you spread the design and set-up cost over a vastly larger set of outputs, meaning your costs go down, and your profits go up.

Think about it. A professor of biology does the same amount of work to lecture 20 students as 30, as 40, as 1. Which makes the most sense, from an economic standpoint?

An online educator proclaiming to instill within me a 7-step foolproof method for how to get new writing clients could be using those 7 steps to land new clients left and right. But then she’d be stuck doing that writing work over and over and over again. Much better to, instead, exploit my naivete a little bit, make some passive income selling a portion of her knowledge to me and ten thousand others around the country (around the world, even!), and free up some time in her day for a visit to the State Park or to work on developing the next course. Again, which one makes more economic sense?

Am I Just Being Extra Cynical?

I don’t think so. I believe I’m offering a warning to those out there who imagine they will get something for nothing. That they’ll get the “secret” to instant success and financial freedom, simply by following some guru’s “foolproof” formula for landing bigger, better clients or making money with other people’s money in real estate.

Yes, those people could be off doing the thing and making money there, but they’ve figured out that it’s an easier life selling the idea of making money in whatever industry they have some experience in, and they’re pursuing that endeavor with abandon.

Good on them.

I’m just not likely to participate.

Didn’t You Mention A “Better Phrase”?

Yeah, I guess I did. Remember, the old idea was “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.” I think we need to retire that one and, instead, replace it with the following.

Those who can, do. Those who wish to scale, teach.

Keeping this in mind will help everyone who comes across the next “free” seminar on how to get something for nothing. It’s less likely to give you value than to create a profitable revenue stream for the “guru”. You’ve been warned.