BETTER WAYS TO BUILD POSITIVE SELF-ESTEEM

Our society tends to minimize the importance of learning from failure, encouraging positive self-esteem and equality within all individuals, in order for them to be confident in taking the risks required of success. A recent news article about a parent in Texas claiming her son was “bullied” by the coach of an opposing high school football team because he “mercilessly and relentlessly ran up the score” against her son’s team (90+ to nothing). The score seems lopsided on the surface BUT the winning team was first in the state while the losing team had not won a game all season. The winning team had won by more than 70 points per game this season – the losing team scoring very few points even against lesser opponents. The coach of the winning team began substituting during the first quarter and had players in positions they had never played throughout the game. Short of telling his players to stop scoring or to fumble the ball away (which would have been unfair to the winning team), what else could he have done? Neither coach was surprised with the final score. The players on the losing team admitted a better team beat them. Why is it that when parents begin to live their lives through their children all sorts of negative things begin to happen?

Has the concept of building a “positive self-esteem” and “hovering” over our children to protect them from failing become the driving force in both our schools and workplaces (at the expense of success and accomplishment)? Do you stifle those you care about – negatively influence their ability to learn and grow through their own mistakes – by sheltering and protecting them from failure to the point that they feel unable to thrive (or survive) on their own? It may be time to think about the ways self-esteem can be positively influenced without negatively affecting the development of individuals OR the outcomes that we hope to achieve.

Intentionally or accidentally, schools sometimes elevate “self-esteem” to one of the more important aspects of a student’s education – putting student feelings about their self-concept above what they might be able to accomplish. While a teacher has a huge responsibility to help mold the developing minds of students, the diverse levels and abilities each child in a class demonstrates can sometimes discourage equitable treatment of their abilities in favor of an easier to address equality. When the default becomes “nobody will be left behind” rather than “all will be moved ahead,” should the job of teaching ever become making everyone feel as though they were an equal contributor to the classes’ success, we lose a valuable reality that everyone IS equal in their potential, everyone IS NOT equal in their abilities, motivations or goals. While there is value in helping those who do not understand, education becomes dysfunctional when that help comes at the expense of individual advancement and achievement. Some schools give little attention to proper spelling (“spell check” will manage that) and do not worry about basic math concepts (“that is what calculators are for”). In sporting events, schools tend to focus on equality of playing time (regardless of ability) and sportsmanship (not a bad thing but not the primary objective of competitive sports) rather than on winning. In moderation, these are not bad concepts. In practice, however, students rewarded for effort rather than accomplishment – for simply trying rather than actually achieving – will have a tough time adapting to a workplace environment. How can such an ingrained attitude be changed when these sheltered children leave their protected setting and enter the “real world” where performance drives pay and the ability to contribute defines job security?

Business often tends to reward “the masses” through the application of inconsistent employment policies and practices. Many employers avoid confrontation by giving performance reviews that establish marginal work patterns as being proficient. They often inflate ratings so that everyone “meets or exceeds expectations” regardless of the actual work performed or how much they contributed to the organization’s success. Praising someone for “doing the best work within a certain area when they are here” (especially if the person has an absenteeism problem) may be good for self-esteem but does nothing to improve a worker’s attendance. Giving an “across the board” pay increase minimizes friction but rewards mediocrity. Adjusting an employee’s work schedule to “meet their situation” does not necessarily address their inability to show up on time or work as needed to accomplish the job. Some organizations attempt to develop workplace teams so that nobody is “left out” of the decision-making process but such teams can often weaken the leadership hierarchy and decision-making structure within the organization. If consensus thinking is required, it may help a decision be more readily implemented BUT it can also cause unnecessary delay (AND the adoption of a “workable solution” that may not be the best possible solution).

In relationships we sometimes shelter those we care for at the expense of their personal growth and development. We so want to keep someone special from suffering or to be “less than we know they could be” but often impose our personal standards of “what should be” or who someone might be to another, effectively keeping them from discovering themselves or learning from their own mistakes. Our fervor to make people “feel good” often removes the motivation to achieve their full potential. Students receiving praise for working hard to “almost get the right answer,” workers receiving a small raise for doing “most of an assigned project” or “special people” placed upon a pedestal and protected from any and all disappointment or frustration tend to adopt the level of expectations placed upon them as being acceptable. Why should they reach beyond if they can receive praise and recognition for achieving the minimum? When entrusted to lead an organization (a team, a family or a relationship) we should avoid:

·    Rewarding efforts (which may actually be leading towards failure) and/or the willingness to accept new responsibilities rather than rewarding the end results.

·    Placing unqualified individuals into positions they want (rewarding their self-concept) while potentially breeding frustration and failure (unless appropriate tools, resources and/or training is available). We should not doom an individual to failure NOR keep another individual more likely to succeed from trying just to avoid saying “no” when it needs to be said.

·    Praising an individual for “trying hard” or “working as hard as he or she can” hoping a small compliment will encourage better performance. In reality such praise may establish a lower expectation as being acceptable.

·    Giving everyone an “across the board increase” to minimize confrontation. This practice actually helps to retain the under-performing worker (who could not find employment elsewhere) and “reward the average” (who wants a workforce comprised of low achievers?) while de-motivating high achievers (who see that others are compensated well for doing less).

·    Inhibiting growth by being overly protective within a relationship. It is not wrong to share in the decision-making process, but it IS wrong to impose your personal thoughts and concepts of well-being upon another purely for the sake of protecting them from potential harm (or learning). While “letting someone go” is not the only way to show that you care for them, allowing them to grow (and supporting them when needed) will allow for healthy growth and a much stronger self-concept.

We are told a good self-concept breeds happiness and success. I would offer that happiness and success creates a good self-concept. We are told students (and employees) need to work as equals within teams to accomplish anything. I would offer that all teams need a leader – a collector of ideas or a champion – to facilitate change. We are told that rewarding the process will enhance creativity, thereby minimizing the fear of failure. I would offer that rewarding an individual’s accomplishments and encouraging them to learn from correcting their failures – while constructively improving sub-standard efforts – will foster creativity and encourage risk-taking behavior, potentially eliminating the fear of failure. We are told that opposites attract in a good relationship – that those who are too much alike may actually be bad unless one is able to lead while the other follows. I would offer lasting relationships are built through hard work, complimentary characteristics and shared communication – traits that build self-esteem and worth within both halves of a relationship where one is not always right, and the other is not forever wrong. It is good to think about a person’s “self-esteem.”  It is better to encourage their success, worth and value.