I think I've mentioned it before, but I try to do at least one good deed every week. It doesn't have to be something spectacular, just something that somehow makes the world a slightly better place. Helping to get someone an answer to a problem they had at work counts as a good deed, for example. So does doing the dishes for someone else. You get the idea; it doesn't have to be a grandiose production, but my aim is to do my part to not let the world suck.
Regardless, I've been having a tougher time lately with this. I will volunteer to help other people out in some capacity, and they callously blow me off. It's disheartening, really. It almost makes me want to give up on this whole good deed thing.
Take my coworker/friend who also happens to be a software developer. She was in the final stretch of a project, so she was understandably busy. Seeing her plight, I offered her a simple snippet of code to try to make her work go faster. The details and the syntax aren't important, but it basically went something like, "if there is an unknown error, go bug (other developer on her team). Else, handle the exception in the prescribed way." I know she thought it was a decent idea, because she smiled (and maybe even laughed a little in delight) as soon as I explained my idea. But ultimately, she chose to ignore this suggestion. I think she may have mumbled some gibberish about "workmanship" or something like that, but the point is that she foiled my attempt to do a good deed.
Well, okay, one incident does not a pattern make, so I went back to my usual attempts for good-deed-doing. My other friend was absolutely swamped with work, and she complained that the emails just kept coming without end. It was the sort of thing where she wished for a momentary relief from the barrage of emails, so she could catch up with the existing work. Enter my attempt at a good deed: "set up a new rule. All inbound emails should be forwarded to [Sam], and then automatically deleted from your inbox. I will filter/screen/delete all the unnecessary ones, and then forward the ones that are actually important back to [my friend]." The best part of this plan was that I would actually get something out of it, too. Do you know how therapeutic it is to delete emails when they represent unimportant/nonsensical work stuff? As with the previous case, there was the smile & the laugh. Heck, my suggestion even elicited a "haha, that'd be an awesome plan" from my friend. And then, she promptly proceeded to ignore said plan.
What the heck? That was twice I was intentionally blown off in an attempt to do a good deed. Well, I'm a stubborn one, so I figured I'd persist with my ways (habits die hard). The latest, and quite possibly last, straw, though was my buddy who was trying to write a paper. She had a case of writer's block, so I offered to throw out suggestions/write stuff for her. Now, we were both logged in to a chat client, so that wasn't as ridiculous as it might have sounded. I figured I'd just throw out ideas, and eventually something would click. The paper was about non-profit organizations and their operating models, so I got to work trying to outwit her writer's block. Now, given that I'd been foiled twice before, I figured I'd sweeten the pot a little: I'd handle this all in 30 minutes or less. How's that for service?
Also, given my propensity for speaking simply and plainly, I figured I'd keep it simple. So, here's what I came up with (shortened a little bit for the sake of brevity):
Non-profits vary in size and function, so it's not too surprising they vary greatly in how they operate. At the end of the day, though, only have three operating models: beg & plead, con & cajole, and captive labor.
The first option, beg & plead, involves asking people for money. Non-profits rarely have tons of money, so they have to ask others for it. That's where the begging comes in. And since they don't likely have tons of rich patrons or friends, they have to ask the local communities for help. That's the pleading part. If they're successful, they get money, and things get better for the people they're trying to help. If not, people tend to get sick, and it's all bad.
The second option is slightly trickier in that involves a bit more skill. The organization needs someone who is a fast talker. If that is the case, then that person gets put in charge, and that person will use creative methods to extract money from others. Otherwise, it devolves into the first case (read it again if you're not sure).
The last, and least used, option involves using a captive audience to perform a good amount of labor. Take all those orphanages that help kids from Third World countries. They make the kids clean up after the place, and what not. They're clearly not doing anything else, and in all those commercials, the kids always have smiles on their faces when they're in the orphanage-type place. Clearly, they don't mind. Win-win for everyone involved, really.
In conclusion, you've got three options. It's a matter of preference, really, but with a little bit of effort, it's possible to successfully run an organization using any of the three.
It's all there, no? A clear-cut thesis, topic sentences, a little bit of detail to back each of the topic sentences, a solid conclusion, and halfway decent transitions ... I don't think I missed anything. Even better, I knocked that bad boy out in a grand total of five minutes. FIVE. I didn't even need the full thirty minutes, and I delivered on what I'd promised.
And sadly, it was the same song & dance. The friend laughed, the friend said that "was awesome," and then the friend blew me off. In this case, she even said she liked some turn of phrase I had haphazardly thrown in, so she was tempted to expand on that. But did she use the idea? No. Rejected again.
I'm not sure what else I could have done. I gave it my best faith effort, and still nothing. Like I said, I'm seriously reconsidering this good deed plan. I'm not sure I can take any more of this rejection.
Regardless, I've been having a tougher time lately with this. I will volunteer to help other people out in some capacity, and they callously blow me off. It's disheartening, really. It almost makes me want to give up on this whole good deed thing.
Take my coworker/friend who also happens to be a software developer. She was in the final stretch of a project, so she was understandably busy. Seeing her plight, I offered her a simple snippet of code to try to make her work go faster. The details and the syntax aren't important, but it basically went something like, "if there is an unknown error, go bug (other developer on her team). Else, handle the exception in the prescribed way." I know she thought it was a decent idea, because she smiled (and maybe even laughed a little in delight) as soon as I explained my idea. But ultimately, she chose to ignore this suggestion. I think she may have mumbled some gibberish about "workmanship" or something like that, but the point is that she foiled my attempt to do a good deed.
Well, okay, one incident does not a pattern make, so I went back to my usual attempts for good-deed-doing. My other friend was absolutely swamped with work, and she complained that the emails just kept coming without end. It was the sort of thing where she wished for a momentary relief from the barrage of emails, so she could catch up with the existing work. Enter my attempt at a good deed: "set up a new rule. All inbound emails should be forwarded to [Sam], and then automatically deleted from your inbox. I will filter/screen/delete all the unnecessary ones, and then forward the ones that are actually important back to [my friend]." The best part of this plan was that I would actually get something out of it, too. Do you know how therapeutic it is to delete emails when they represent unimportant/nonsensical work stuff? As with the previous case, there was the smile & the laugh. Heck, my suggestion even elicited a "haha, that'd be an awesome plan" from my friend. And then, she promptly proceeded to ignore said plan.
What the heck? That was twice I was intentionally blown off in an attempt to do a good deed. Well, I'm a stubborn one, so I figured I'd persist with my ways (habits die hard). The latest, and quite possibly last, straw, though was my buddy who was trying to write a paper. She had a case of writer's block, so I offered to throw out suggestions/write stuff for her. Now, we were both logged in to a chat client, so that wasn't as ridiculous as it might have sounded. I figured I'd just throw out ideas, and eventually something would click. The paper was about non-profit organizations and their operating models, so I got to work trying to outwit her writer's block. Now, given that I'd been foiled twice before, I figured I'd sweeten the pot a little: I'd handle this all in 30 minutes or less. How's that for service?
Also, given my propensity for speaking simply and plainly, I figured I'd keep it simple. So, here's what I came up with (shortened a little bit for the sake of brevity):
Non-profits vary in size and function, so it's not too surprising they vary greatly in how they operate. At the end of the day, though, only have three operating models: beg & plead, con & cajole, and captive labor.
The first option, beg & plead, involves asking people for money. Non-profits rarely have tons of money, so they have to ask others for it. That's where the begging comes in. And since they don't likely have tons of rich patrons or friends, they have to ask the local communities for help. That's the pleading part. If they're successful, they get money, and things get better for the people they're trying to help. If not, people tend to get sick, and it's all bad.
The second option is slightly trickier in that involves a bit more skill. The organization needs someone who is a fast talker. If that is the case, then that person gets put in charge, and that person will use creative methods to extract money from others. Otherwise, it devolves into the first case (read it again if you're not sure).
The last, and least used, option involves using a captive audience to perform a good amount of labor. Take all those orphanages that help kids from Third World countries. They make the kids clean up after the place, and what not. They're clearly not doing anything else, and in all those commercials, the kids always have smiles on their faces when they're in the orphanage-type place. Clearly, they don't mind. Win-win for everyone involved, really.
In conclusion, you've got three options. It's a matter of preference, really, but with a little bit of effort, it's possible to successfully run an organization using any of the three.
It's all there, no? A clear-cut thesis, topic sentences, a little bit of detail to back each of the topic sentences, a solid conclusion, and halfway decent transitions ... I don't think I missed anything. Even better, I knocked that bad boy out in a grand total of five minutes. FIVE. I didn't even need the full thirty minutes, and I delivered on what I'd promised.
And sadly, it was the same song & dance. The friend laughed, the friend said that "was awesome," and then the friend blew me off. In this case, she even said she liked some turn of phrase I had haphazardly thrown in, so she was tempted to expand on that. But did she use the idea? No. Rejected again.
I'm not sure what else I could have done. I gave it my best faith effort, and still nothing. Like I said, I'm seriously reconsidering this good deed plan. I'm not sure I can take any more of this rejection.
Comments
Post a Comment