SWAGGER

Looking toward the 2011-2012 NCAA playoffs, John Calipari, the much heralded coach of an incredibly talented Kentucky Wildcats basketball team, made repeated references to the fine-line but critical distinction between “arrogance” and “swagger” in his players’ attitudes – discouraging the former, generally associated with gratuitously inflated and easily deflatable self-esteem, and encouraging the latter, associated with more realistic self-assured confidence in their abilities.

During my 20^th century days working under a former Nobel Prize associate, it was invigorating to be engaged in pushing all boundaries for the advancement of science, the fruits of which – e.g., the receipt of benchmark grant awards and publications – we enjoyed with a demeanor termed the “Arrogance of Excellence”.  [Functionally, it was more like the “Swagger of Excellence”, but the implied superlative was more gratifying!] 

What was the difference?  We were inspired by our successes to work harder and better, not lulled into “resting on our laurels” (Calipari’s main concern).  There was always a higher score to attain, the next fundamental question to ask, the next fundamental question to answer, the next disease to cure, the next grant application to submit, the next experiment to do, the next manuscript to write …  And, even if we were the best, we weren’t competing just against mortals but against global time, Fate, Destiny, ignorance and perfection.  Not to mention the fact that none of us – either individually or collectively – had actually won the Nobel Prize. 

I think a good part of the distinction comes down to a question of “How big is your sandbox?”  Being “King Frog” in a small pond is a dubious distinction.  Until you can out-swim the alligators in the open estuary and the sharks in deep water, there’s not much wind in “bragging rights”. 

Perhaps the real test of one’s mettle is how good we are compared to what we “coulda” been or done.  And that’s an ever-moving target.   

And I believe the legitimacy of an award is measured by the amount of “Grace” or sportsmanship one exhibits when declared a “winner”.  Here, the difference between “arrogance”/“swagger” and simple personal satisfaction/pride in accomplishment becomes most acutely evident.  One can still work with /\ live with a person who is justifiably proud of his/her accomplishments and anxious to “share the wealth”.  Not so much so otherwise. 

John Rosemond, syndicated columnist, has undertaken a running attack against inflated self-esteem – which would include arrogance, swagger, narcissism, and bullying.  In an attempt to describe a more healthy, effective and socially acceptable self-image, he suggests that humility may be the key attitudinal element (Tuesday, March 20, 2012).  Humility reflects a much truer self-image as we find ourselves living in a very large and complex world now closing in on 5 billion people, many of whom are smarter, more talented, better conditioned/better educated and more productive.   But humility isn’t what drove George Washington to cross the Delaware or Abraham Lincoln to run for President of the United States. 

So, it seems we need different or more expansive terminology to describe a healthy self-image.  The terms self-efficacy, self-assurance and self-confidence – well-founded – help fill this gap. 

But, in the end, as Rosemond points out, it’s not really about ME!  It’s about how much value I can add to the lives of others.  In fact, my existence can only be justified by the amount I contribute toward advancement of the universe and the wellbeing of my fellow travelers within it.  It is their esteem that should drive me forward, onward and upward.  Once I get that right, even if I can never be completely satisfied with my own accomplishments, my best effort in that direction will carry reward enough to make it all worthwhile. 

Do something today to add value to the lives of others – because you CAN – and keep doing.  Quartermaster