Interested vs committed comes down to what you do when the goal stops being convenient: interest keeps the option open, while commitment changes your preparation, habits and willingness to learn. In my 2015 conversation with John Assaraf, that distinction connected his mentor’s life-changing question to something much closer to home: the nerves I felt talking to people I had looked up to for years.

I told John that sometimes, when I interviewed someone whose books I had grown up reading, I felt excitement and nervousness together in my stomach. I wanted to know how to manage it. This was not a question about somebody else’s excuses. I was asking what to do with the feeling that showed up while I was doing work I cared about.

His answer was not to wait until I became a different kind of person. It was to prepare, breathe and rehearse. Put that beside the story he told me about his own turning point, and commitment becomes more useful than a word you shout when you feel inspired.

The question Allan Brown asked before anything changed

John told me that between 13 and 17 he ran with kids who were shoplifting and breaking into places. Then he met Allan Brown, who owned a real estate company. Brown asked whether he was interested in turning his life around or committed to building a life with purpose, meaning and the financial means to contribute.

John asked what the difference was.

As John remembered it, Brown said interest meant doing what was convenient. He could keep believing he was not smart enough, keep his stories about missing knowledge and skills, and stay where he was. Commitment meant allowing Brown to mentor him and being willing to change what he believed, how he behaved and what he practiced.

John put the conversation on May 1, 1980. He said he moved to another city to be mentored, enrolled in his real estate course on May 5 and received his license on June 20. In his account, he earned about $30,000 in his first year, more than his father made driving a cab, and $151,000 in his second.

Those are the dates and figures John gave me, not independently audited results or an income promise. What matters here is what happened between the question and the earnings: a move, enrollment, learning and a year of practice. He did not just answer Brown differently. He let the answer change his days.

Interested vs committed shows up in the inconvenient part

I would use John’s distinction as a behavior check, not a label for deciding who is worthy of success. You can care deeply and still lack a skill, money, support or a workable plan. Calling every obstacle an excuse will not solve it.

But there is a difference between identifying a constraint and using it to end the conversation. Missing knowledge can become a question for a mentor. A weak skill can become a practice session. Neither improves just because you collect another motivational clip.

That is my practical reading of the conversation, not a guarantee that persistence makes every goal possible. Commitment can include changing a bad plan. The point is to stop letting convenience make every decision while telling yourself the goal is non-negotiable.

Do you want the work, or the motivation fix?

Early on, John had fun with the name Addicted2Success. He distinguished constructive patterns from destructive ones, then turned the question toward people consuming motivation, tips and techniques. Were they also behaving in ways that would help them achieve their goals?

I asked whether people should be chasing inspiration instead. He called motivation your motive for action and compared its short-term spark to gunpowder that fizzles out. Inspiration, as he defined it, was tied to values, purpose and the identity you wanted to live.

His examples were kids who did not want to come inside from surfing, skateboarding, chess or music. Nobody needed to drag them toward the activity. Something about it pulled them in.

I would not turn that into a promise that meaningful work always feels good. Even the work you love includes repetition and awkward conversations. But his question is worth taking seriously: what are you curious enough about to keep learning when nobody is cheering? If the only part you enjoy is feeling ready to begin, another spark may not be what is missing.

The old pattern can keep winning after the new decision

John used automaticity to explain why a sincere decision does not instantly become a different life. He described learning something with conscious effort until repetition makes the pattern more automatic. In his explanation, that could take 30, 60, 90 or 180 days, depending on the difficulty.

Those were his examples in that conversation, not a universal habit-building timetable. He connected them to neuroplasticity, the capacity for change that underpinned his teaching. His practical point was that the patterns carrying your current life may need interrupting before they can carry a different one.

There is a useful connection to repeating a routine until it runs on autopilot: deciding once is not the same as practicing consistently. Here, I would start by noticing the exact moment the old response takes over. Is it when you open the work, receive criticism or realize somebody might judge the result?

Choose a replacement you can actually perform at that moment. If you normally retreat into more research before asking a question, prepare the question and ask it. Do not demand an entirely new personality before you practice a different response.

Fear does not automatically cancel the commitment

John was building NeuroGym at the time. He told me he still felt fear around people who knew much more than he did about neuroscience and related fields. Their expertise could make him uncomfortable, even though having those people around was part of building the company.

That admission mattered. He was not describing fear as something he had permanently graduated from. He described the amygdala as a comfort-zone alarm and put his teaching plainly: fear does not mean stop; it means be aware.

I would keep the awareness part attached. You need to distinguish danger from the fear of being rejected, rather than treating every warning as an obstacle to smash through. Real danger needs a response. Ordinary performance nerves may call for preparation instead of withdrawal.

John’s surfing comparison was useful: one person sees the wave and backs away; another learns how to ride it. His phrase was turning fear into fuel. For me, the useful part is learning what to do with the feeling, not pretending the feeling has disappeared.

What John told me to do with the nerves in my stomach

When I admitted I sometimes felt nervous with guests I admired, John gave me something to practice rather than another reason to criticize myself.

1. Be prepared. Know the person and the activity. He acknowledged that I had done my research. Breathing was not a replacement for doing the homework.
2. Take 10 rhythmic breaths. He suggested breathing in and out rhythmically to settle the intensity, using the term neural coherence to explain what he believed was happening.
3. Mentally rehearse the activity. He suggested playing it through 10, 20, 30 or 40 times as if it were happening, rather than repeatedly imagining looking foolish.

These were his performance-preparation suggestions, not a clinical treatment or a guaranteed way to eliminate anxiety. I am sharing the practice he offered me, not claiming I later tested it and got a particular result.

He also used a memorable contrast: Frankenstein or Einstein. He described one side as replaying embarrassment and the other as the problem-solving CEO. That is John’s teaching metaphor; I would not treat his right-versus-left prefrontal explanation as a settled map of how thinking works.

The question underneath it is simple enough to use without the anatomy: am I rehearsing the task, or rehearsing my humiliation? For my own example, preparing useful questions and mentally walking through the conversation is a different activity from wondering whether I will sound like a fool.

Disappointment avoidance can sound remarkably sensible

I also asked John about disappointment avoidance. He described wanting not to disappoint parents or caregivers, then carried that forward to avoiding the hurt of disappointing ourselves. If earlier attempts ended painfully, another attempt can feel like volunteering for the same feeling.

He called the explanations we produce “rational lies.” That was his wordplay on rationalizing, not a dictionary definition. Not now. Not worth the effort. Something else first. In his account, we can talk ourselves out of the very action the goal requires.

I would test the explanation rather than automatically condemn it. What new information supports postponing? What would have to change before you would proceed? If the condition keeps moving every time you reach it, you may be protecting yourself from a feeling rather than improving the plan.

John’s parenting example kept this from becoming a lecture about being tougher. He said he separated the child from the behavior: the behavior could be unacceptable without making the child unloved. I would carry that distinction into reviewing your own work. A poor attempt needs correction, not a verdict on your value as a person.

Give the answer something to stand on

If I were applying this conversation today, I would choose one goal and name the inconvenient action attached to it. Then I would identify the missing preparation, the feeling I am avoiding and the person who could help me learn. That gives “I’m committed” something observable behind it.

At the end, I asked John what his last 30-second speech to the world would sound like. He said it would begin with “you have within you everything you need and there are people around you that can help you” and end with “I love you.”

I like that he left room for help. Brown’s question did not lead John into proving he needed nobody. It led him into being mentored. And when I asked about my own nerves, John did not demand a fearless version of me. He gave me preparation I could do before the next conversation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between being interested and being committed?

In John Assaraf’s account, interest means acting when it is convenient while keeping familiar explanations for not changing. Commitment means accepting the learning, preparation and changed behavior the goal requires, even when the first excitement has faded.

How did John Assaraf distinguish motivation from inspiration?

He called motivation a motive for action and compared its short-term spark to gunpowder. Inspiration, in his explanation, comes from values and purpose that pull you toward an activity, like a child absorbed in surfing, chess or music.

Why does feeling fear not always mean you should stop?

John described fear as a signal to become aware, not automatically withdraw. First consider whether there is real danger. If the issue is unfamiliarity or performance nerves, his approach was to prepare and learn to act with the feeling.

What did John Assaraf mean by disappointment avoidance?

He meant avoiding action to escape the possibility of disappointing yourself or other people. Past failures can make another attempt feel threatening. His phrase “rational lies” described plausible explanations that protect you from discomfort while keeping the goal untouched.

What preparation did John suggest when Joel felt nervous?

He recommended knowing the activity well, taking 10 rhythmic breaths and mentally rehearsing it 10 to 40 times as if it were happening. These were his performance-preparation suggestions, not a guaranteed anxiety treatment or a substitute for professional care.

EOS vs Scaling Up is a choice between a tightly defined leadership operating system and a broader growth framework with explicit strategy and cash tools. Pick EOS when shared priorities, accountability and consistent execution are your immediate bottlenecks; consider Scaling Up when your team needs deeper strategy and cash work alongside execution. Neither replaces founder judgment.

Picture a founder opening a Monday leadership meeting. Sales has promised a launch date. Operations cannot deliver it. Finance has a cash forecast nobody has opened. Everyone has a convincing explanation, and everyone leaves with the founder’s phone number as the escalation process.

I would not start that conversation with, “Which framework is more sophisticated?” I would ask what decision this team keeps failing to make. A system earns its place when it changes that conversation, not when its terminology takes over the whiteboard.

What EOS and Scaling Up Actually Include

EOS means Entrepreneurial Operating System, the specific system created by Gino Wickman and introduced in Traction. It is not a generic label for every founder’s personal operating routine. EOS Worldwide describes six components: Vision, People, Data, Issues, Process and Traction.

Its tools connect the direction of the business to everyday accountability. The Vision/Traction Organizer, or V/TO, captures the plan. An Accountability Chart clarifies responsibilities. A Scorecard makes performance visible. Quarterly priorities, called Rocks, and the weekly Level 10 Meeting create a recurring execution rhythm.

Scaling Up is Verne Harnish’s framework, developed from his earlier Mastering the Rockefeller Habits work and associated with Gazelles. The Scaling Up framework centers on four decisions: People, Strategy, Execution and Cash. Its tools include the One-Page Strategic Plan and Rockefeller Habits Execution Checklist.

The useful distinction is emphasis, not a claim that EOS has no strategy or Scaling Up has no discipline. Both ask leaders to make priorities clear, assign responsibility and review progress. Scaling Up gives strategy and cash their own named pillars; EOS connects the company through its six-component model.

EOS vs Scaling Up: The Practical Comparison

The last two rows are my decision lens, not findings from a controlled comparison. There is no universal winner hidden in the table. A short plan can contain hard thinking, and a detailed plan can contain beautifully formatted avoidance.

Pick EOS If Your Team Needs a Dependable Execution Backbone

Pick EOS if… your leaders broadly agree on the business direction, but ownership keeps slipping. Priorities multiply, the same problem returns every week, and people leave meetings with different versions of what was decided. A defined set of connected tools gives that team something concrete to practice.

The leadership Level 10 Meeting agenda is a useful example: 90 minutes each week, including 60 minutes for IDS, meaning Identify, Discuss and Solve. That allocation matters. The meeting is not supposed to become a parade of departmental updates.

Not if… you expect the framework to discover your competitive advantage, repair dishonest reporting or make a difficult personnel decision for you. EOS includes marketing strategy in its plan, but completing those fields does not prove customers value your offer. You still have to test the assumptions outside the meeting room.

In the Monday scene, EOS would give the team a place to expose the launch conflict, identify its root and assign a resolution. But if the founder keeps promising dates privately after the meeting, the problem is not a missing template. The founder is undermining the agreement.

Pick Scaling Up If Strategy and Cash Need More Structured Attention

Pick Scaling Up if… execution problems are entangled with bigger choices: which customers to serve, how to differentiate, where growth consumes cash, and how departments coordinate. Its explicit Strategy and Cash decisions make those subjects harder to treat as occasional side conversations.

The Rockefeller Habits guidance also calls for employee input, customer feedback and a meeting rhythm extending from daily huddles to annual planning. That is worth noticing. The framework is not simply a longer quarterly goal sheet; it asks for recurring information flow through the business.

Not if… your leadership team lacks the capacity or willingness to maintain that rhythm. More frequent communication only helps when people bring useful information and act on it. A huddle that becomes a daily performance for the founder can consume attention without removing a single obstacle.

Imagine the launch problem includes a supplier deposit due before customers pay. A Cash discussion can help surface the timing problem; a Strategy discussion can question the offer itself. Neither discussion substitutes for reliable records, financial expertise or someone owning the decision afterward.

Keep the Founder in the Learning Loop

The deeper issue behind founders vs professional managers is whether the founder learns to manage without giving away the judgment that made the business worth building.

I would apply that same standard to either framework. Can you explain why a number matters? Can a department leader challenge a priority with customer evidence? Can the team change the plan when an assumption breaks, without treating every difficult week as permission to abandon discipline?

Here is the distinction I would protect: delegate the preparation, not the responsibility to understand. Someone else can compile the Scorecard or update the strategic plan. The founder still needs to understand what the numbers reveal, what they hide and which trade-off the team is making.

That is different from inserting yourself into every task. A founder who overrules every owner creates dependency. A founder who never questions a green dashboard creates complacency. The goal is a team capable of bringing you an uncomfortable truth and a decision it is ready to own.

Choose Against a Real Bottleneck, Not a Headcount Myth

I would not use an employee threshold as the deciding rule. Team size can signal complexity, but it does not tell you whether the real constraint is unclear ownership, weak strategy, poor information or an owner who changes direction every afternoon.

Before committing, bring the leadership team three recent failures: a missed commitment, a repeated customer problem and a financial surprise. These are teaching categories, not required framework tools. Trace each failure to the decision that was missing. Then examine how each framework would have surfaced it.

Read the underlying material together. Ask the person who would maintain the numbers to explain the workload. Ask the leader who rarely speaks whether the proposed meeting would make it easier to surface a problem. A framework selected entirely by the founder can become another instruction everyone waits to have explained.

Budget for internal preparation and leadership attention, not just outside help. I would compare the actual scope of any support being considered rather than assume one framework has a universal price advantage. A coaching invoice cannot tell you whether your managers will do the work between sessions.

Use One Backbone and Judge the Decisions It Produces

My recommendation is to choose one coherent backbone before borrowing tools. Two competing plans, two names for the same priority and overlapping reviews make it harder to know which commitment counts. Adding a focused operational check-in is different from pretending to implement both systems in full.

If you want to scale business operations without useless meetings, judge each recurring conversation by the decision or obstacle it exists to address.

During the first quarter, I would keep a simple decision record: the issue raised, the owner, the action agreed and what changed. This is my suggested learning practice, not a promise of full implementation in 90 days. Look for fewer recycled problems and more leaders resolving issues without the founder rescuing them.

Do not confuse attendance with adoption. If everyone attends but nobody challenges the numbers, you have installed a ceremony. If people can explain a trade-off, keep commitments and raise evidence that changes the plan, you are developing management capability.

Choose EOS for a more tightly defined execution backbone, or Scaling Up for broader strategy and cash tools your team will actually use. Then stay responsible for learning. The system should help you become a stronger founder, not give you a respectable reason to stop thinking.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between EOS and Scaling Up?

EOS organizes leadership around six components and a tightly defined set of execution tools. Scaling Up organizes growth around People, Strategy, Execution and Cash, with broader planning tools and a meeting rhythm that includes daily huddles.

Is EOS the same as Traction?

EOS is the Entrepreneurial Operating System created by Gino Wickman. Traction is the book that introduces it. The system includes connected planning, accountability and execution tools; reading the book alone is not the same as consistently running those tools.

Does EOS include strategy and cash management?

EOS includes marketing strategy in the Vision/Traction Organizer, and teams can use financial measures in their Scorecard. Scaling Up makes Strategy and Cash separate core decisions. That distinction concerns emphasis and tooling, not whether EOS businesses can manage cash.

Can you combine EOS and Scaling Up?

You can borrow individual practices, but running both complete frameworks risks duplicated plans, vocabulary and meetings. My recommendation is one clear backbone with explicit ownership. Adding a useful check-in is different from claiming you are implementing both systems faithfully.

Do you need a coach to implement either framework?

Outside support is an option, not a substitute for internal ownership. EOS explicitly supports self-implementation, and Scaling Up publishes books and tools for teams to study. Decide what help you need after identifying your leadership team’s capacity and actual bottlenecks.

Soft skills are invaluable qualities that help us lead effectively and connect with others on a deeper level.

Professor M.S. Rao, Ph.D.—International Leadership Guru, The Father of “Soft Leadership” & 21st-Century Philosopher

Globally, unemployment persists due to a lack of soft skills. Global educational institutions emphasize soft skills to boost employability, and organizations worldwide use them to improve productivity and performance.

Currently, there is inadequate research available on soft skills. There are several myths about soft skills, since it is still an evolving discipline. It is mistaken for people skills, life skills, life management skills, and emotional intelligence, to name a few. Researchers, scholars, and educators find it hard to arrive at a universal definition of soft skills. They find it hard to create a standard curriculum. Additionally, there is an urgent need to explore tools and techniques for measuring soft skills to ensure effective training outcomes. Hence, this discipline calls for intensive research to establish its validity.

This short talk from Simon Sinek explains why these skills are so hard to measure and develop, and why they deserve a real training framework:

What are soft skills?

Skills are usually divided into technical skills and general skills. Some of the general skills that are behavioral fall into the category of soft skills. Hence, soft skills are a collection of skills that are essential to survive and succeed in personal, professional, and social life. They are complementary to hard skills. Hard skills are also known as technical skills or domain skills. Soft skills can be described as the effective presentation of hard skills. Additionally, how you say it is as important as what you say. That means soft skills are equally important along with hard skills. Hard skills can be seen on your resume, while your soft skills can be observed in employment interviews. A judicious blend of hard and soft skills helps one become a successful professional and excel as an effective leader.

Soft versus hard skills

Soft skills are different from hard skills. Hard skills are technical skills and domain skills, while soft skills are non-domain skills. Hard skills are tangible and measurable and quantifiable, while soft skills are intangible and cannot be easily measured and quantified. Hard skills are about what you speak, while soft skills are about how you speak with others. Soft skills are polite and pleasing ways of communicating with others, while hard skills are what you contribute in the workplace. Soft skills complement your hard skills. Precisely, soft skills are the presentation of your hard skills in the workplace. Soft skills are interpersonal skills, while hard skills are job-related skills. If hard skills are infrastructure, soft skills are superstructure. If hard skills are the foundation, soft skills are the cement. A judicious blend of both hard and soft skills is essential to achieve your professional success and fast-track your career.

You can find hard skills on a resume, while you can find soft skills during an employment interview. Hard skills get you an interview, while soft skills help you get your employment. Hence, both hard and soft skills are essential to get a job. After joining a job, soft skills help you survive in the workplace, while hard skills help you prove yourself professionally. Hence, blending both hard and soft skills is imperative in the workplace.

Soft versus hard skills―examples and illustrations

If you call someone physically handicapped, it is known as a hard skill. Instead, if you call it physically challenged, it is known as soft skills. If you instruct smokers, ‘Don’t smoke’ is known as a hard skill. Instead, if you communicate, ‘thanks for not smoking’, it is known as a soft skill. If you talk about the ‘generation gap’, it is known as a hard skill. In contrast, if you call it ‘generational differences’, it is known as soft skills. If you call them ‘slow learners’, it is known as hard skills. In contrast, if you call them ‘differently-abled learners’, it is known as soft skills. If you call ‘problems’ hard skills, it is known as hard skills, whereas if you call them ‘challenges’, it is known as soft skills. If you call ‘weaknesses’, it is known as hard skills; if you call them ‘concerns’, it is known as soft skills. Succinctly, soft skills emphasize how you communicate, while hard skills emphasize what you communicate.

It is easy to measure hard skills, while it is hard to measure soft skills. It is easy to teach hard skills, while it is hard to teach soft skills. Usually, teachers teach hard skills while trainers train soft skills. Since soft skills are behavioral skills, it requires extra effort on the part of trainers to use various tools and techniques, including interaction, role-plays, active participation, and experiential learning, to bring out the desired behavioral changes in the participants.

How to acquire soft skills?

You can acquire soft skills by various means, including observation, reading, training, experience, and practice. Soft skills training equips you with skills, abilities, and knowledge. However, your interaction with others helps you acquire soft skills greatly. Since soft skills are behavioral skills, people must learn through trial and error, using their emotional intelligence and flexibility and adaptability. You must be practical, realistic, and situational to acquire soft skills. Above all, you must learn from your failures to improve your behavior and get along well with others effectively.

You must develop emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills. You must observe and understand people and their behaviors. Travel to unknown destinations to understand people. Talk to them to get along with them. Understand their cultures and behaviors. Traveling teaches tolerance and improves soft skills. When you travel to unknown destinations and communicate in a non-native language, you will be able to improve your soft skills effectively.

Reading soft skills is one aspect, and applying them is another aspect. Attending workshops and training programs helps you understand what soft skills are and how you will be able to acquire them; such programs conduct role-plays to bring out behavioral improvement. Here are some tools and techniques to improve soft skills

• Be self-aware.
• Avoid preconceived notions.
• Keep your body language positive.
• Listen to the speaker carefully.
• Make eye contact with the speaker and reciprocate positively.
• Empathize with the speaker.
• Be flexible.
• Praise people lavishly.
• Make the speaker feel important.
• Accept criticism graciously.
• Interact with different types of personalities who are introverted, extroverted, assertive, submissive, and aggressive.
• Above all, be adaptable.

Since soft skills are behavioral skills, you can acquire soft skills through physical interaction and trial and error. You must take intrapersonal and interpersonal feedback regularly to improve your soft skills. Succinctly, be proactive, be a good listener, improve interpersonal skills, and build relationships to acquire soft skills.

Can soft skills be measured?

It is hard to measure soft skills, but easy to measure hard skills. Research shows that soft skills are harder to teach than hard skills. Additionally, it takes a lot of time and effort to equip oneself with soft skills rather than hard skills. However, matching the objectives of the soft skills training with the feedback received from the participants can help measure soft skills effectively. For instance, every training program has a set of objectives, and the program is rolled out to the participants accordingly. At the end of the training program, the participants are asked whether the training has met their objectives, aspirations, and expectations. Since soft skills training is behavioral, it is hard to measure. However, taking timely feedback at the end of the training session helps greatly achieve the training takeaways.

Meka's five-level model to measure soft skills

Evaluation is essential to understand the effectiveness of any training program. It helps understand how far the training has impacted the participants and improved their behavior and performance. Additionally, it helps assess the strengths and weaknesses of the program and the pulse of the participants to deliver the training program better next time. Here is an innovative Meka’s five-level evaluation model to measure soft skills training:

1. Conduct the training needs analysis to identify the current skills gap in the participants.
2. List out core objectives clearly to deliver the training.
3. Execute the soft-skills training program meticulously as per the objectives.
4. Align deviations or distractions from the training program.
5. Measure the training takeaways from the participants through questionnaires and effective feedback.

Sample questions to measure soft skills training

Consider using the following few questions to measure a soft skills training program:

• Did the soft skills training transfer the knowledge, skills, and abilities to the participants effectively?
• Did the soft skills training improve the attitude and behavior of the participants successfully?
• Is the training worth investing time, money, energy, and resources?
• Are the training outcomes as per the training objectives? If not, identify and address the deviations or distractions.
• List out the three soft skills training takeaways that can improve the attitude, change behavior, and polish the personality.

The concept of soft skills is an evolving domain

Unfortunately, people often take the significance of soft skills lightly. The concept of soft skills is an evolving domain that people must take seriously; people must be educated about them.

Whenever a new discipline surfaces, people resist and mostly don’t respect it because there is no strong research to substantiate its relevance. However, over time, people start accepting and respecting the discipline. For example, many people initially did not take management as a discipline seriously and expressed their reservations. Today, management as a discipline is a reality, now having a sacred and respectable position like many other disciplines in the world. Similarly, soft skills will evolve as a discipline over time as more research is done. To summarize, a proportional mix of hard and soft skills helps me excel as a successful professional and leader. Soft skills provide a competitive edge in this cut-throat world. They are an asset to employees and add immense value to global organizations. To conclude, soft skills are essential for everyone, from janitors to chief executives, to achieve the desired outcomes.

Author Bio

Professor M.S. Rao, Ph.D., is recognized as a prominent 21st-century philosopher and a pioneer of the ‘Soft Leadership’ conceptual framework. He is an internationally acclaimed authority on leadership, with a distinguished 45-year career spanning the military, academia, business, consulting, and thought leadership. He has authored fifty-six books, including the best-selling title, “See the Light in You.” An avid lover of words and quotes, he has published over 300 papers and articles in prestigious international journals, such as Leader to Leader, Thunderbird International Business Review, Strategic HR Review, Development and Learning in Organisations, Industrial and Commercial Training, On the Horizon, and Entrepreneur. He takes on multiple roles as a soldier, entrepreneur, educator, author, explorer, thinker, researcher, mentor, motivator, reformer, traveler, blogger, storyteller, volunteer, activist, futurist, analyst, strategist, and coach. He serves as a C-Suite advisor and a global keynote speaker. His diverse professional background spans military service, academia, training, research, consultancy, and philosophy, giving him a strategic perspective and a long-term vision. Through leadership education and his publications, he mentors a new generation of leaders and inspires individuals worldwide to pursue their life goals, despite various challenges and disabilities. He aspires to develop one million students into global leaders by 2030. He actively participates in peace initiatives, advocates for gender equality (#HeForShe), and fosters global connections among students. He is dedicated to writing books and maintaining blogs on executive education, learning, and leadership. Much of his work is freely available through his four blogs, including this one: http://professormsraovision2030.blogspot.com/. Recognized as a prolific author and an energetic, dynamic, and inspiring leadership speaker, he can be contacted at msrlctrg@yahoo.com.

The answer to why creative people wait until the last minute, according to Dr. John Gray, often comes down to stimulation: when your brain gets used to high stimulation, ordinary pressure stops getting your attention, so the emergency becomes the thing that finally switches focus on. In our 2015 conversation, his answer was not more willpower. It was recovery, a mission bigger than the task and the habit of keeping your word.

I introduced John on the Addicted to Success podcast as the number one New York Times bestselling author of Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. That day I wanted to talk about his then-new book, Staying Focused in a Hyper World, because so much of our audience wanted to know how to increase memory and brain performance, and what was holding them back mentally from success.

The relationship expert who found his own procrastination

John told me he had spent his whole life as a marriage counselor and teacher of relationships. Then, about 15 years before our conversation, he said he started having early-stage Parkinson’s, and he shifted his focus toward healing his own brain.

He said the natural approach he found also addressed something he did not know he had: ADHD. For him, that looked like being easily distracted, disorganized and procrastinating. He said many creative, self-expressive people have great ideas and are good at starting things, but not that good at finishing them, and they often wait until the last minute. He had assumed that was just him.

He said that after adding extra nutritional support aimed at helping his brain make dopamine and restore the balance between dopamine and serotonin, his ability to perform increased dramatically. The need to push things to a state of emergency faded. His wife was the one who pointed it out. She told him he had become more relaxed and attentive to her, that he did not get distracted as quickly, and that when she said something, he actually held on to it.

To be clear, this is John’s account of what happened for him, as he told it in 2015. It is not a proven cure, and it is not medical advice. If you are dealing with Parkinson’s or ADHD, talk to a qualified doctor. What I find useful is the pattern he named: the last-minute rush was not a quirk. In his view, it was a signal.

The deadline is a manufactured emergency

John called it high dopamine function. He described dopamine as the brain chemical behind focus, pleasure, energy and motivation, and said high dopamine function means you need high stimulation to get your attention.

Then he pointed straight at the name of our show. He said a lot of successful people are high dopamine function because they always want more success, and there is nothing wrong with that natural desire. The problem is when the brain becomes desensitized to normal stimulation, and what you have in the moment is never enough.

That is where he connected it to procrastination. He said you can get addicted to worrying, to drama, to the story you tell yourself about why you cannot do something, and, in his words, “you can get addicted to procrastination.” Later he said that when the body is not producing enough dopamine, people create drama or an emergency to get it, and some live in a constant state of emergency.

For a creative founder, the deadline you keep pushing up against is not only a scheduling failure. By his explanation, it is the stimulation your brain has learned to wait for. That is close to what I described in the brutal truth about entrepreneurship with ADHD, where the addiction to chaos and last-minute sprints keeps talented founders stuck in the same loop.

Why ordinary work starts to feel flat

John explained it with the pupils of the eye. Walk into a dark room and they get bigger. Walk into bright light and they constrict. He said the brain does something similar: when stimulation runs higher than normal, receptor sites decrease, as if there is too much light. They can come back, he said, but only when you stop chasing high stimulation and give the brain support.

He gave examples from his own life. Presenting to a thousand people is a major dopamine rush. The night before our conversation, he had seen The Book of Mormon with his wife for their 30th anniversary, a show he called one of the greatest on Broadway, the whole audience feeding off the performers. For every up, he said, there is a down, and after the high, ordinary life feels flat.

That landed with me. I told John that so many lights had just gone off in my mind, because I was guilty of it too. With a site called Addicted2Success, I was always chasing the next dopamine hit: reach a milestone, celebrate for a little bit, then ask about the next level, like a video game. I told him even switching my phone off for half a day had become a struggle, because I kept wondering whether an important email had come through.

Unplug one day a week so the brain can come back

John’s most practical behavior advice was simple and uncomfortable: unplug from your phone and computer at least one day a week. He said taking one day off from overstimulation is one of the oldest traditions in the world. Here is what he described for himself:

• His phone set so only his kids’ calls could come through.
• No work and no computer.
• A day of relaxation with his family.
• Meditation, which he said was one of the main ways he unplugged.

When he started, he said he was so tired, because he had been running on stimulation, and normal life no longer gave him energy. You feel bored and flat, and you want to turn on something like Game of Thrones. He said he was not against any of it. We just need to balance it with retreat, notice when we are getting addicted to working all the time, and learn to turn it off, including stopping work in the evening when the sun goes down.

Gray’s rule is a blunter version of mindful productivity: focus is only as strong as the recovery behind it. If ordinary work feels dead without a crisis, the flat feeling on your day off may be the comedown after high stimulation, not proof that you need more pressure.

Satisfaction and wanting more

John said high dopamine function shows up differently in different temperaments. The creative type becomes hyper-distracted. The active type is always on the go, impulsive and risk-taking, getting a lot done without always thinking things through. He also described sensitive and compulsive types, and said most of us are a combination.

His warning for entrepreneurs was that as creative people become successful, they can drift into the compulsive pattern, demanding perfection of themselves and feeling it is never good enough. His answer is the line I would put on the wall: the secret of happiness and success is being able to come from a place of satisfaction and wanting more. Both, at the same time.

The bricklayer who was building a cathedral

If emergency is the wrong fuel, John’s answer was mission. He told a story he had heard long ago about medieval brick makers. The first says he is making a brick out of mud and looks bored. The next is making bricks to build a house. Another wants a house and a family. The last looks more alive than any of them, because he is making bricks to support his family and to build a cathedral that will inspire people to lead a better life.

John tied that to the prefrontal cortex, which he described as the part of the brain active when you feel compassion, creativity and optimism. He said under stress, blood flow shifts toward the back of the brain, where you repeat old patterns instead of having a new thought. As he framed it, dopamine says there is a job for me to do, and serotonin says I can do it.

Keep your word, even when you do not have to work

For me, this is the real replacement for last-minute panic. John said the masculine side, which he said both men and women have, comes from keeping your word: making commitments in the moment and following through. That, he said, is what got him up in the morning. He did not have to work, but he had promised to do things, and if he was not fulfilling his mission, he believed his energy would drop.

He warned that people who retire or get very rich can slide because they no longer have to do anything. His fix was to keep making promises when inspired and then follow through. A promise creates pressure you chose. An emergency creates pressure you were waiting for.

What he said about nutrition

I asked John to tie the science to a few practical things listeners could start doing for prefrontal cortex activity and lower stress. Beyond unplugging, he talked through nutrition he said had helped him: vitamin C, grape seed extract, supporting the body’s own glutathione, vitamin D3 and sunshine, a daily bowl of blueberries, and gut health, including homemade probiotic yogurt. He said men and women need a different balance of minerals, and he offered his website as a resource, which I pointed listeners to at the time.

These are his 2015 claims, not current medical guidance, and I am not prescribing them. Talk to a doctor before changing supplements, especially for ADHD or Parkinson’s.

The marriage question I asked him

In that conversation I told John I was getting married the next month, and asked what habits my partner and I could implement for a better marriage. His answer used the same principle. The things you automatically do at the beginning are the things that keep it going. Men get lazy, he said, women get resentful, and each feeds the other. Newness gives you free dopamine early on. Later you have to create it, because the feeling follows the action. And he said women are like the weather: if you resist the upset, it stays. Ask her to help you understand, and do not try to fix it in that moment.

At the end, I told John he had given us an overload of information that we needed to go and unpack, and I pointed listeners to Staying Focused in a Hyper World on Amazon. The idea I keep is this: if you can only finish when it becomes urgent, stop treating the emergency as your engine. Recover from the stimulation, connect the task to the cathedral, and make promises you keep before the panic shows up.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do creative people wait until the last minute, according to John Gray?

John Gray said many creative people have high dopamine function and need high stimulation to focus. Ordinary pressure stops registering, so the last-minute emergency becomes what finally turns their attention on. In his view, the habit is a signal.

What did John Gray mean by high dopamine function?

He used it for people who need high stimulation to pay attention. In his explanation, overstimulation desensitizes the brain, so normal life feels flat and people chase bigger hits, including worry, drama or procrastination, to feel engaged.

How often did John Gray recommend unplugging?

At least one day a week, with no computer and the phone off or limited to a few calls. He also said to stop working in the evening, and admitted his first unplugged days left him tired and bored.

What does John Gray’s cathedral bricklayer story mean?

Several men make bricks from mud, but the one building a cathedral to inspire people is the most alive. Gray used it to show that mission and purpose create lasting motivation in a way a looming deadline cannot.

Did John Gray say nutrition cured his Parkinson’s and ADHD?

In 2015 he said extra nutritional support aimed at dopamine and serotonin balance worked for him, and his focus and procrastination improved. That is his personal account, not a proven cure or medical advice. Speak with a qualified doctor.