Competitive advantage through people has always been a goal of modern leadership and becomes more critical as product and price differentiation narrow.  Traditionally, the role of creating more skilful and focused people has been given to HR and training.

Research tells us that classroom training (whether it be real or virtual) is only appropriate for 15% of development needs  (Rummler 1995).  Not only does this cause concern about the use and abuse of training events, it also raises the tantalising question of what is appropriate if training is not?

The broad answer is workplace rather than classroom development.  To explore this more closely, the researchers seem to indicate that regular interaction, rather than one off events, leads to enhanced skills and increased performance.

The diagramme above has been created as a result of applying a range of performance improvement techniques to varying organisations over a 20-year period (www.prosell.com).  It indicates that with a “clean sheet of paper” (i.e. no preconceptions or bad habits, as with new starters or new roles), people can more easily accept, in a training environment, that specific skills and approaches are correct and need to be mastered.

With individuals that already have a perception of what is right and wrong and in some cases extremely entrenched opinions, a different approach needs to be used.  Not only do we need to explain why new skills are needed, we also need to sensitively reassure people that they and their (old) skills are not redundant, but need to be adapted and updated.  If we are attempting to change behaviour, as opposed to initiating it, coaching is shown to be a more effective tool.

In order to develop further the rationale for this model and the positioning of coaching, we need to be familiar with the relationship between management intervention and performance/behaviour change.

The US organisation Technikron conducted research into the level of intervention needed to drive behavioural change.  (Technikron work with performance measurement and feedback systems in contact centres.  The research was conducted in 1997.)

They concluded that to change behaviour the manager needed to interact with the individual, on average, 2-3 times a week.  This raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of more traditional performance management tools, such as annual appraisal and performance reviews (Appraisals – A Good Investment?  Prosell Research, 1993).

Whereas we accept that most good managers talk to their people more often than just at appraisal time, our experience tells us that this is not a series of regular interactions which are carefully planned to reinforce changes in behaviour and provide input (coaching), when needed.

Coaching also has greater impact in terms of immediacy of resolution and as such, should be a primary development tool.

Danger of re-training 

There seems to be growing evidence that organisations accept that people will go through the same training (level and subject matter) at regular intervals (apart from compliance training).  This implies a number of unhealthy traits within the organisation:

• there is no consequence for not applying skills in the workplace; and

Once this becomes accepted practice it also has an impact on the quality of training delivered.  If people are not measured in their application of what they have learnt, then the training does not need to ensure comprehension, let alone competence.

The other major implication is centred on who is nominated for training in the first place.  Research suggests that the primary reason for training is performance discrepancy or skill weakness.  Those with skill weaknesses or areas for obvious development are not those who implement training well and willingly in the workplace.  There is clear evidence that, “those who need it most use it least” (Dettaman and Steinberg, 1993).

Questions must therefore, be raised about both the economics of re-training and the validity of the practice.

The Skill Development model and its implications

The model opposite shows that individuals go through three stages when acquiring skills.  Typically, the first and last stages, those of awareness and application, are workplace activities and in the main, management responsibilities.

The two figures on the left hand side of the model above illustrate important points.  The 35%-40% marks the point where people end up after training (on a competence scale of 1%–100%).  This means that the majority of the acquisition of competence takes place in the workplace.

This is broadly accepted within the training fraternity.  Whereas training allows people to explore new ways of doing things and hopefully exposes them to “best practice”, it does not create experts.

If expertise is acquired in the workplace and not the classroom, then we must accept that specific things need to happen in the workplace.  Primarily, people need to be coached and given feedback on their competence.

Our 20 years experience tells us that, proportionately, the following time and effort needs to be expended to successfully take an individual through the skill development process:

• Awareness     25%
• Practice         35%
• Application     40%

The second figure (5%-9%) is where the research tells us people end up if nothing is done in the application phase.  This is typically between unconscious incompetence and conscious incompetence.  This typically happens with 4 – 5 months.  This is a startling figure and perhaps explains why many people in business have a cynical view of the value of training.  It seems they are right.  Without specific application strategies, companies are wasting between 91 and 95 cents of every dollar they spend on training.

Practice and Feedback

It is commonly understood that people develop skills through one primary mechanism, practice and feedback.  Conventional training tends to be squeezed for time and it is inevitably the practice sessions that are sacrificed.  Too much content and not enough practice creates uncertainty in application, through issues of confidence and competence.  If a person cannot, through practice, feedback and practice again, achieve a point of competence (“I have practiced this to the point where I feel competent to do it in the workplace”), they have no confidence in applying skills.  The implications of this are that many people (over 75% in one study) actually avoid applying skills trained because they have no confidence that they will be effective.  Those organisations that use coaching as a development tool do not seem to face these issues.

Near and Far Learning

Noted behavioural scientists, Detterman and Steinberg, published a book in 1996 entitled Transfer on Trial.  The book focused on the issue of learning transfer (the measurable transfer of learning and skills from classroom to workplace).  Their research had concluded that 86% of training did not transfer effectively.  There were a variety of reasons for this – measurement, support, feedback (all key components of coaching).  They also spoke about the difference between near and far learning as a critical issue.

Far learning means completing exercises which are broad, generic and explore our understanding of principles.  Detterman and Steinberg’s research concluded that people found it difficult to relate broad principles to specific work situations – and as a result did not apply skills effectively.

Near learning produces significantly better results.  Near learning is practicing the specific skills needed, through customised and intelligently constructed exercises, so that the individual is practicing exactly what they are being asked to do in the workplace.  Coaching is the ultimate example of near learning – it says to the individual, “We are going to practice this until you feel you are doing it effectively and then evaluate as you do it live”.  As a result it is significantly more effective in ensuring learning transfer.

Performance Management and Coaching

Performance management practices (appraisal, review, goal setting, etc) all become uncomfortable, bureaucratic exercises if those responsible cannot add value and direction through coaching.  If neither party feels value is being added by the other, then both parties view the process as lacking in worth and tend to avoid it.

This also is reflected in a more serious deficiency that is commonly observed in management practice.  If a manager cannot rectify a performance deficiency they seem to imply that this is not their responsibility but solely that of the individual.

These situations end up with a management style of “I point out your weaknesses and you have to fix them”.  If one considers the fact that research tells us that the main reason people leave jobs is dissatisfaction with the way in which they are managed (Institute of Directors, UK survey, 2001), then managers’ inability to coach and develop may be having a much more serious impact.

Conversely, a good coach does more than just coach.  In order for a coach to be effective they must have a reasonable grasp of:

• Performance management;
• Motivation;
• Counselling;
• Development and support;
• Evaluation and feedback;
• Performance measurement;

Feedback also tells us that competent coaches add value to staff and have much better relationships with their people.  Creating a competent coach therefore, also creates competency in a number of essential areas.

Edward Johnson, one of the founding members of the Johnson and Johnson empire, was famously quoted as saying, ‘Leadership is cause, all else is effect.’  Leaders of people must all be aware that it is their behaviour, not the training department, which determines whether your people will out-perform the competition.

References

Douglas Detterman and Robert Steinberg, Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition and Instruction, Ablex Publishing, 1993

Geary Rummler and Alan Brache, Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space in the Organisation Chart, 2^nd ed, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 1995.

Source:

Peter Fullbrook, Founder, Prosell

Competitive advantage through people has always been a goal of modern leadership and becomes more critical as product and price differentiation narrow.  Traditionally, the role of creating more skilful and focused people has been given to HR and training.

Research tells us that classroom training (whether it be real or virtual) is only appropriate for 15% of development needs  (Rummler 1995).  Not only does this cause concern about the use and abuse of training events, it also raises the tantalising question of what is appropriate if training is not?

The broad answer is workplace rather than classroom development.  To explore this more closely, the researchers seem to indicate that regular interaction, rather than one off events, leads to enhanced skills and increased performance.

The diagramme Coaching and Training has been created as a result of applying a range of performance improvement techniques to varying organisations over a 20-year period (www.prosell.com).  It indicates that with a “clean sheet of paper” (i.e. no preconceptions or bad habits, as with new starters or new roles), people can more easily accept, in a training environment, that specific skills and approaches are correct and need to be mastered.

With individuals that already have a perception of what is right and wrong and in some cases extremely entrenched opinions, a different approach needs to be used.  Not only do we need to explain why new skills are needed, we also need to sensitively reassure people that they and their (old) skills are not redundant, but need to be adapted and updated.  If we are attempting to change behaviour, as opposed to initiating it, coaching is shown to be a more effective tool.

In order to develop further the rationale for this model and the positioning of coaching, we need to be familiar with the relationship between management intervention and performance/behaviour change.

The US organisation Technikron conducted research into the level of intervention needed to drive behavioural change.  (Technikron work with performance measurement and feedback systems in contact centres.  The research was conducted in 1997.)

They concluded that to change behaviour the manager needed to interact with the individual, on average, 2-3 times a week.  This raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of more traditional performance management tools, such as annual appraisal and performance reviews (Appraisals – A Good Investment?  Prosell Research, 1993).

Whereas we accept that most good managers talk to their people more often than just at appraisal time, our experience tells us that this is not a series of regular interactions which are carefully planned to reinforce changes in behaviour and provide input (coaching), when needed.

Coaching also has greater impact in terms of immediacy of resolution and as such, should be a primary development tool.

Danger of re-training 

There seems to be growing evidence that organisations accept that people will go through the same training (level and subject matter) at regular intervals (apart from compliance training).  This implies a number of unhealthy traits within the organisation:

• there is no consequence for not applying skills in the workplace; and

Once this becomes accepted practice it also has an impact on the quality of training delivered.  If people are not measured in their application of what they have learnt, then the training does not need to ensure comprehension, let alone competence.

The other major implication is centred on who is nominated for training in the first place.  Research suggests that the primary reason for training is performance discrepancy or skill weakness.  Those with skill weaknesses or areas for obvious development are not those who implement training well and willingly in the workplace.  There is clear evidence that, “those who need it most use it least” (Dettaman and Steinberg, 1993).

Questions must therefore, be raised about both the economics of re-training and the validity of the practice.

The Skill Development model and its implications

The model Acquisition of Competence shows that individuals go through three stages when acquiring skills.  Typically, the first and last stages, those of awareness and application, are workplace activities and in the main, management responsibilities.

The two figures on the left hand side of the model above illustrate important points.  The 35%-40% marks the point where people end up after training (on a competence scale of 1%–100%).  This means that the majority of the acquisition of competence takes place in the workplace.

This is broadly accepted within the training fraternity.  Whereas training allows people to explore new ways of doing things and hopefully exposes them to “best practice”, it does not create experts.

If expertise is acquired in the workplace and not the classroom, then we must accept that specific things need to happen in the workplace.  Primarily, people need to be coached and given feedback on their competence.

Our 20 years experience tells us that, proportionately, the following time and effort needs to be expended to successfully take an individual through the skill development process:

• Awareness     25%
• Practice         35%
• Application     40%

The second figure (5%-9%) is where the research tells us people end up if nothing is done in the application phase.  This is typically between unconscious incompetence and conscious incompetence.  This typically happens with 4 – 5 months.  This is a startling figure and perhaps explains why many people in business have a cynical view of the value of training.  It seems they are right.  Without specific application strategies, companies are wasting between 91 and 95 cents of every dollar they spend on training.

Practice and Feedback

It is commonly understood that people develop skills through one primary mechanism, practice and feedback.  Conventional training tends to be squeezed for time and it is inevitably the practice sessions that are sacrificed.  Too much content and not enough practice creates uncertainty in application, through issues of confidence and competence.  If a person cannot, through practice, feedback and practice again, achieve a point of competence (“I have practiced this to the point where I feel competent to do it in the workplace”), they have no confidence in applying skills.  The implications of this are that many people (over 75% in one study) actually avoid applying skills trained because they have no confidence that they will be effective.  Those organisations that use coaching as a development tool do not seem to face these issues.

Near and Far Learning

Noted behavioural scientists, Detterman and Steinberg, published a book in 1996 entitled Transfer on Trial.  The book focused on the issue of learning transfer (the measurable transfer of learning and skills from classroom to workplace).  Their research had concluded that 86% of training did not transfer effectively.  There were a variety of reasons for this – measurement, support, feedback (all key components of coaching).  They also spoke about the difference between near and far learning as a critical issue.

Far learning means completing exercises which are broad, generic and explore our understanding of principles.  Detterman and Steinberg’s research concluded that people found it difficult to relate broad principles to specific work situations – and as a result did not apply skills effectively.

Near learning produces significantly better results.  Near learning is practicing the specific skills needed, through customised and intelligently constructed exercises, so that the individual is practicing exactly what they are being asked to do in the workplace.  Coaching is the ultimate example of near learning – it says to the individual, “We are going to practice this until you feel you are doing it effectively and then evaluate as you do it live”.  As a result it is significantly more effective in ensuring learning transfer.

Performance Management and Coaching

Performance management practices (appraisal, review, goal setting, etc) all become uncomfortable, bureaucratic exercises if those responsible cannot add value and direction through coaching.  If neither party feels value is being added by the other, then both parties view the process as lacking in worth and tend to avoid it.

This also is reflected in a more serious deficiency that is commonly observed in management practice.  If a manager cannot rectify a performance deficiency they seem to imply that this is not their responsibility but solely that of the individual.

These situations end up with a management style of “I point out your weaknesses and you have to fix them”.  If one considers the fact that research tells us that the main reason people leave jobs is dissatisfaction with the way in which they are managed (Institute of Directors, UK survey, 2001), then managers’ inability to coach and develop may be having a much more serious impact.

Conversely, a good coach does more than just coach.  In order for a coach to be effective they must have a reasonable grasp of:

• Performance management;
• Motivation;
• Counselling;
• Development and support;
• Evaluation and feedback;
• Performance measurement;

Feedback also tells us that competent coaches add value to staff and have much better relationships with their people.  Creating a competent coach therefore, also creates competency in a number of essential areas.

Edward Johnson, one of the founding members of the Johnson and Johnson empire, was famously quoted as saying, ‘Leadership is cause, all else is effect.’  Leaders of people must all be aware that it is their behaviour, not the training department, which determines whether your people will out-perform the competition.

References

Douglas Detterman and Robert Steinberg, Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition and Instruction, Ablex Publishing, 1993

Geary Rummler and Alan Brache, Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space in the Organisation Chart, 2^nd ed, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 1995.

Source:

Peter Fullbrook, Founder, Prosell

The music, art and science of negotiation

By Karen S. Walch, Ph.D.

As a Thunderbird faculty member, I have had the opportunity to work with alumni and executives from all over the globe representing a wide range of industries. On occasion, I would like to highlight here some of the diverse and interesting insights from negotiators who visit the World Café.Today’s feature is Kevin D. Asbjörnson, who is a 1985 Thunderbird graduate. He and I share several common ideas about the art form of negotiation.Since social and emotional resonance is critical in any negotiation, Kevin’s metaphor and analysis about musical resonance and alignment of tone provide a concise understanding about the art of awareness and artful negotiation competencies. Kevin and I agree that the science of strategic planning and good communication skills are only part of the foundation for successful negotiations. Kevin is founderand principal performing artist of Inspire! Imagine! Innovate! and is recognized in the 2009 Marquis Who’s Who in the World of Global Citizens for his creativity with the integration of music, performing arts-based learning and 21st century Leadership.Enjoy his story below, and we look forward to your comments.

By Kevin D. Asbjörnson, MIM

I am often reminded as an international recording and performing artist, working with management and leadership audiences around the world, that my audience hears my “tune” as a contemporary pianist and performing artist, also but hears my “tone.” If my tune and tone are out of alignment with each other, it impairs my ability to connect with and engage my audience.

My instrument and voice as a professional musician is the acoustic grand piano.There are two adjustments to an acoustic grand pianothat require constant attention: tuning and toning.

Tuning the voice of an acoustic grand piano is the process of ensuring that the pitch of each key on the piano creates the intended sound of a musical note, such as A, B flat or C sharp. Tuning the voice of an effective leader or negotiator is the process of developing and maintaining the five keys or components of emotional intelligence which are self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation and empathy and relationship management.

Toning the voice of an acoustic grand piano is the process of adjusting, through softening or hardening, the striking action of the hammers against the strings in order to fully utilize the dynamic range of the entire piano keyboard. Toning the voice of an effective leader or negotiator is developing the ability to recognize the personal and cultural differences among people, and recalibrating our tune or voice as a leader or negotiator, to effectively create a meaningful connection with each distinct person or audience.

When our tune and tone are out of alignment with each other as a performing artist, a leader or negotiator, it impacts our ability to connect effectively with and engage our audience.

The tune in negotiation is what we decide to employ as our tactics; however, the more important tone in negotiation is our strategy regarding how we employ our tactics. If our tune and tone of negotiation are out of alignment with each other, we can inadvertently send mixed messages, misread others or miss subtleties in the tone of voice or body language of the person we are engaging in negotiation.

The international language of effective negotiation is comparable to the international language of musicianship: emotion. Emotion is inherent in all negotiations and provides us an opportunity to really connect with those with whom we are negotiating, if we take the time to learn and practice “emotionally intelligent” negotiation.

On a global scale, “emotionally intelligent” negotiation includes awareness and orientation towards cultural competence and the ability to demonstrate and model empathy — the foundation of emotional intelligence. No two audiences of mine as a professional performing artist are ever the same, and I must make interpersonal adjustments and recalibrate my artistic orientation with each audience, in order to effectively connect with the nuances of each audience.

The same is true with effective negotiation. Through experience, we learn the difference between “hearing with filters” or “listening with intention” with our party in negotiation. It is as if we approach each audience or negotiation with a “beginner’s mind,” curious to explore and learn about the person(s) in order to create a more meaningful connection.

This requires practice and the lack of practice is not an option, especially in my profession as a performing artist. If I do not practice as a composer and contemporary pianist, I am aware of it, the engineers in the recording studio know it and eventually my audience will know it.

I am continually surprised to learn upon asking my international clients how they practice the art and science of negotiation, how little importance they give to practice. My response to my international clients is that international negotiation without practice is like an international performing artist without rehearsal; we both lose our audience.

When we lose our audience, we marginalize the negotiation and we marginalize the performance. Every audience of negotiation and performing art has a particular orientation, and as the negotiator or performing artist, we are responsible for observing, identifying and tending to the intersection point of the two or more orientations.

Negotiation is indeed a performing art and requires the acumen and competencies of inspiration, imagination and innovation.

Here are several questions to ask yourself in review of your last negotiation or in anticipation of your next negotiation:

– How do you inspire and emotionally connect with the person with whom you are negotiating?
– How do you evoke the imagination of the person with whom you are negotiating?
– Is your negotiation strategy resulting in real innovation for all parties involved or are you getting stuck in the tactics of your negotiation?

Source

Gaming is entering the commercial field - seriously

Just check out this link from the ABC for more information

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/video/default.htm?pres=20090323_2030&story=9

From Ed Batista

Alain de Botton's Status Anxiety, first published in 2004, remains a thought-provoking and helpful text as I continue to think about happiness (and its absence.) De Botton, "a philosopher of everyday life," seeks in this book to acknowledge the intensity of status anxiety in contemporary Western society, to explore its causes, and to suggest some means of relief.

He begins with a brief set of definitions and a concise statement of his thesis:

Status [is] one's position in society... In a narrow sense, the word refers to one's legal or professional standing within a group... But in the broader--and here more relevant--sense, to one's value and importance in the eyes of the world...

Status anxiety [is] a worry, so pernicious as to be capable of ruining extended stretches of our lives, that we are in danger of failing to conform to the ideals of success laid down by our society and that we may as a result be stripped of dignity and respect; a worry that we are currently occupying too low a rung or are about to fall to a lower one... Like confessing to envy (to which the emotion is related), it can be socially imprudent to reveal the extent of any anxiety and, therefore, evidence of the inner drama is uncommon, limited usually to a preoccupied gaze, a brittle smile or an over-extended pause after news of another's achievement.

[The book's thesis is] that status anxiety possesses an exceptional capability to inspire sorrow; that the hunger for status, like all appetites, can have its uses...[b]ut, like all appetites, its excesses can also kill; [and] that the most profitable way of addressing the condition may be to attempt to understand and to speak of it.

I suspect that the fears that "we are in danger of failing to conform to the ideals of success" or that "we are currently occupying too low a rung or are about to fall to a lower one" are close at hand for many of us at the very best of times. But today, with the economy poised on the brink of ruin, with layoffs mounting and 401Ks melting away, these fears are lurking just below the surface (and bubbling over) almost everywhere we turn.

But my reading of de Botton suggests that our status anxiety and our fear of failure isn't purely--or even primarily--an economic phenomenon. The first half of the book covers five causes of status anxiety, beginning with "Lovelessness":

1. Every adult life could be said to be defined by two great love stories. The first--the story of our quest for sexual love--is well known and well charted, its vagaries for the staple of music and literature, it is socially accepted and celebrated. The second--the story of our quest for love from the world--is a more secret and shameful tale. If mentioned, it tends to be in caustic, mocking terms, as something of interest chiefly to envious or deficient souls, or else the drive for status is interpreted in an economic sense alone. And yet this second love story is no less intense than the first, it is no less complicated, important or universal, and its setbacks are no less painful. There is heartbreak here, too.

2. Adam Smith, The theory of Moral Sentiments (Edinburgh, 1759): "To what purpose is all the toil and bustle of this world? What is the end of avarice and ambition, of the pursuit of wealth, of power and pre-eminence? Is it to supply the necessities of nature? The wages of the meanest laborer can supply them. What then are the advantages of that great purpose of human life which we call bettering our condition?

"To be observed, to be attended to, to be taken notice of with sympathy, complacency and approbation, are all the advantages which we can propose to derive from it. The rich man glories in his riches because he feels that they naturally draw upon him the attention of the world. The poor man on the contrary is ashamed of his poverty. He feels that it places him out of sight of mankind. To feel that we are taken no notice of necessarily disappoints the most ardent desires of human nature..."

3. The predominant impulse behind our desire to rise in the social hierarchy may be rooted not so much in the material goods we can accrue or the power we can wield as in the amount of love we stand to receive as a consequence of high status. Money, fame and influence may be valued more as tokens of--and means to--love rather than ends in themselves...

4. William James, The Principles of Psychology (Boston, 1890): "No more fiendish punishment could be devised, were such a thing physically possible, than that one should be turned loose in society and remain absolutely unnoticed by all the members thereof. If no one turned around when we entered, answered when we spoke, or minded what we did, but if every person we met 'cut us dead,' and acted as if we were non-existent things, a kind of rage and impotent despair would before long well up in us, from which the cruellest bodily torture would be a relief."

De Botton goes on to discuss four other causes of status anxiety--Expectation, Meritocracy, Snobbery and Dependence--but it's noteworthy that he addresses Lovelessness first. Our drive to succeed and our quest to attain (and maintain) positions of high status are fueled by our need for attention, for recognition, for love. We need to be assured that we matter, to someone.

At a time when we may legitimately wonder how long our wages will be sufficient "to supply the necessities of nature," I don't expect a clearer understanding of status anxiety to alleviate more fundamental economic concerns. But I do find it helpful to distinguish between the two and uncouple them. When we worry about "the economy," to what extent are we truly concerned about our ability to feed, house, and clothe ourselves, and to what extent are we concerned about our status (current and future)? And if we can't do much about the former, what means are at our disposal to address the latter?

In the second half of "Status Anxiety," De Botton explores five ways of relieving status anxiety through Philosophy, Art, Politics, Religion and Bohemia. I don't disagree with any of these strategies, but I also think it's important to strive to be happier in any number of small ways on a daily basis and to insure that our needs for attention, recognition and love are being met by people who truly care about us, rather than by those who take notice primarily of our status.

And I fully agree with de Botton's assertion that "the most profitable way of addressing [status anxiety] may be to attempt to understand and to speak of it." And the first step in that process is acknowledging the status differences that exist--never an easy task in the United States, but particularly at a time when many traditional status markers have disappeared or even inverted. (For example, in many professional settings here in the Bay Area only low-status service people [and a handful of die-hard traditionalists] "dress up." The ability to dress without regard to convention in a professional setting is an assertion of power and a clear status marker. It's also a way for us to collectively pretend that status differences don't exist.)

Some final thoughts from de Botton:

However unpleasant anxieties over status may be, it is difficult to imagine a good life entirely free of them, for the fear of failing and disgracing oneself in the eyes of others is an inevitable consequence of harboring ambitions, of favouring one set of outcomes over another...[of] acknowledging that there is a public distinction between a successful and an unsuccessful life.

Yet if our need for status is a fixed thing, we nevertheless retain all say over where we will fulfill that need. We are at liberty to ensure that our worries about being disgraced will arise principally in relation to an audience whose methods of judgment we both understand and respect. Status anxiety may be defined as problematic only insofar as it is inspired by values that we uphold because we are terrified and preternaturally obedient; because we have been anaesthetized into believing that they are natural, perhaps even God-given; because those around us are in thrall to them; or because we have grown too imaginatively timid to conceive of alternatives.

I'm reminded that as an undergrad I dropped out of Duke to go to art school in Boston and to be closer to a girl who went to Dartmouth, and in the years since then I've quit four jobs--all very rewarding--without knowing what I was going to do next, knowing only that it was time for a change. I was certainly terrified during some of those transitions, but I wasn't obedient or anesthetized.

This winding path hasn't necessarily resulted in success, by some measures, and at my most "imaginatively timid" I can feel like I've failed. But then I ask, failed at what? I've failed "to conform to the ideals of success laid down by [my] society," in some ways, but I sure as hell have succeeded at upholding the values that matter most to me--a commitment to be my authentic self, a passion for growth and renewal, a desire to make positive change in the world. (And I'm still with the girl.)

Source

To share this post, please first refer to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/

From Ed Batista

Author and anthropologist Grant McCracken had a good line a few months ago on the conventional wisdom about the generational divide:

The other day I found myself thinking that every time I hear Millennials described:

1. the tone is that of a smug outsider.

2. the speaker is not a Millennial.

I'm a Gen X executive coach who works closely with Millennial students at Stanford's Graduate School of Business, and Grant's observation serves as a useful reminder of the dangers of over-generalizing, a perspective reinforced by a Millennial commenter on Grant's post: "[W]e have such fine control over our own identities that we don't need to resort to big, poorly-defined memes like generational labels."

Points well taken. So with the foreknowledge that I'm getting into a "big, poorly defined meme" here, I want to talk about a concept of Grant's that isn't a generational difference per se but that has implications for Millennials and anyone who works with them. (And I sure hope I don't sound like a smug outsider, so please let me know if I do.)

Last year Grant published Transformations: Identity Construction in Contemporary Culture, and it's one of the most thoughtful books I've read on the subjects of individual identity and the process of change.

Grant writes from the perspective of a cultural anthropologist who's actively engaged with--but maintains a useful critical distance from--the business world. As an executive coach, I find his views deeply thought-provoking, not merely because he's so damn smart but because I see my world in a different way when looking through his lens.

One of Grant's most striking concepts is the "swift self," an increasingly common type of individual in the professional world, and one that I see everywhere in places like Stanford and San Francisco and Silicon Valley (and, to an extent, one I identify with.) I'd like to quote Grant at length to illustrate what he means by a "swift self," and I hope he doesn't mind. Excerpted from pages 123-128 in "Transformations":

[pp. 123-5] Some cultures treat the self as something that can define itself best by removing itself from the world. The swift self offers a different orientation, a self that defines itself by rushing into the world, which is itself relatively inchoate and emergent (and doing some rushing of its own)...

The mobility of the swift self comes partly from our individualism, from a stripping away of the connections, contexts and constraints that surround the traditional and status transformation self. Individuals are now capable of extraordinary mobility, in part because they have been released from certain domestic, social and other constraints. Like Saul Bellow, they refuse or revise the definitions imposed by history and culture, especially those of ethnicity, gender and class. These definitions both complete the self and slow it down. Swift selves throw them off and rush into the world to find new ones.

The mobility of the swift self also comes from its instrumentality. The swift self is driven by purpose. It makes itself a means to an end. This instrumentality stands in opposition to the powerful tradition that says that the individual must cultivate the self for the self, that the most noble creation of a self is the self. The swift self is cultivated only to make it more effective in the world, upon the world... Swift selves suspend internal accomplishments for external ones. They endure difficulty, they suspend satisfaction, they forego cultivation of the self for cultivation of the world...

Swift selves flock well. For all their voracious individualism, they are prepared to enter into associations if these will aid them in the world. Indeed, swift selves delight in strapping on the instrumentalities and powers that corporations put at their disposal. Institutional augmentation is generally regarded as a good thing. But the swift individuals are unsentimental about their ties to the corporation. The do not expect to give or receive thoroughgoing loyalty. The corporation uses them; they use the corporation. Something is accomplished beyond the trade of salary for services. Both selves and corporations get swifter.

Swift selves, especially the business versions, are prepared to be treated as modular... They are happy to fulfill a fixed set of responsibilities, to adapt themselves to the demands of a position. And they are not surprised or affronted when the corporation decided to put someone else in their place. They do not believe that their value comes from their uniqueness as individuals or the distinctness of the self...

The swift self comes, in part, from the marketplace, from an Adam Smithian understanding of human behavior as gain-seeking and the rise of capitalism that so inspires and rewards this particular performance of the self... [The swift self] is responsive to the demands of competition, to the inducements of opportunity. Indeed, marketplaces and swift selves are mirrors of one another. Both define themselves through their responsiveness. Both are not very particular about form and are pleased to go with what works. Swift selves and marketplaces flourish together...

But it would be wrong to associate the swift self only with Smith's economic man. The mobility of the swift self comes, finally, from the willingness to give the self over to what happens next. This is the fundamental orientation at work. Certainly, many swift selves prefer markets, but not all of them do. Swiftness does not need a free market. It merely needs indeterminacy...

[p. 126] Inhabiting a swift self is thrilling, but difficult. Popular culture is cluttered with survival strategies. The most radical is simple repudiation. Hollywood likes this theme particularly, and frequently declares the swift self bad and the slow self good. Swift selves, it insists, are inauthentic, ungrounded and opportunistic. Another survival strategy is to distinguish between the demands of Christ and Caesar: swift selves for the marketplace, something else for the home, Internet, family, lifestyle, church and community... A third strategy is to do selves in sequence. We caught a glimpse of this as Generations X and Y took to the New Economy, some of them choosing start-up over selfhood. It was common to hear members of the dot.com world say that they would figure out who they were when they had made their fortune. In the meantime, swift selves.

[pp. 127-8] Many people with swift selves believe that their suspension of the self is temporary, that the swift self is a means to an end. Eventually, they believe, the enterprise will pay off, the career will mature, rewards will come. But sometimes, perhaps often, this is not the full truth of the matter. Many swift individuals fear stasis. They are happiest when in motion. The don't want ever to "arrive." They prefer to be a means; they fear becoming an end. The pleasure of this self is precisely its swiftness and momentum, the bracing sense of power and safety that comes from being on the move.

...Swift selves are so dedicated to action and an exterior world that they are not very contemplative or self-aware. This can mean, for instance, that they do not see emotional difficulty coming until it is upon them, and they are disinclined to study their own complexity. The trope here is movement, and swift selves solve many problems by just "getting on with it." This works well enough for some purposes. But when it does not work, there can be no outcome but crisis...

And this is why swift selves are brought low by illness, the departure of a spouse who is tired of waiting, a sudden collapse of an enterprise or change in the economy, or, not infrequently, alcohol or drugs that they've been using as braking devices. Now they must figure out what their life could be beside forward motion...

There is something tragic, in the classical definition of tragedy, about the swift self. Its contradictions mean that, left to their own devices, things will end badly... The swift self knows it can't keep moving indefinitely. It is neglecting its needs and exhausting its resources. But it also knows that it cannot stop without crashing... At worst, the swift self suspects there is no stopping, only failing. Swift selves rarely end with grace.

Even if we agree that Grant's concept of a swift self is a "big, poorly-defined meme," I still find it a compelling picture of many (if not most) of the high-achieving Millennials I work with at Stanford, and, further, I see aspects of myself and some of my forty-something contemporaries in it as well, suggesting that it's something much more more complex than a mere "generational label."

So what are the implications of "swift selfhood"? How are we to respond to this dynamic in ourselves and in those around us? The first issue that comes to mind for me is: When should we embrace the swiftness, and when should we resist it? When should we keep our foot on the accelerator, and when should we hit the brakes?

Some swift selves don't even realize that they have brakes, or that slowing down and reflecting can be useful--and even necessary--practices. I worked with a twenty-something woman a few years ago--a prototypical swift self--who felt anxious whenever she saw unscheduled time on her calendar. It wasn't simply that she felt obligated to be as productive as possible, although that was one of her values. She also felt that unstructured time was an indulgence, something that she couldn't afford and didn't need. She had too many things to do and was determined to push through them without being deterred, without wasting thought or energy on the frustration and other feelings that sometimes accompanied her struggles.

This strategy served her well on the upward path that led her to Stanford, but when life suddenly became tougher and more complex than she expected it to be, she lacked the excess capacity--in her calendar and in her self--that she needed to handle these new challenges. And this wasn't a matter of finding more time in the day to work, to execute. What she needed was to give herself permission to to stop working and to take some time to just be with herself, to reflect on her responses to these challenges, to understand her feelings and to decide how to move forward. She needed to step on the brakes, and that's what I tried to do in my work with her.

(It's also noteworthy to me that in contrast to Hollywood's stereotyped view of swift selves cited by Grant above--one that's shared by many Gen Xers and Boomers [i.e. the people who run Hollywood], this particular young woman also had a strong social conscience, a commitment to public service, and a deep religious faith.)

But there are certainly times and places when we should embrace swiftness, when swiftness will serve us best. There are two spheres in which this is particularly true, one where I feel personally at home and another where I feel like a time traveler from the past, a visitor from the 20th century. The first sphere is online, and I generally feel quite comfortable here. I enjoy having a range of online identities that are interrelated but distinct, that are responsive and change rapidly, and that are instrumental and serve as means to various ends (including "thinking out loud," engaging in dialogues, and occasionally broadcasting to an audience.) In a word, I feel (somewhat) swift in this context. I don't count myself among the digerati--I've worked up close with card-carrying members in several settings, and although I speak their language, I'm not quite fluent. But I'm struck by the resistance that many of my Gen X and Boomer friends and colleagues have to the fluidity and momentum--the swiftness--of online identity, and I want to encourage them to jump in the pool and join the Millennials who were born in the water and swim like fish. (Carrying the metaphor a bit too far, I suppose I feel like an amphibian!)

The other context where swiftness clearly has value is in the realm of citizenship and identity. Do you identify as a citizen of the world or of a specific nation or region? Can you participate fully in the global economy, or are your prospects more limited? Here I feel positively sluggish compared to my Millennial students. Stanford requires our students to have at least one "global experience" while in business school, and they do with gusto. I'm in awe of their ability to feel at home while working around the world, from summer internships in India to study trips in South Africa, and I realize that my own world--the world in which I'm able to live and work, not simply visit--is quite small in comparison. I'd like to get swifter and join my students in this larger world, but I feel a hesitation, born of uncertainty. Am I too old to make that transition? Would my skills translate to other cultures? Also, I feel an amor patriae that connects me to the United States and to San Francisco in unique ways that would make it hard, if not impossible, for me to truly be at home anywhere else.

In the end, I appreciate Grant's overall analysis of the swift self, but I don't necessarily share his gloomy conclusions: "Left to their own devices, things will end badly." This may be a function of the different roles we've played when interacting with the swift selves among our students. Grant has taught at Harvard Business School, and I suspect that the role differentiation between a professor or lecturer and a student is still sufficient, even in our ever-flatter organizations, to make open communication difficult. In contrast, I act as an in-house executive coach, and although I occasionally lead teams of students on task-oriented projects, my role is fundamentally that of a challenging and supportive adviser, which allows me to communicate with them very openly and candidly on deeply personal subjects.

So I disagree with Grant's assertion that swift selves are "not very contemplative or self aware." They may not make much time or space in their lives for contemplation, and they may not naturally understand the value of self-awareness, but I work with people who fit this description every day, and I'm constantly impressed by their capacity for growth and personal development. And they don't have to relinquish or repudiate their swiftness to undergo this transformation--they simply need to be encouraged (and occasionally compelled) to slow down, to reflect, to breathe.

It's possible to read Grant's analysis as a warning, as an expression of fear or disdain for a new world full of swift selves (and, equally, as an expression of nostalgia for a fading, slower world), but I don't see it that way. The natural complementarity among swift selves, the market for human capital, and the contemporary corporation certainly has a dark underside, and swift selves would do well to understand the risks of economic swiftness as well as its benefits. But as Grant notes, "[I]t would be wrong to associate the swift self only with Smith's economic man. The mobility of the swift self comes, finally, from the willingness to give the self over to what happens next. This is the fundamental orientation at work. Certainly, many swift selves prefer markets, but not all of them do. Swiftness does not need a free market. It merely needs indeterminacy..." I find something quite hopeful and encouraging in that perspective. There's a healthy vibrancy in the swift self's ability to embrace change, to take what comes, to move fluidly in the world. Swift selves need to learn when to slow down, but all of us can benefit from occasional lessons in speeding up as well.

To share this post, please first refer to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/

Initiative

Initiative is necessary both to allow innovation to work and also to ultimately implement the solution.

Intensifying Your Initiative

Without harnessing the power of initiative, the wheel of innovation comes to a screeching halt. We all have a desire to "make a difference" or to make improvements in our lives, but for a variety of reasons, many people face challenges in regard to taking initiative in one form or another. Fortunately, there are many things you can do to enhance your power of initiative, and the payoffs are huge.

The power of initiative is a critical catalyst for personal brilliance. You need it to bring your dreams to life, but it's also necessary in order to start the innovation process. Without the motivation to amplify your awareness, explore your curiosities, or expand your focus, you probably won't even make it to the drawing board, let alone come up with a new idea or solution.

Meaningful Motivators Feed Initiative

Let's face it, if you don't have a good reason to accomplish a particular goal, you probably won't do it. There are two primary types of motivation: internal and external. Depending on the goal you have in mind, one or the other may work to get you going. Using the example of book writing, if you have a burning desire to simply write a book whether anyone else ever reads or buys it, that internal motivation might be enough to propel you forward. If your motivation is primarily external, such as getting the book published or self-publishing it and selling a ton of copies, you'll probably need to know that your desired outcome is feasible before you'll take the goal seriously and actually sit down to do the work.

The key to moving from idea to action is to identify what it will take to make the goal worth achieving. Once you are aware of your internal and external motivators, your mind begins to connect the process with the success of achieving your goal.

Goals Plus Values Equal Action Steps

Pursuing a goal that's in conflict with your value system is kind of like trying to squeeze your feet into shoes that are a size too small. You may be able to hobble around in them for awhile, but it will only be a matter of time before the discomfort is so great, you'll have no other logical choice but to remove the shoes. The bottom line here is to get real with yourself. Before you can set and work toward achieving your goals, it's essential to be very clear about your own values and beliefs.

Getting Clear About Your Fears

When we're worried about a potentially negative outcome or situation, we spin our mental wheels going around and around in circles, kind of like a hamster on one of those cage toys that look like miniature Ferris wheels. Hamsters need those wheels to use up some of the energy that can't possibly be expended by walking around their cages. Humans, on the other hand, particularly in today's fast-paced world, need to conserve energy and use it wisely in ventures that yield real results.

Time and energy that's wasted by focusing on fears, worries, and potentially negative outcomes can be wisely spent by training yourself to return to the present moment over and over again, regardless of the situation or problem that you are facing. No one is a natural born worrier. Worrying and being fearful are behaviors that we learn. Therefore, these behaviors can be "un-learned." Just like any other habit, learning not to worry and not to dwell on fear is a process that needs to be practiced for it to become a new habit.

Taking the First Step

One of the secrets to increasing initiative in your daily life is to shorten the time line between your idea and your first action step. As adults, many people have the tendency to put off that first step in favor of conducting more research, increasing their education, and basically trying to learn everything they need to know before they begin. If toddlers viewed the idea of standing up and walking the way many adults approach taking a first step, most people would still be crawling. Learning to increase your comfort with taking the first step toward any goal or objective will give you an edge over many of your potential competitors. People who reconnect with their innate sense of taking initiative are the ones who tend to accomplish the most and therefore experience the greatest deal of self-satisfaction.

Jim Canterucci is the author of Personal Brilliance. He can be reached via the web at www.MyPersonalBrilliance.com or at 614.899.9044.