I would be hovering over three main areas in this writing. One, the layers of the brain as I read in the GEO. Two, the practice of journaling. Three, how all this seems to fit in in the context of the use of questioning for enabling.
It was quite a chance happening that I requested my fellow passenger for his copy of the GEO magazine after reading the cover item about an article on decision making. I found the article extremely insightful. The author in his wisdom speaks about three layers of the brain's working. The lower most or outmost layer receiving 1,50,000 impulses every second. The second layer, processing these impulses and abstracting them into feelings. The innermost layer consisting of the cognitive ability - one that cannot handle more than 7 or 8 pieces of information at a single instance. The feeling layer thus plays an important role - it abstracts and codifies the lakhs of impulses - which otherwise would overwhelm the cognitive thinking - into easily recognisable feelings.
Journaling as many of us would know, consists of writing down, usually at the end of the day, one's own learnings from the day. The mind, it is said has the ability to thinking sequentially and more interestingly, from a birds eye view - both of which play an important role when journalling. 1. Ask yourself a question, once, twice, maybe thrice 2. Start writing whatever comes to your mind very fast 3. Once you are done, read whatever you have written and look for patterns.
During coaching - which to me in many instances is a simple process of enabling the other individual by questioning beliefs, replacing older with newer beliefs and helping the other individual get his/her own answers - is often the art of asking the right questions.
Putting all this together, it looks like this - the cognitive mind impinges the question on the feeling layer with much force. This seems to stimulate the cognitive mind to see many of the underlying patterns which were very much present like furrows in a playground, but get exposed only during a downpour.
Understanding this, to me is useful for anyone who is getting into the practice of coaching.
Warmest regards,
Siddhu
Monday, September 14, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Training business leaders
Let me come to the point. I agree and am enamoured by truly making a difference to the HR profession by building capability of young HR professionals. Agreed.
I am also uncomfortable and restless of the obsession of being inward looking.
If there are 10 HR business partners developed, there are probably a 100 business leaders who do not know how to leverage the HR function. There is a crying need to being efforts on this front and probably have a certification such as "People Manager" that means that the leader knows about (meta) HR's efficacy and knows what is possible and what to expect from his HR business partner.
Cheers!
Sid
I am also uncomfortable and restless of the obsession of being inward looking.
If there are 10 HR business partners developed, there are probably a 100 business leaders who do not know how to leverage the HR function. There is a crying need to being efforts on this front and probably have a certification such as "People Manager" that means that the leader knows about (meta) HR's efficacy and knows what is possible and what to expect from his HR business partner.
Cheers!
Sid
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Enabling who? The 10,000 hour rule
As a child, when I went to concerts by Bhimsen Joshi, I wasn’t too intrigued to hear his introduction read that he practiced music for six to eight hours every day. After all he didn’t have to go to school! I could do that too I thought, if only I didn’t have to go to school! More recently, while listening to a few recordings of Bismillah Khan, (incidentally it was at the end of a day of articulating differentiating competencies) the fact that a few musicians seem to be a class apart aroused my curiosity. (This was further reinforced when I beat a rather quick retreat from a close friend’s concert). What differentiates those who seem to convince by being themselves from those who sincerely try, yet fail? Is it luck? Is it something else? My next sojourn to the local bookshop seemed to hold an answer.
I should confess, I am in love with Outliers. I am referring to the book. What particularly has caught my attention is the 10,000 hour rule of Gladwell, that the key to success in any field is simply a matter of practicing a specific task for 10,000 hours caught my attention. Gladwell cites the examples of the Beatles who performed over 1200 times in four years, amassing more than 10,000 hours of playing time and Bill Gates becoming Bill Gates thanks to a certain obsessive love affair with a computer to which he had access when few others in the world had or could afford such access. Strengths, or talent according to Gladwell (rather, what I understand) is what causes incessant love affairs that spur people to immerse themselves in particular activities or opportunities with a certain maniacal fervor, one that others who possess other talents would never prefer or even dare explore in their mind! (Btw, I am not referring to broken love affairs leading to workaholism)
To me, this also seemed to fit in the strengths model of Gallup, where it is purported that we as individuals take our strengths for granted, simply because it is very natural to us. To each of us, our strengths come very easy and hence, we assume that it is the same way that everyone around us is wired too! Gallup also talks about effort and practice that are needed to covert strength themes into areas of competence.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (I hope the printer’s devil doesn’t strike) in “The secret of happiness”, explores the fundamentals of happiness and to help the readers, also looks at what is not happiness. To give you undiluted pleasure, I quote. “Over the years, I came up with the expression "flow": a term to describe the common denominator among those people who deemed themselves happy. The most obvious component of happiness, I found out, is intense concentration, which is the main reason that activities such as music, art, literature, sports and other forms of leisure have survived. The essential ingredient for concentration - whether it happens when reading a poem or building a sand castle – is that it involves a challenge that matches one's ability. The only solution to achieve enduring happiness, therefore, is to keep finding new opportunities to refine one's skills: do one's job better or faster, or expand the tasks that comprise it; find a new set of challenges more appropriate to your stage of life.”
Is it role efficacy? Maybe. Could be. Is it only role efficacy? May not be. Does a block in ‘flow’ cause attrition? Would it be worthwhile looking at an instrument for it? Does career anchor of Ed Schein talk about this ‘flow’ that seems to happen when an individual is able to actualize his occupational self image at work? To think of it, it seems to be too. Multiple constructs, but finally the same human being right? The thing that seems evident to me is that an attempt at fixing a construct tends to restrict the meaning. Hail Schrodinger?
What personally appeals to me is the possibility of the strengths approach (personal preferences seem to correlate with strength themes as well) coupled with a career choice that allows individuals hit the 10,000 hours (or close to that!) of Gladwell at the workplace. That might finally allow the individual live the flow. This might also be the purpose of enabling professionals in a developmental dialogue. Unblock to flow. Enabling who? How about self for a start?
I should confess, I am in love with Outliers. I am referring to the book. What particularly has caught my attention is the 10,000 hour rule of Gladwell, that the key to success in any field is simply a matter of practicing a specific task for 10,000 hours caught my attention. Gladwell cites the examples of the Beatles who performed over 1200 times in four years, amassing more than 10,000 hours of playing time and Bill Gates becoming Bill Gates thanks to a certain obsessive love affair with a computer to which he had access when few others in the world had or could afford such access. Strengths, or talent according to Gladwell (rather, what I understand) is what causes incessant love affairs that spur people to immerse themselves in particular activities or opportunities with a certain maniacal fervor, one that others who possess other talents would never prefer or even dare explore in their mind! (Btw, I am not referring to broken love affairs leading to workaholism)
To me, this also seemed to fit in the strengths model of Gallup, where it is purported that we as individuals take our strengths for granted, simply because it is very natural to us. To each of us, our strengths come very easy and hence, we assume that it is the same way that everyone around us is wired too! Gallup also talks about effort and practice that are needed to covert strength themes into areas of competence.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (I hope the printer’s devil doesn’t strike) in “The secret of happiness”, explores the fundamentals of happiness and to help the readers, also looks at what is not happiness. To give you undiluted pleasure, I quote. “Over the years, I came up with the expression "flow": a term to describe the common denominator among those people who deemed themselves happy. The most obvious component of happiness, I found out, is intense concentration, which is the main reason that activities such as music, art, literature, sports and other forms of leisure have survived. The essential ingredient for concentration - whether it happens when reading a poem or building a sand castle – is that it involves a challenge that matches one's ability. The only solution to achieve enduring happiness, therefore, is to keep finding new opportunities to refine one's skills: do one's job better or faster, or expand the tasks that comprise it; find a new set of challenges more appropriate to your stage of life.”
Is it role efficacy? Maybe. Could be. Is it only role efficacy? May not be. Does a block in ‘flow’ cause attrition? Would it be worthwhile looking at an instrument for it? Does career anchor of Ed Schein talk about this ‘flow’ that seems to happen when an individual is able to actualize his occupational self image at work? To think of it, it seems to be too. Multiple constructs, but finally the same human being right? The thing that seems evident to me is that an attempt at fixing a construct tends to restrict the meaning. Hail Schrodinger?
What personally appeals to me is the possibility of the strengths approach (personal preferences seem to correlate with strength themes as well) coupled with a career choice that allows individuals hit the 10,000 hours (or close to that!) of Gladwell at the workplace. That might finally allow the individual live the flow. This might also be the purpose of enabling professionals in a developmental dialogue. Unblock to flow. Enabling who? How about self for a start?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Traits of purposeful institution builders?
In my career, I have had the wonderful opportunity of observing a few very successful entrepreneur-turned institution builders and this particular piece of writing looks at clustering a few of the oft observed behaviour patterns in them. For ease of coding, I choose to call them ‘aspects’ in this article. Much like a trait of such entrepreneurs, let’s kick into action without much more ado (aspect # 1).
One of the most striking aspects of such entrepreneurs seems to be a high level of energy, by that; I mean channeled energy that seems well under their own will and control (aspect #2). This allows them to regulate the same with the finesse of a electric loco driver. Absolutely under control. Physical fitness apart, the energy exhibited seems to rise from a certain purpose that they apparently draw from, which ‘glide slopes’ us towards the underlying vector’s direction. The purpose that drives such individuals (who appear to be almost always naturally respected by those working with them) seems to have a certain rootedness in service orientation that underlies the extraverted observables and continuous improvement (aspect #3).
This preference for purposeful continuous improvement is often also fuelled by a futuristic, positive exploratory behaviour (aspect #4). It might be interesting to mention that this seems to have a mutually feeding forward relationship with the purpose itself. In order to make the exploratory behaviour sustainable, such entrepreneurs (I would also call them institution builders vs. the mercenary variety of the same species) also have a high ability to listen (and think) with rapt attention to messages, however weak the signal may be, and however lower down the hierarchy, the sender may be (aspect #5).
The ability to listen with ‘simultaneous processing’ ensures that those who spend a minute with the individual need to do their hours of thinking well in advance. This ensures a natural gating of interactions, leading to effective time management (aspect #6). To explain this a little more, since the focus is completely on the person who is speaking and there is parallel processing happening between the ears of the entrepreneur, it doesn’t require an executive assistant or display of ‘power-distance’ to regulate those who interact or want to interact. Those who do not have a complete and robust idea or message to deliver, simply stay away from interacting! This allows further effective utilization of every second by the entrepreneur in purposeful thinking (aspect #7).
Aspects 6 and 7 seem to help such individuals become effective networkers as well. The very fact that they have a purpose and a ‘straw man’ of the future helps them place those they meet, in a place holder for the future (aspect # 8). Needless to say, this strengths play approach has its multi-fold returns in areas of commitment and ‘giving back’ from those ‘recruited’.
The last aspect of such institution builders is their keen sense of caring for those around them as human beings irrespective of their position in the hierarchy (aspect #9). This includes asking others whether they have had food, enough rest and so on – very genuinely. By genuinely, I refer to such leaders being ready to defer the immediate task at hand if need be.
The last aspect of such institution builders is their ability to work for long hours and on weekends. A possible cause is their ability to find play in work and work in play (aspect #10).
I have tried my hand at articulating a few behavioural indicators given below, that might be useful to readers;
1. Articulates or shares purpose
2. Displays a bias for action
3. Observed to be physically agile
4. Respects others’ point of view
5. Constantly scanning environment for opportunities
6. Future facing while confronting issues
7. Listens attentively
8. Responds with meaningful responses after listening
9. Captures key thoughts in a conversation
10. Reflects key thoughts in a conversation
11. Clarifies when in doubt
12. Instinctively spots opportunities for those met
13. Expresses intent of working with new acquaintances
14. Enquires about the well being of subordinates
15. Ready to defer immediate tasks for people oriented reasons
If you have a few aspects to add, do write in and let’s begin a conversation!
One of the most striking aspects of such entrepreneurs seems to be a high level of energy, by that; I mean channeled energy that seems well under their own will and control (aspect #2). This allows them to regulate the same with the finesse of a electric loco driver. Absolutely under control. Physical fitness apart, the energy exhibited seems to rise from a certain purpose that they apparently draw from, which ‘glide slopes’ us towards the underlying vector’s direction. The purpose that drives such individuals (who appear to be almost always naturally respected by those working with them) seems to have a certain rootedness in service orientation that underlies the extraverted observables and continuous improvement (aspect #3).
This preference for purposeful continuous improvement is often also fuelled by a futuristic, positive exploratory behaviour (aspect #4). It might be interesting to mention that this seems to have a mutually feeding forward relationship with the purpose itself. In order to make the exploratory behaviour sustainable, such entrepreneurs (I would also call them institution builders vs. the mercenary variety of the same species) also have a high ability to listen (and think) with rapt attention to messages, however weak the signal may be, and however lower down the hierarchy, the sender may be (aspect #5).
The ability to listen with ‘simultaneous processing’ ensures that those who spend a minute with the individual need to do their hours of thinking well in advance. This ensures a natural gating of interactions, leading to effective time management (aspect #6). To explain this a little more, since the focus is completely on the person who is speaking and there is parallel processing happening between the ears of the entrepreneur, it doesn’t require an executive assistant or display of ‘power-distance’ to regulate those who interact or want to interact. Those who do not have a complete and robust idea or message to deliver, simply stay away from interacting! This allows further effective utilization of every second by the entrepreneur in purposeful thinking (aspect #7).
Aspects 6 and 7 seem to help such individuals become effective networkers as well. The very fact that they have a purpose and a ‘straw man’ of the future helps them place those they meet, in a place holder for the future (aspect # 8). Needless to say, this strengths play approach has its multi-fold returns in areas of commitment and ‘giving back’ from those ‘recruited’.
The last aspect of such institution builders is their keen sense of caring for those around them as human beings irrespective of their position in the hierarchy (aspect #9). This includes asking others whether they have had food, enough rest and so on – very genuinely. By genuinely, I refer to such leaders being ready to defer the immediate task at hand if need be.
The last aspect of such institution builders is their ability to work for long hours and on weekends. A possible cause is their ability to find play in work and work in play (aspect #10).
I have tried my hand at articulating a few behavioural indicators given below, that might be useful to readers;
1. Articulates or shares purpose
2. Displays a bias for action
3. Observed to be physically agile
4. Respects others’ point of view
5. Constantly scanning environment for opportunities
6. Future facing while confronting issues
7. Listens attentively
8. Responds with meaningful responses after listening
9. Captures key thoughts in a conversation
10. Reflects key thoughts in a conversation
11. Clarifies when in doubt
12. Instinctively spots opportunities for those met
13. Expresses intent of working with new acquaintances
14. Enquires about the well being of subordinates
15. Ready to defer immediate tasks for people oriented reasons
If you have a few aspects to add, do write in and let’s begin a conversation!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)