|
In our 1FLOS group, Herb wrote:
In that example, I was interviewing
the head of one of the companies in the group you and I were
working on. He told me about relationships he had built
between the group and certain government ministries and he
told me about his strategy. Your point was that the
company owners drove the strategy and the relationships.
The strategy and relationships were artifacts, if I understand
your use of the term, but they were artifacts of the owners’
creation, not of the interviewee’s.
Mike’s response was:
I don't remember literally, but I
would say this figuratively, and that is that often we find
people talking about a more complex notion, than they
themselves can generate.
Testing this is key. That is probably why Jaques relied on
the manager's discretionary judgment of performance over time
to coincide with the CIP, for the research in human
capability, if I’m making sense out of that as it was
intended...
Since I have made a number of these arguments, and seen the
mis-judgment of capability, I started looking to artifacts to
add another dimension to the assessment of capability.
As noted in one of the TPOVs, I have added other pieces as
well, to "round" out the portfolio of capability assessment in
terms of job fit.
The reason for that is my research that I have done over the
past 15 years using adult developmental models in business
situations around the world.
The portfolio approach, albeit more involved and expensive,
gives more detailed information about why development is what
it is and what we can do, to not just assess it, but to begin
to look at how to scaffold it, which has been brought about by
my experiences with the paradigm shift from
BS to FLOW.
As Jaques said, it doesn't do any good to wish people higher
on a ladder of striving...or whatever...because people are
going to be happiest when they are in
FLOW, not when they are
achieving goals that are not necessarily related to their own
happiness. So the idea of striving fits well with those
in the 1-5% matched alignment. It becomes a composite
standard built of best practices that we lemmings then follow
over the cliff...the problem being, we can't fly...<G>
What is difficult and a major aspect of the paradigm shift
from
BS to FLOW is this:
It is very difficult (albeit naturally for a larger group than
we think probably who are still other-directed, and or
motivationally aligned with seeking rapport, approval,
respect, blessings) for most people to deny the trends in the
crowds because that brings about FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and
Doubt) about their "acceptance" as a result.
So in part, people are following and striving for those
standards, not to achieve them, but to keep from being singled
out, or falling out of favor. You have motivational
systems which all dictate that going along maybe more
favorable than resisting, in affiliation and avoidance, and
even in many cases where power and achievement are residing in
some degree.
Boyatzis mentioned that in the social motive research, which I
think has been stopped now...probably because it generated the
wrong kinds of answers to their BSness (stopping shortly after
Emotional Intelligence became a cash cow --> I’m guessing, but
it does seem to correlate in my mind, because most of EI is
BS, in fact, almost all of it is)...that there are only about
30% of us that are achievers that will even respond to goals.
The other 70% are not naturally inclined to seek goal
achievement by and of itself as do achievers.
So, for me, the most difficult concept to grok is how then
does most of the population seem to want to follow the mutual
best practices/BS that is generated. Why aren't they
waking up to the notion that it might not be the most optimal
path for them...and it has to do with the socializing aspects
of society and what happens when you don't fit in.
Therefore, even though it would seem...that one is not as
happy following the best practices and composite standards
that we have accumulated as right, or at least acceptable. It
would make a lot of people less happy to fall from the grace
of society and be disapproved of.
Most I think find that if they do their jobs and manage their
p & q's, that they will have "freedom" both economic and
political to then do what they really want to do, when no one
is looking, per se.
So, tradeoffs are made in order to keep the paradigm cohesive.
That is my guess at this point....and I’m sorry, I don't know
how I got here, but I'm glad I did. It’s difficult languaging
this TPOV, as it's complex in nature, because of the idea that
there is social proof saying that
BS leads to more happiness
than
FLOW, yet if you tease it apart, it is
FLOW itself that
is at the root of what it "seems" is going on.
Whew, now someone do me a favor and put that in a cogent TPOV
for me<G>, so I don't have too, I hate that part. <G>
|
