Tag Archives: cognitive

Goals with Purposes

 

Goals are for keeping score. Purposes are for making differences.

Kids learn a lot about making goals in soccer games.

They learn:
Who is best at making goals
What it takes to defend against others who make goals
Where to position themselves for making goals
When to shoot for a goal
How to use soccer skills to score goals

It’s easy to make the Who/What/Where/When/How list regarding goals of almost any kind.

Who on the sales team is most consistent in reaching sales goals?
What will get a lot of good PR?
Where can you find the best new team members?
When is a right time to buy new equipment?
How is it possible to save enough money?

What’s missing is the WHY

Why is it valuable for kids to play sports like soccer?
Why is good PR an important goal?
Why are new team members a necessary goal?

For all of the other W’s, there is always a Why.
In the Why, you will find the Purpose.

As a journalism student at Northwestern,
I was taught to always include the 5W/s and the H in a news story.
The Why often became clear only when I wrote the headline
–or at least contemplated Why the story mattered.

Kids Prove Teamwork Pays
PR Leads to an Increased Number of Job Applicants
New Employees Add to Team Synergy

Goals, like Deadlines, focus our conative energy.
They help us fulfill our Purposes.

4 Comments

Filed under Self-Help

It Pays to Know Others’ M.O.s

It’s just not worth it to ask people to do things if the way they do them doesn’t work for you.

Don’t ask initiating
     Fact Finders for an answer – if you aren’t prepared to provide lots and lots of background information.
     Follow Thrus for help – unless you’ve cleaned up pretty well ahead of time.
     Quick Starts for ideas – if you aren’t willing to take at least some of the recommended risks.
     Implementors to fix something – unless you have plenty of time to wait for it to be done really, really well.

When you know another’s M.O. you can predict what they’ll do based on non-prejudicial information, not on myths regarding gender, age, and race. You won’t make the mistake of making false assumptions that can hurt feelings and ruin relationships.

Don’t assume you can change people or that they will “wise up” and stop being whatever part of them may annoy you.

You might even see the humor in
     a perfectly healthy, resistant Fact Finder forgetting important details.
     a seemingly sensible initiating Follow Thru rejecting time-saving shortcuts.
     an introverted initiating Quick Start surprising others with sudden decisions to do the unexpected.
     a resistant Implementor pushing the wrong buttons and messing up technology.

If you know those things will happen, you have a better chance of stopping them from causing problems.

When resistant Implementors grab one of three remotes and operates it by instinct, they often mess it up.
(I just gave my resistant Implementor husband the latest, greatest universal remote. I’ll let you know if it helps.)

Leaders – and bossy spouses – have told me that knowing a person’s M.O. wouldn’t help. They would just demand that people do what they were told to do.

How has that worked for them?

When they have demanded
     Fact Finders cut to the bottom line – they got errors.
     Follow Thrus use short cuts – they got sloppy work.
     Quick Starts stick to the script – they got turnover.
     Implementors sit still and listen– they got disputes and disobedience.

4 Comments

Filed under Self-Help

Microsoft: Ignorant or Arrogant?

Microsoft:

You have set yourself up as a language expert.
You mercilessly correct our spelling errors all day every day.
You posture as an all-knowing judge and jury of right and wrong in use of language.

Yet,
You ignore Peter Mark Roget, the true expert in the English language.
You ignore Plato and Aristotle and thousands of other thought leaders.
You ignore modern research and well-documented studies of the differences in the three parts of the human mind/brain.

Why?
…do you continue to spell-check the word for one of the three faculties of the brain, and simply replace it with the word for an altogether different mental faculty?
…do you ignore calls to correct your error?
…do you think we should trust you when you confuse the source of human actions with the source of passive thoughts?

When?
…are you going to Get Conative?
…are you going to recognize the existence of your resistant Fact Finder M.O.?
…or am I confusing your conative behaviors with affective Arrogance?

MS Blog Pic2

5 Comments

Filed under Self-Help

Multitasking Doers and Doubters

Opinions about multitasking are biased by your conative MO.  So is your natural ability to do it.

My recent informal survey shows over 90% of people who initiate Follow Thru actions are Doubters who consider multitasking “Bad.” They seem to have difficulty even conjuring up the possibility that multitasking is a sensible way for anyone to behave. Not surprising, since they’re naturally orderly, follow sequential patterns, and rarely deviate from a step-by-step plan.

Those with the Kolbe problem solving strength to naturally adaptresistant Follow Thrus – are the Doers who overwhelmingly praise multitasking as an “Excellent” way to get more done. They value being able to keep lots of balls in the air at one time.  Some, however, have apparently read the media tirades against doing it, and just give it an “OK.” One poor guy said he knew it was “Bad” – but he couldn’t keep himself from doing “it.”

Natural multitaskers have been criticized since grade school by their predominantly Follow Thru insistent teachers. How-to study, how-to plan a project, how-to do just about anything is generally taught through an anti-multitasking approach. When’s the last time you heard an instructor say: “Go ahead and try this while you’re also doing something you actually enjoy doing.”

Multitaskers have had to put up with:

  • a university professor (who admits he couldn’t multitask if he wanted to)
  • who studied just 12 students from one pysc class
  • with a cognitive test (had to have right answers on both math and language questions when topics kept switching)
  • and came to the conclusion that switching mental focus takes too much time
  • which resulted in media headlines that trashed multitasking

[See: Why Most Persistent Multitaskers Perform Badly (NY Times): http://bit.ly/fYQYs]

I won’t call my survey “research.”  But it’s been interesting. I asked thousands of people to rate multitasking on a scale from Excellent to OK or Bad.

To date:

Only one person known to be an insistent Follow Thru rated multitasking as “Excellent.”

Over 90% resistant Follow Thrus rated multitasking as “Excellent.”

Any one want to participate in a “blind” study, where people rate the value of multitasking before they know their Kolbe result, then find out their result later?

multitasking-box

You’re multitasking when you simultaneously:

Listen to a lecture while writing on another topic

Change a diaper while talking w/ another child

Pull weeds while BBQing and talking on the phone

Fix machinery while teaching someone how to do it

Watch a movie while text messaging and eating popcorn

The non-multitasker is like a guy I know —  a 9 in Follow Thru — who is constitutionally unable to carry on a conversation and put food on his fork at the same time. Or the accountant who can’t be responsible for the accuracy of her numbers if she has to answer the phone while doing the books.

No-Multitasking Tasks

Switching what you’re thinking about is a cognitive process. Doing multiple things at one time is a conative process. Creativity requires using both processes.

A No-Multitasking Task is one that for safety or common sense reasons, requires your full cognitive attention – with little switching and no conative multitasking.

For instance: You ought not to be striving for creativity when you’re driving a car. That’s an example of a No-Multitasking Task. So is reading the dose when giving medicine, listening to or giving directions, using a dicing mandoline or acetylene torch.

Conables ™ Tips for Multitaskers

When multitaskers’ form of creativity is inappropriate and disapproved (most standardized testing, and way too many classrooms and meetings), it’s important for them to learn Conables ™ Tricks for turning this so-called disadvantage into an advantage. Better to make it a game than lose your competitive advantage.

In a classroom or meetings

  • Imagine the speaker is the leader of a rock band, and watch every move she’s making — so you can come in with the right tune (answer or question) at the right time.
  • Pick three rather unusual words that interest you. Guess how often they’ll be used during one session, then count to see how close you were.
  • Write brief descriptions of the emotions or thoughts that you think are going on in others peoples’ heads. Tie them to specific people.

You’ll find Conables Tips that tie to your MO on your Kolbe A ™ Index result. Stick to those that are recommended. (I take no responsibility for some of the dangerous ones others make-up!)

7 Comments

Filed under Business