LeadU presents Follow-up to Fanatically Passionless


Follow-up to Fanatically Passionless

In our @F-L-O-W 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 @F-L-O-W.

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 @F-L-O-W, 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 @F-L–O-W 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 @F-L-O-W, yet if you tease it apart, it is @F-L-O-W 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 to, I hate that part.  <G>

If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, or need some additional help, please use the form below to submit them.  Someone will get back to you within 48 hours. 

    We hope you pick up valuable insights, ideas, and tools during this process, which you can use for your own development as well as your work and leadership with others.

    You, Me, and We @F-L-O-W

    Mike R. Jay is a developmentalist utilizing consulting, coaching, mentoring and advising as methods to offer developmental scaffolding for aspiring leaders who are interested in being, doing, having, becoming, and contributing… to helping people have lives.

    Mike R. Jay
    Leadership University

    © Generati

    Learn how you may become a member of our Inner Circle and receive the cutting edge on the most current thinking in Leader Development.  Visit Inner Circle Membership.

    Disclaimer |  Terms Of Service |  Earnings Disclaimer |  Privacy Notice |  Contact Support |  Buy the Book |  Media Disclaimer