Follow Us Twitter Link | Email Us email us | 1.888.745.2520

Archive for the ‘personal change’ Category

Intrinsic Motivation: Doing Things Because They Matter

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

By William Seidman

I’m excited about Daniel Pink’s book Drive: The Surpising Truth About What Motivates Us.

Pink thinks “there’s a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.”  Intrinsic motivation, according to Pink, is what really motivates people. He calls autonomy, mastery, and purpose THE motivating forces, and the old carrot-and-stick approach “a lazy, dangerous ideology.”

Numerous good studies have shown that people want autonomy at work, and that it’s a better motivator than money. 

Drive is consistent with Cerebyte’s approach. We focus on the knowledge of an organization’s positive deviants. Social good is a powerful motivator for these workers. They’re driven from within and by the pleasure of doing things they care about — and that really matter, both to them and to their organization.

Changing Attitudes and Opening Closed Minds: Leaders Who Need Leadership

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

By William Seidman

We’re working on several leadership programs right now, leading an organization through a transformation.

We have built decent best practices that are different from the usual. We’ve been emphasizing “authenticity.”

When we talk about deploying the best practices, though, we get stuck.

After a lot of conversation and thought, we realized that the leaders who most need enhanced leadership capabilities are executives most convinced they are already great leaders. This mindset  is a good part of why they are powerfully resistant to considering their own need to grow and change.

Ironically, the best leaders are those who seek  out —  and are open to –  growth opportunities. They’re easy to work with but don’t need the development.

How do you you engage “leaders” who are so resistant to learning from others?

Experiential Learning and Conventional Learning: What Neuroscience Can Teach Us

Friday, December 11th, 2009

By William Seidman

I’m working with a company that is asking traditional instructional designers to develop experiential learning activities - which are different in conception, design, and actual practice from what these designers are used to doing. There’s an inherent struggle: it’s difficult to be learner-focused if you are sticking to traditional design.

In experiential learning, everything begins with the learner experience.

New ideas and new stimulation are useful only if they connect with the learners’ current abilities and ways of doing things - with who they are, right now.  A student isn’t a vessel into which the instructor pours knowledge.  In addition, the learning must have enough of the right types of repetition to be internalized.

Traditional instructional design is much more about telling people what they should know — and telling them very specifically what they will do — to learn something.

In my view, there’s an unspoken inherent mistrust of the learner in the process, and in any “teaching” in which the course designer and instructor are in charge.

The neuroscience of learning proves over and over again that experiential learning, in contrast, is all about providing learners with activities,  and trusting that they will learn the “right” lessons, and also trusting that they will continue to learn the right lessons often enough to produce long-term change.

The difference in perspective between a trusting and a not-trusting teaching method is where I’ve found great opportunities for learning, creativity, and growth.

Training for Learning and Real-World Application

Monday, October 12th, 2009

By William Seidman

I’m working in two settings now where there’s a tension between traditional classroom instruction and experiential learning.

Most training organizations like to train, which means classrooms, instructors, and - sometimes -elearning.

Most people prefer to learn, and they learn better when they can immediately apply what they’ve learned.

The art of training is to make classroom content tie tightly to real experience.

The art of experiential learning is to ensure that the right content is learned.

The trainers often want to drive the program, but this really doesn’t work.

Experiential learning is more powerful and effective, though it absolutely needs formal classroom instruction for specific skill building

Most of the people we work with stop talking about training and start talking about “learning activities” that include many forms of experiential learning as well as classrooms and elearning.

This broader definition is a good idea - the best idea - because it leads people to retain what they’ve learned and to be able to apply it to their real world.

From Transactional to Transformational: Teaching People to Think Big

Sunday, September 27th, 2009

By William Seidman

I’ve been working  on trying to make a transformation inside two organizations that are focused on the transactional.  In fact, they’ve been completely transactional: driven by tactical, daily transactions - daily orders, daily service requests. They quite literally have been pedaling as fast as they can.

One is a sales organization, the other is a service organization. Each would like to change its culture to one that emphasizes sustained client relationships.  

Organizational psychologist Ron Riggio’s distinction between the transactional and the transformational applies to organizations, too.

The direct customer contact people like the idea of becoming transformational because transformational jobs are much more interesting than transactional jobs.. The managers are having a hard time; most became managers because they were better at transactions than their peers.

Now they are being asked to lead a transformation - and they don’t know what to do; they keep trying to convert things back to transactions, which block the change to a transformational environment.

Our challenge is to help transactional people to become transformational people, because only then can lasting change occur.

Why There’s No Twitter Version of Successful Leadership

Monday, August 10th, 2009

By William Seidman

More on the issue of instant gratification versus “grit”: determination and consistent hard work:

Recently I was working with a VP of sales who wanted to train his 11 regional vice-presidents (RVPs)  how to lead through a significant change initiative.

The regional VPs had mixed feelings: they were under real and immediate pressure to make their numbers,  and recognized that leadership couldn’t happen without grit.

I asked them if they thought there was a Twitter version of leadership — 140 characters and instant leader. They laughed and realized that - like so many things worth doing - this was a long-term project.

But one of my colleagues thinks we should simply give up and stop trying to get people to move beyond instant gratification.

What do you think?

Grit, Determination, Persistence: The Value of Long-Term Effort in Developing Talent

Thursday, August 6th, 2009

By Rick Grbavac

An article by science and tech writer Jonah Lehrer in the online Boston Globe describes studies that point to the fact that grit and perseverance are better predictors of success than intelligence.  I found it interesting that, because IQ is relatively quick and easy to identify, researchers focused their attention on raising IQ and disregarded focusing on values of long-term development of talent.

Carol S. Dweck, psychologist at Stanford University, has said, ” One of the most important elements is teaching kids that talent takes time to develop, and requires continuous effort.” She refers to this as a “growth mindset.” Dweck compares this view with the “fixed mindset,” the belief that achievement results from abilities we are born with. “A child with the fixed mindset is much more likely to give up when they encounter a challenging obstacle, like algebra, since they assume that they’re just not up to the task,” says Dweck.

“..talent takes time to develop, and requires continuous effort.” If you want to develop the high-performing organization, it is not done with the fire hose approach.  It takes some time to develop the skills, grit and determination to be successful.

Lehrer goes on to say that praise for determination, trying, effort and grit are much better in the long run rather than praising for intelligence.  This research has great relevance for our education system and for our business talent development.  It also supports Cerebyte’s drip approach to becoming great at just about anything.

Wear Your Rose-Colored Glasses: A Good Mood is a Biological Reality and is also Good for Productivity, Creativity, and Vision

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

By William Seidman

We have observed that there is a noticeable change in the speed and quality of learning when people are feeling good about themselves. Kim Cameron  in his book Positive Leadership: Strategies for Extraordinary Performance  supports this.

Now there is more specific research that shows that a good mood makes learning more effective .   A University of  Toronto  study by Drs. Taylor W. Schmitz, . Eve de Rosa, and Adam K. Anderson, “Opposing Influences of Affective State Valence on Visual Cortical Encoding,”  strongly suggests that “seeing the world through rose-colored glasses is more biological reality than metaphor.” 

The study team used functional magnetic resonance imaging to look at how the visual cortex processes information when the subject is in a good,  bad, or neutral mood. Good moods enhance the size of the window through which we see the world. A bad mood shrinks creativity and productivity. This information is critical in terms of creating an organizational culture worth having. 

For the good of your organization, learn to think positively!

Remembering Ourselves/Revising the Past: Are Rose-Colored Glasses Hard-Wired?

Monday, June 8th, 2009

By Michael McCauley

As we work with companies to maximize their performance we often encounter a rather odd phenomenon: once the people in an organization have changed their behavior and internalized the new way of doing things, they deny ever having done things the old way. Even when we show them data that clearly illustrates the way they used to do things, they still deny that they ever engaged in the old, now outdated, behaviors. They claim that they have always done things the “right” way - i.e., the way they do them now.  How can that be?

I’ve been reading an interesting book, Why We Make Mistakes   by Joseph Hallinan . Hallinan finds that this tendency to see and remember our actions in self-serving ways is so ingrained, and so subtle, that we often have no idea we’re doing it. He cites a study of recent high school graduates now attending a local college. They were asked to recall their high school grades; researchers compared their remembered grades against the actual transcripts.

They found that no less than 29% of the recalled grades were wrong and far more grades were shifted up than down. This combined with other studies shows a significant predisposition for people to reconstruct their memories in positive, self-flattering ways.

These findings are confirmed by Princeton Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman . He has found that that most people, after they change their mind or behavior, reconstruct their own past opinions in such a way as to truly believe that they always thought or acted in a certain way. 

So, it seems that the responses we encounter are perfectly natural - people really don’t remember ever doing things the “old” way. It seems that we all wear “rose colored glasses” -they’re probably hard-wired, and we don’t even know it.

Your Brain on Failure

Sunday, June 7th, 2009

By Michael McCauley

Is failure actually good for you? Recent studies by Stanford University psychologist Carol Dweck  indicate that it is.  For forty years she has studied how people handle failure, and her research has led her to identify two distinct mindsets that dramatically influence how we react to failure. She’s recently published a new book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, which explains her findings.

 A “fixed mindset” is grounded in the belief that talent is genetic - you’re a born artist, baseball pitcher, or math wiz. People with a fixed mindset believe that they are entitled to success without much effort and regard failure as a personal affront. Conversely, a “growth mindset” assumes that no talent is entirely innate and that effort and learning make everything possible. Since the ego isn’t on the line as much, the growth mindset sees failure as opportunity rather than insult.

In her studies,  Dr. Dweck  tracked and compared brain waves of subjects with both growth and fixed mindsets. She  found that when those with a growth mindset fail at something, they actually enter a more focused mental state as they try to figure out their mistake and how to learn from it. On the other hand, those with a fixed mindset never enter this focused state of learning and show little, if any, advancement from failure. In essence, fixed mindset people don’t learn from their mistakes.

 Antoine Bechara, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at University of Southern California, has gone further and actually isolated the spots in the brain that are responsible for our fear of failure and our fear of success. These are the points in the brain where we debate risk and reward. By studying brainwaves emanating from these two locations, Dr. Bechara has found that in a normally functioning brain, failure is welcomed as an opportunity for learning, and for strengthening us.

What we learn from these studies is that failure is normal, healthy and necessary to learning. Great coaches and teachers know this, and they give us the opportunities we need to fail in a controlled environment so that we can learn and grow.

 
Better Tag Cloud