Blind Hire.

Would I ever hire someone for a position I had little knowledge of or a well investigated outline for? Would I ever base my hiring decisions on whether I like someone or because they think in a similar fashion as myself? I wonder this because it seems we make our voting decisions in much this way. How can I make a good decision on who I choose for President, Prime minister or any leadership position when I have no idea what the job requirements are or what challenges the position faces?

For instance:

• The country needs jobs – How are jobs created?
• National Debt is high –  What are the causes and potential remedies?
• Social Services are under pressure – Why and what can be done?
• Immigration challenges – What does this actually mean?
• Global economies are struggling – What are the causes and risks?
• Companies need to increase exports – Why, how and what resources are required?

If I can’t answer these kinds of questions at an informed, mid-range level, how do I choose a representative to handle them? Is it acceptable to make my decision based on how I ‘feel’ about the person without closing knowledge gaps with well-rounded information on the tasks with which they will deal? Perhaps they make me feel good about the way I currently think or promise to punish or remove the causes of my fear so that I can feel secure. Should I believe a candidate when they say I know, I will, I promise? Without deep understanding myself, how do I know that what they know and promise is suitable for the operating environment? How do I know that they have (or can gather people with) the skills and knowledge necessary to improve the situation? The current decision-making process seems to be quite irrational, based on media-fuelled emotion and conflicting desires coupled with a lack of understanding on both the causes of the current situations and how to improve them for the future.

Personally, with all of the complication this world has in it, I would have to question anyone that says ‘I know’ and when I catch myself saying it, I should question myself also. ‘I know’ is a conclusion and when people feel they know, they don’t worry about looking any further for potential errors, risks or opportunities. And, every time someone has said ‘I know’, at some point in the near or distant future, their knowledge is outdated, surpassed, irrelevant and what they know has actually become just another habit, possibly a harmful one at that.

I may be more inclined to lean towards someone that doubts a little, is somewhat uncertain but comfortable with the uncertainty as they are more likely to research, investigate, double check, consult, collaborate, try many things and continually adjust and attempt again. If they face uncertainty with a positive attitude, an optimism, an openness, an acceptance of risk and responsibility, then they may just be the right person for the job as each failure endured brings with it better information and creates a learning experience. And for them, each success is not an end point but a way point as improvement is seen as a continuous journey and change an inevitable part of any future.

But once I make the hiring decision, I must play my role. The role of supporter which is most important as it is the level of support that is the wind that drives change or the anchor that holds it in place. A captain can go nowhere with a ship at anchor but far with a dedicated and skilled crew and a good wind to fill the sails. Investing in the coming future can be expensive, difficult, scary and mistakes are likely to be made. Reminiscing in the past can bring feelings of comfort and safety through the golden lenses of memory and perhaps a desire to return to those times. Only one of these directions is ultimately possible.

Am I the wind of continual change or an anchor fighting the currents?

 

 

Where’d you get that box?

As the world gets more technical and market volatility increases, creative, out of the box thinking is in demand. The ability to think differently is seen as a desirable problem solving skill that is necessary for intelligent development of all systems and products. The call to get out of comfort zones, gain perspective and disrupt the status quo has pervaded every institution and industry globally. Escaping from this box frees us to evaluate, solve, create and innovate effectively but, what is this box that contains us?

Why the box?

Before going into the construction of the box, perhaps we should investigate why there is a box. The box is security. A zone where we can feel safe and comfortable. It is the known. What lies outside of the box is the unfamiliar, uncertainty, the unknown. The unknown is something we have come to fear. In the past, fear protected us from and helped avoid physical danger but as these threats diminished, fear was applied more and more to threats to mental concepts and as a result, we built imaginary walls to avoid the uncomfortable psychological unknowns.

Where did the bricks come from?

The walls of the box are made up of our learning, our culture, traditions and habits. Our beliefs. They have been passed to us from parents, peers, teachers, governments and media and keep us in line, consistent and on the right side of wrong. Some of these beliefs have developed through experience, but even these events have been passed through the filters of already established beliefs and therefore the judgement process of experience is likely to be biased.

Why is it hard to escape?

Getting out of the box is a challenge. This is due in part to the fact that much of the beliefs are inherited from culture and tradition, endorsed by authority figures and instilled and practiced from a very young age. This early adoption makes it feel as if these systems are a fundamental part of us and further, group pressure creates a microcosm steeped in habit with a ‘safety in numbers’ mentality built to protect it. We are also taught that discomfort and mental stress are negatives and should avoid people, situations and ideas that stress our mind or question personal beliefs with which we are already comfortable. Another factor that comes into play is that the brain tends to avoid areas where it has to critically think. Thinking is surprisingly energy intensive as is growing new pathways, so the brain seems to prefer using habit profiles to deal with events, even if these models perform poorly or inefficiently. These processes and others result in our beliefs becoming habituated, our thinking automatic and actions robotic. And, since we continue to avoid discomfort rather than investigate variation and potential error, we choose to feel right without actually knowing if this is the reality.

Fight or question?

Another concept  that hinders our escape is a ‘fight for what you believe in’ mentality. From this ‘right’ position we judge the positions of others as wrong and will attack or insulate ourselves from them. If belief systems are largely built in the past, blind and untested, ‘fighting for what one believes in’ seems like a dangerous stance, don’t you think? As the saying goes, ignorance is bliss; another comfort zone. The more investment spent on maintaining the walls, rather than questioning their construction, the stronger and higher the walls become and the less likely the other side can ever truly be seen.

Is there a door?

Understanding is always the path and to develop this, discomfort is required. Mental discomfort. Rather than stand in mental safety, think in turmoil. Investigate the origins of a few beliefs and discover how little influence you have actually had in their development and how thin the evidence may be in supporting them. This will hint at sources, validity and the relevancy of other held concepts. Rather than avoiding and discounting differing views to stay comfortable, embrace them as an indicator of your unknown and a direction for continued self-discovery. It is comfortable to hold the position of ‘this is the way I am’ as it takes a position that these systems are out of personal control but, without thorough investigation, how does one know whether this is the case? Understanding this at an intellectual level is relatively easy, the understanding at an experiential level is another matter completely.

The wide uncertainty.

Dissolve the box, and freedom is found. This is where situational sensitivity and creativity can flourish, ideas compound and continual disruption takes place. Out here, groupthink is abolished, diversity investigated and effective communication and cooperation thrives as conditions improve through questions, trial, error, discovery and critical thinking. Without the box, curiosity gets investigated with true scientific process to increase understanding. And, since the origins and process of belief creation are known, the cycle can be broken, the box disappears, and it can never be used to cage another mind.

Taraz

[a Steemit original]

Position+

Professional environments have changed markedly in the last few decades. In most fields, hierarchical, chain of command processes have been (or are in the process of being) replaced by flatter, side by side forms. Departments are broken into semi-autonomous units, units into smaller cells and self-directed individuals populate each compartment. Very few employees currently rely entirely on someone telling them what, how or even when to do it. On top of this, necessary skill sets have expanded considerably. Previously, a specialist largely focused on their particular core area but, with optimisation for efficiency and profit, positions have been combined and a kind of job creep has taken place. Everyone is now required to be able to play several roles. The butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker has become the Catering and Lighting specialist.

These ongoing changes throw up many challenges but also many opportunities. The stability of a specialisation and job for life may be gone, but the freedom to explore options and self-direct a career path is wider than ever. Being irreplaceable within an organisation is almost non-existent but, the ability to move within and externally is high and the low safety within large organisations can be offset by the chance to take part in startups and small business growth. Depending on how you look at it, these changes may threaten a current position or offer broad opportunities to move. To Stay or to Move?

That is the question, but it doesn’t matter which side an individual favours, both require the same approach. Skill growth.

If you want to stay the same, change.

Many organisations are looking to change. The results enjoyed in the past are increasingly being challenged as globalisation, competition, technology and world events place pressure on process and result. Establishing new value systems, restructuring and shuffling can only bring about limited changes in the development an organisation craves. Large changes are not made in the rules, they are made by the people.

Because of this, organisations expect that actors within will have a change mindset, be willing to learn, follow and promote change as well as be proactive in progressing change processes themselves. This means that if one wants to stay in the same position, it is necessary to develop the job to fit the needs of the changing organisation and therefore build personal skills that fit the new position requirements. Successfully doing this is about as stable as one can make a position in the current business environment.

Of course, this doesn’t cement a position in the organisation. However, if personal and development takes place and one does find themselves on the open job market, a change mindset, enhanced skills and future thinking goes a long way in demonstrating value and securing another role. Or creating one.

If you want to change, change.

As previously stated, the changing environment comes with many opportunities to move and grow but generally, these new opportunities may require skills that were not previously necessary to be a specialist. As a result, many have not actively sought to obtain these skills for two reasons. The first being that to effectively develop, one must understand what is being trained and as this is future based, a lot of uncertainty exists in defining this. And secondly, investing in something that has no demand seems illogical.

Development always requires learning and the pathways are difficult, errors possible and investments can be lost. But, each movement brings more opportunity and learning, deeper information and potential course correction. The more learning that happens, the more real estate for movement opens up.

To see opportunity, one has to be able to identify it and to benefit from it, one has to understand it. In other words, you have to understand before you see. Investing in something before demand has its risks but the upside is that it can stimulate demand whilst simultaneously creating the learning opportunities required. The first drives the second. Waiting for the inverse, demand drives learning, means that it is always a chase to close skill gaps and competition is likely to be higher and the according benefits, lower. The early adopters are both the ones that potentially lose their investment AND make the greatest gains.

Choice comes at a price

Everyone wants the freedom to make their own decisions (at least at some level) but this comes at a price. The price is responsibility. Self-direction comes with consequences. Positive growth is available for the taking, but so are negative results. Leaving decisions up to others may mean that blame can be laid on the shoulders of the decision maker but, allowing them to make the decision is a decision itself and some responsibility must be taken for a negative outcome.

Many are frozen in the headlights of choice, unable to make a decision from so many and questioning their judgement when they do. The paradox of choice is that the more there is, the less decisions get made. And with so many small, inconsequential choices available, difficult, meaningful choices are left unmade. Many people spend hours deciding on which coffee table or car to buy but hardly a thought goes to which professional skills to improve. These crucial decisions are made by default settings that are more likely to be suitable for a past gone, than the coming future.

Make a move

Expecting skills to build in the workplace is a suitable approach but remember that the skills generally learned on the job are skills suitable for that particular job. If the aim is to move to a new position, some different skills are likely required. If one can preempt the upcoming skill requirements of a new position or organisational change and close the learning gap, opportunities are not only easy to identify but also demonstrate willingness and ability for the next position.

Fast learners may only appear so

Fast learners are often fast because they already have a foundation built for the tasks required. They have closed gaps. An organisation can spend months developing a change program and nothing on building the skills in their people required to efficiently implement the changes.

If an individual has invested in independent self-development, when the inevitable changes arrive, one can not only appear as a ‘very fast learner’ but also become a leader within. Once a leader, steps can be made to develop similar skills in all personnel, and a very effective change leader for all future implementations is born through creating future leaders and highly-skilled, self-directed and effective followers. If leadership is not desired, a fast learner is highly prized by leaders in an organisation and is likely to retain a position over another that has an aversion to change.

It is your move

Some may leave personal development up to their organisation, which is fine, but comes with a narrowing of the path. Organisations tend to help personnel be better at their current job rather than close gaps towards a future position or what is in the best interest of the individual. This is natural as the immediate needs of the organisation take the lions share of the attention.

Often though, this comes at a future (unforeseen) cost which may be very high if coming trends are not coupled with the skills necessary to take advantage. In cases like this, an organisation can not only be left wanting, but leave personnel behind the eight ball in a competitive job market.

For an individual, the safer personal option is to actively continue self-development, close gaps, broaden knowledge and skills. Investigate and question current positions, possible positions and desired positions. Find alternative solutions, variations in thought and process and understand the pro’s and con’s of each. This requires investment.

Perhaps money, but more likely the most precious resource of all, time. Spending this time on personal growth activities may be the most important investment you ever make. If your organisation can’t provide you this time resource, personal time has to be used. It is up to each of us to be more than the butcher, baker and candlestick maker. Not because our organisation demands it, but because we require it of ourselves.

If you are a manager, leader, owner or decision maker looking for improved results or continued market strength: commit heavily into investing in your people the best you can. If you are an individual that wants job security and opportunity, don’t leave it up to them.

Taraz