Memorable Quotes - Steve Hardy
February 7, 2008We can tip-toe forward inch-by-inch with our head down in steadfast concentration and call it movement, but we cannot call it progress until we lift our head, run our eyes across the horizon and understand not only where we stand but also where we are going and why.
Are specialists grumpy?
December 5, 2007I came across the folllowing a while ago but hadn’t got around to adding it here. It seems to be a gross generalisation (no pun intented), but interesting nevertheless:
Karl Weick writes:
Generalists, people with moderately strong attachments to many ideas, should be hard to interrupt, and once interrupted, should have weaker, shorter negative negative reactions since they have alternative paths to realize their plans. Specialists, people with stronger attachments to fewer ideas, should be easier to interrupt, and once interrupted, should have stronger,more sustained negative reactions because they have fewer alternative pathways to realize their plans. Generalists should be the the upbeat, positive people in the profession while specialists should be their grouchy, negative counterparts.
via Bob Sutton.
Not Knowing
March 29, 2007As a consequence of implementing GTD this year–and largely sorting out my inbox–I’ve been reflecting quite a lot on some of my mid-to-long term goals. And this post inspired me to commit some of my thoughts here.
As regular readers would know by now, I’ve always had difficulty defining exactly what it is I do and more and more my blog seems to reflect the whole ‘generalist’ meme.
What is probably not as evident, but which is nevertheless just as important to me is the perennial question: what it is I want to do?
The challenge that being a ‘generalist’ brings with it is the difficulty of choice. How can I define something if I don’t know what I want? And as Pick the Brain puts it … “reality is complicated” and I don’t want to commit too soon.
There is a school of thought that says at some point you must decide, or otherwise ‘fail’. I’ve been counselled on a number of occasions from respected friends and mentors that at some point in time, I will have to choose a specific path to follow (read: to specialise?).
In his book Zen and the Art of Making a Living, Laurence G. Boldt cleaverly presents a system of four archetypes designed to help one tap into universal energies to re-write the script of your life. The Hero represents the Seeker of the Grail-The Decider of Roads. He suggests that “… to chose a life direction is the Hero’s greatest choice.”
Now on the surface this seems to indicate that one needs to make a clear decision, but is this necessarily so?:
The Hero is comfortable with not knowing, and yet he/she is not willing to tolerate confusion. His comfort with not knowing gets him going on the Quest; his unwillingness to tolerate confusion keeps the Hero going until he/she arrives at answers that are true for him/her.
There is one thing that is clear — I don’t, and never will, fit neatly into a predefined path. And as Pick the Brain puts it “maybe the most interesting people follow a path all their own.” It’s all about the journey, not the destination!
Integral Thought
February 19, 2007Nick just sent me a note pointing me to a wikipedia entry on Integral Thought. He thought that maybe it fits in with my generalist thinking a little. From the text:
“The word integral means comprehensive, inclusive, nonmarginalizing, embracing. Integral approaches to any field attempt to be exactly that—to include as many perspectives, styles, and methodologies as possible within a coherent view of the topic. In a certain sense, integral approaches are “meta-paradigms,” or ways to draw together an already existing number of separate paradigms into an interrelated network of approaches that are mutually enriching.”
Sounds like he’s right on the money!
And talk about syncronicity. Tony and I were only just discussing the other day the God v. Science and Creationists v. Rationalists meme that seems to be going around at the moment.
I don’t want to weigh in on this one, but perhaps a view that seeks a comprehensive understanding of humans and the universe by combining scientific and spiritual insights is a worthy opponent (alternative) in this debate?
Time To Think
February 9, 2007Dave Pollard is musing about our lack of time to think: to think deeply …
Not only are too many of us becoming too unpracticed at thinking, I believe many of us no longer have the breadth of useful information, or the generalist experiences and competencies of our ancestors, or the diversity of experiences, or the introspective, meditative, peaceful, uneventful moments, or the unhurried and pensive conversations to draw on, all of which comprise the raw material that effective thinking depends on.
There are a couple of reasons why this post piqued my interest:
- It calls for us (the royal we) to become more generalist. Now clearly here is a voice of reason!
- I’ve also advocated for a long time, the move towards business models that are more open and cooperative and for organisations to treat their staff more like adults than angst-ridden teenagers (inspired by Ricardo Semler).
- I’ve recently been implementing GTD (more on that later). There is some real synchronicity here. From my reading of the book, what David Allen advocates is a method for dealing with the ‘firefights’ and everyday issues SO that we DO have time to think. Is that not the whole point of GTD? From my own experience facilitating strategy and planning sessions, this bottom-up approach to planning is essential. You are never going to achieve the required level of introspective thinking or any productive thought unless the day-to-day is under some level of control.
I agree with Dave’s postulation that the solution lies in approaching management with a completely different mindset–one that empowers individuals to take responsibility, encourages them to act and most importantly, treats them like human beings.
