Month: May 2010

Achiever

The Achiever action logic is what we in the modern, developed world consider to be the optimum level of development for successful adults. The main thing for the Achiever is passion for achieving goals. So, the corporate world of targets and bottom line results is fertile ground for the Achiever.

The Achiever helps his organization carry out their strategy. Picture a project manager, juggling various tasks, people and agendas to achieve a defined result. With his “eyes on the prize”, the Achiever will move mountains to achieve his  goal.

Where the Expert loves to dig into the details and know everything there is to know about something, the Achiever is more interested in how things are in relation to the wider environment, and relative to the desired outcome.

Where the Expert is concerned with doing things right. The Achiever is concerned with doing the right thing to get the right result. They’re probably less concerned with the approach to be used.

The Achiever focuses on cause and effect, on consequences of actions, and on outcomes.

The Achiever will seek out and welcome feedback, but only if it helps them to achieve what they have already set out to do. They don’t like to hear that they may need to reconsider goal itself.

The Achiever recognizes that people have differing points of view and unique skills. The Achiever values teamwork and making and keeping agreements as a way of managing individual differences.

The Achiever has a rational approach to life. He knows the answer is “out there” even if it isn’t yet known. Many scientists operate from the Achiever action logic.

The Achiever often feels like there’s never enough time to do the all the things he wants to do. He may think that he’s taken on too much to fit into his available time. The Achiever often has a system for managing his time so that they can try to fit more of the important things into their life. It may be a priority to the Achiever that he balance his work life  and private life.

In the general population, we find that  about 35% of adults are at the Achiever action logic.

Opportunist

To the Opportunist, everything is about getting personal advantage and winning. The Opportunist makes things and people work by unilateral manipulation, or by getting the most personally advantageous trade -off possible.

The Opportunist views the world as “Me against Them”, and the and the main thing is to not get caught

The Opportunist can only view a short term horizon, and gives little or no thought to longer term consequences, or how his actions today affect other’s impressions of him or even his own success over the longer term.

The Opportunist values only short term, visible, costs and benefits: this week’s sales figures, or the best parking space, or the photo with the powerful leader. Luck plays a big part in success.

The Opportunist plays his hand close to his chest, because that’s the way he thinks others are playing.

The Opportunist might use flattery to get your help with something, or might feign sharing of his personal details to get you onside as a “friend”. But the Opportunist is no friend, and won’t hesitate to use you for his own gain.

Fortunately, Opportunists aren’t often found in positions of management. But you might have one in your workplace.

Distribution in managers: about 1%

Expert

Experts no longer identify with what makes them the same as the group. Now they value their special, unique skills and what makes them stand out from the group.

The shift from Diplomat to Expert can come about as the Diplomat begins to realize that they can belong to more than one group, each of which has different values. It becomes more and more difficult to know which group has the “right” values.

Experts depend less on others’ judgments of quality, and more on their own standards. But they can do this to the extreme: “My way is the only way!”

Experts sometimes defiantly and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge any authority but their own, or their craft’s ” best practices” or their craft hero’s values. In other words, unless you are a recognized authority on the subject matter, your opinion will not be worth anything to the Expert. Feedback is only welcomed from acknowledged subject matter experts.

The Expert is often a perfectionist, and therefore not such a good team player. They may try to take on a whole project by themselves because they know they can do it better than anyone else.

The Expert sees things as black or white. So an Expert manager may praise a job well done (that is, done to the Expert’s own standards) and criticize anything not done the right way (that is, not done the Expert’s way!).

The Expert’s aim for perfection can take its toll though: stress can be high, and there may be difficult relationships with colleagues.

Distribution in managers

  • 19%-68% of managers are Experts. This percentage is higher in more junior managers, and lower in senor managers.

You’re likely to know lots of Experts!

Me, Myself and I

Which is correct?

  1. Give the completed form to Sarah or myself.
  2. Give the completed form to Sarah or I.
  3. Give the completed form to Sarah or me.

Of course, it’s number 3. But many people actually talk like the examples in the other two. It’s often because they can’t remember the grammar rule once there is more than one person involved. Or they are trying to avoid the spotlight on ‘self’ that comes from me.

Here’s an easy way to figure it out, based on what you DO know.

Simply remove the other person from the sentence.

“Give the completed form to me.” You wouldn’t say “Give the completed form to I.” And most of us wouldn’t say “Give the completed form to myself.” Well, we DO hear people say that, but they sound very ignorant when they do.

Use myself only when you have used I earlier in the same sentence: ‘I am not particularly fond of goat cheese myself‘”

“Please send any comments to me.”

“I entered the comments in the database myself.”

“My husband and I are going on holiday.” (Not “My husband and me are… ” , not “My husband and myself are…”)

If the word is the object of a preposition (for example, to me, from me, about me, etc) then use me. I hear SO many people say, “It meant so much to my husband and I.”

It meant so much to I?

Ouch.

StatCounter

I installed Stat Counter on this blogsite a few days ago. It’s great! It counts hits, tracks new and returning visitors, their locations in the world, where they landed, where they exited to, how long they stayed and all sorts of other stats that I’m certain will be useful someday.

StatCounter make no secret of the fact that they aim to become the world’s number one web stat provider. Of course, they have Google Analytics (GA) to beat out.

A friend of mine had GA. When I first installed Stat Counter, I IM’d him to go see my website so I could watch the StatCounts climb. He said GA doesn’t show you your stats until the next day.

Want real time stats? I like StatCounter.

Diplomat

The Diplomat focuses attention on other people: family, friends, colleagues, the work group, the company or organization, church, or nation. Usually one of these groups is the primary focus.

The Diplomat’s chief desire is to belong, to be included in the group.

To the Diplomat, others’ values are the highest good. Others define what’s valued, not oneself.

The Diplomat can provide loyalty and goodwill that act as organizational glue. But the Diplomat tends to smooth over or avoid altogether any potential conflict — harmony is to be maintained at all costs. Thus the Diplomat can become alienated from their work associates due to a tendency to brush off criticism of the status quo or suggestions for improvement.

The Diplomat often speaks in cliches.

The Diplomat’s opinions are likely to be the opinions of the people whose approval matters to them.

The Diplomat attempts to deflect negative feedback, because it’s construed as loss of face or status.

Diplomats are locked into their action logic and tend to be blind to other possibilities.

The Diplomat is unable to criticize others and to question group norms, as these others are the source of one’s primary value: to belong to the group

Distribution in managers

  • <6% of senior managers
  • < 9% of junior managers
  • But approximately 24% of first line managers.

The figures suggest that a Diplomat action logic limits opportunities for promotion.

A devlopmental model of human meaning making

As human beings, we develop throughout our lives, and we do so along several lines. Some examples of developmental lines are: intelligence, cognitive complexity, creativity, interpersonal relations, morality. A developmental model helps explain how genius can be cruel, how artists can be narcissistic: we develop along these lines independently.

The line I’m interested in is referred to as “ego development” or “action logic” or “meaning making”. Some people refer to it as the developmental line of cognitive complexity. The main model is the Leadership Development Framework,  developed by William Torbert and his associates at Harthill Consulting, who expanded on original research by Jane Loevinger. I use the terms action logic, meaning making, developmental level, stage interchangeably.

This model explains a lot about how people develop and mature in the way that they observe the world and draw conclusions, what they notice, what they value, and how they make meaning of the world they live in.

Understanding this model can be instrumental in supporting staff to perform well in their jobs and in achieving personal satisfaction at work. Understanding this model can also help one to live a happier life: as someone said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

We develop through well-defined (and well-researched) stages throughout our lives. We pass through the stages in order, not skipping stages. We experience each stage in three possible ways:

  1. A peak experience gives us a brief and tantalizing glimpse of a later stage action logic. These peak experiences are exciting, can be life-altering and we recall and talk about them for a long time.
  2. When under stress, we regress to an earlier action logic, where we may feel more in control, or safer. Once the stress passes, or is managed adequately, we return to the action logic that is our ground of being.
  3. Our ground of being is the developmental level, or stage, or action logic, where we usually dwell. This can be determined by a professionally validated assessment, such as the Leadership Development Profile.

In future posts, I’m going to write about each of the 7 main action logics we encounter in the adult world.

There are earlier levels than Opportunist, but most of us pass through those as children.

There are later levels than Alchemist, but few adults reach these later stages.

So we won’t look at those here.

How to motivate (not)

People sometimes envy me, and I think that’s a bummer. The times I’m aware of it, it has to do with some perceived accomplishment of mine, that a person interprets as meaning that they can’t achieve it too. This is wrong on so many levels that it makes my head spin, and mires me in muck so that I can’t move.

Here are three scenarios I’ve noticed:

  1. I used to send out a newsy Christmas letter to friends and family. (I know, I know.) But I had moved from America to England, and there was a lot of interesting stuff to share about the differences in life in the two countries and my experience of the differences. One friend said this: “You write so well!! I LOVE to get your letters! I know I’ll never write this well, so I may as well give up. I’ll never write the great novel I’ve dreamed of, like, forever.” Or words to that effect.
  2. In a support group I’m part of, I share about my successes and not-so-successes. The latter are handled fine, with much building up and positive talk to fight my tendencey to succumb to the inertia of discouragement. The former have been met with “Everytime I hear about your achievements, I feel SO bad about myself. Why can’t I have the success you’re having? I want to feel happy for you, and I do, really I do. But why am I such a messed up person?” Or words to that effect.
  3. Once I was sharing with a friend my systematic approach to something I was tackling. I was telling how my strategies were intended to achieve an outcome that was in alignment with my purpose in life. (Yes, I really think like that. I know, I know.) And she listened politely for a minute, then said, “You should feel grateful for how much you have. You’re blessed with intelligence, health and positive outlook on life, which is much more than many people have. You should be satisfied with the abundance you have and not be so driven to get more.” Or words to that effect.

These examples are so much NOT the outcome I intended. They seem to indicate that:

  • I wanted to make them feel bad about their talents, to discourage them from trying to realise a dream.
  • I was ungrateful for what I have, and insensitive to other’s (self-perceived) sense of lack or not-good-enough inadequacy
  • their self-confidence was inversely related to mine: If I feel good about myself then they have to feel bad about themselves. What kind of backward thinking is that?
  • they believe life is a zero-sum game, where in order for me to win, you must lose. Or that there isn’t enough to go around, which means that what I get lots of, you won’t have enough of. How silly, really. Seriously.

In each of these cases, the message coming back to me from the world was that I had missed my mark. Where I meant to provide motvation, I de-motivated. Where I meant to bring a smile, I evoked pangs of defeat. Where I intended to be positive, I was felt to be insenstive.They compared themselves to me, and in their eyes, they came up short. I wrote not too long ago about No Comparison; I think it should be a rule for life.

I intend to look around me for instances where I am unintentionally feeding back something that’s not very useful to them, or that says everything about me and my personal hang-ups and very little (or nothing) about them or their way of being in the world.

Elections – first past the post

We’re in the final days of the national election here in the UK, and today I realised something that I hadn’t before. There’s a constituency in South Dorset where the labour MP won with 42% of the vote. That means 68% of the people who voted there, did not want HIM as their MP.

I’m not sure what sort of voting system would prevent that, but it does seem a bit wrong in a democracy, that the winner was not supported by the majority. But then I recall there are instances of that in the USA too. A person can win the popular vote and not be president. Call me idealistic (in a loud voice, please) but I think there should be a better way.

What about a system of run-off elections? If there isn’t a majority winner, a run-off of the top two finishers determines the winner. Or make it live on the telly, and you vote off the least popular, one after another, until one remains. But that would make it like Big Brother, where the eventual winner is the least unpopular, rather than necessarily the most popular, if you see what I mean. (And that’s sort of like it is now, isn’t it?)

It’s not a real answer.

How can you be sure that people who vote for candidates who don’t win a seat still have a voice in their democratic government?

Here’s someone’s suggestion: we hold a general election and vote for who we want as PM, and also one person as a representative MP. And then we seat the top 660 vote-getters as MPs. On second thought, that wouldn’t be so good either.

All the peeps who have degrees in politics, I could use your insight into this.

It seems a right mess.

Theoretically, a candidate could win his or her seat with a minority of his constituency’s support. Then they could win the leadership contest of his party with a minority vote as well. Then the party could come in third in the general election’s popular vote, and the hung parliament (no party with a majority) would force a coalition government, and they could decide to make this person Prime Minster of the United Kingdom. NO!

I’m told the Queen can just appoint her Prime Minister. What if Her Majesty rang ME to say “We require your service as Prime Minister”. Wow! That would be amazing. And in that way I could be Prime Minister without a single citizen having voted for me.

That’s my kind of democracy.