Crossposting is an old and established tradition in the Blogosphere, and I am happy to announce the blog of the Engineering Leadership SIG of the SD Forum is adopting it.
Kimberly Wiefling is a key person to making this Engineering Leadership SIG work. Her energy and enthusiasm are truly remarkable. She has agreed to cross post some of her work from SV Project Management on this blog. One of her postings has already appeared and some more will be appearing over the next few days.
If you have a blog you would like to have cross posted here, or have selected postings you would like to contribute to this blog, please send email to elsigblog@gmail.com or rlasater@hotmail.com.
More...
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Problem Solving and the Black Swan [Matt Schlegel]
In past blogs I have described the importance of creating a clear statement of the problem before you jump into a problem-solving project. The challenge with creating this problem statement is that not everyone has the same problem. In fact, during good times the types of problems that people have grow diverse and less severe. Then, in flies the Black Swan, a disruptive event that impacts a great number of people. This event presses the problem-solving reset button.
In The Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb describes the impact of infrequent events. Taleb calls such an infrequent event, “a Black Swan.” In terms of problem solving, the impact of a Black Swan event is clear – a large number of people come to share a common problem. Whatever smaller issues those people may have faced before, there is a huge problem in front of them that many must address.
In the corporate world, a Black Swan event may be any number of situations: the departure of an important leader, customer or vendor; the restructuring of a division; a merger or acquisition of another company. The list goes on and on. Any of these events gets the attention of everyone in the company and creates a natural urge to want to help solve the problem.
The great news about a Black Swan event is that it gets everyone focused and working together. In large organizations this is hard to do, but when it does happen, seemingly miraculous accomplishments can occur. For instance, once Apple was at the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990’s, the company became very focused on its “core” values and has thrived every since.
When people share a common problem, they are naturally compelled to work together to solve that problem. The important first step of any problem-solving process is the creation of a clear problem statement. Black Swan events grab everyone’s attention and help create a common problem for all. As if a reset button were pressed, it brings everyone to the first step in the problem-solving process. As organizations get larger and larger, these Black Swans can perform an important function in re-aligning people and creating a common problem statement. With that common problem, people focus their energy and overcome even the most difficult challenges. Today, as I reflect on the US and how divided the nation has become and remains, I wonder what Black Swan will cause us to focus our energies again.
_________________________________________
Matt Schlegel developed his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use the process to help companies solve big challenges, and folds those experiences into the refinement of the process. He also consults for companies developing products jointly with Asian companies. Matt can be found at www.sakinoconsulting.com.
More...
In The Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb describes the impact of infrequent events. Taleb calls such an infrequent event, “a Black Swan.” In terms of problem solving, the impact of a Black Swan event is clear – a large number of people come to share a common problem. Whatever smaller issues those people may have faced before, there is a huge problem in front of them that many must address.
In the corporate world, a Black Swan event may be any number of situations: the departure of an important leader, customer or vendor; the restructuring of a division; a merger or acquisition of another company. The list goes on and on. Any of these events gets the attention of everyone in the company and creates a natural urge to want to help solve the problem.
The great news about a Black Swan event is that it gets everyone focused and working together. In large organizations this is hard to do, but when it does happen, seemingly miraculous accomplishments can occur. For instance, once Apple was at the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990’s, the company became very focused on its “core” values and has thrived every since.
When people share a common problem, they are naturally compelled to work together to solve that problem. The important first step of any problem-solving process is the creation of a clear problem statement. Black Swan events grab everyone’s attention and help create a common problem for all. As if a reset button were pressed, it brings everyone to the first step in the problem-solving process. As organizations get larger and larger, these Black Swans can perform an important function in re-aligning people and creating a common problem statement. With that common problem, people focus their energy and overcome even the most difficult challenges. Today, as I reflect on the US and how divided the nation has become and remains, I wonder what Black Swan will cause us to focus our energies again.
_________________________________________
Matt Schlegel developed his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use the process to help companies solve big challenges, and folds those experiences into the refinement of the process. He also consults for companies developing products jointly with Asian companies. Matt can be found at www.sakinoconsulting.com.
More...
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Manage Cows, but LEAD People [Kimberly Wiefling]
Lately I have trouble saying “project management” because, when I do, I always have the urge to blurt out “You can manage cows, but you must LEAD people!” So I’m going to dedicate this week’s blogs to exploring leadership with no apologies to leaving out “management”, and even “project”, every now and then.
Most of the experiences that have increased my cynicism over the years are due to failures of leadership, both my own and others. I spent the first 10 years of my career naively expecting people in official leadership positions to step up, do the right thing and lead courageously, even at great possible cost to their own livelihood and career. (OK, I said I was naive.) From the perspective of my minuscule position of relative powerlessness, my organizations were steaming heaps of dysfunctional behavior and inefficiency, and what our official leaders needed to do seemed blindingly obvious. I just couldn’t understand why they were standing around smiling and slapping each other on the back about meeting monthly numbers while smoldering embers of inevitable corporate downfall were poised to burst into flames all around us.
It never occurred to me that things looked different from the top of the totem pole. It wasn’t until years later that someone told me that the hierarchy in companies is like a bunch of monkeys sitting in a tall tree. When you look down you just see a bunch of smiling faces, but when you look up . . . well, you get the picture. The guys at the top didn’t even perceive the gaping holes in our business fabric, while I saw tattered remnants resembling the effect of acid rain on clothing.
In those days I found myself constantly looking for help to descend from above, but help was not coming, at least not from that direction. The big whack on the side of my head that brought enlightenment was that I had a responsibility to lead no matter what my rank in the company. Leadership is not a position in a company org chart or a title on a business card. Leaders exist at all levels of an organization. They come in all shapes and sizes, from all kinds of backgrounds and different sorts of education. Leaders can be identified by the way they talk and the way they act.
Great leaders do not see themselves as victims of their circumstances. They do not lament their lack of formal authority, and they do not wait for others to come to their rescue. They accept responsibility for their contribution to the situation, and they are committed to making a positive difference.
What is leadership? Leadership is not the same as management. What’s the difference? In spite of the bovine reference, both are essential to successful businesses, but many organizations are over-managed and under-led. Budgets and schedules, while easy to measure and track, do not occupy the center of a great leader’s attention. Leadership is far different from management, and just as important. According to HBS’s Kotter, managers plan, budget, organize, staff, control and correct, while leaders set direction, align people, motivate and inspire.
Leadership is an inside-out job. I think of it as 5 concentric circles that build upon one another. It starts within through becoming consciously aware of ourselves, who we are, what we stand for, what we care about more than the next raise, promotion or the approval of those around us. Awareness enables choice, and is at the core of self-leadership. Once we can lead ourselves then we can reach out to lead others one-on-one. Aside from the example we set, the only way we have to lead other people is through communication, both talking and listening. Once we are capable of leading one person through effective communication we can tackle the more complex social dynamics involved in leading a team – keeping everyone rowing in the same direction. Beyond team leadership lays the challenge of leading a cross-functional organization, which is more like being the captain of a super-tanker. You can’t just grab the wheel and make a quick turn, and it can take a very long time to get your direction to turn into changes in where the ship is headed and how quickly. Beyond is the ultimate test of a leader, where culture, currency exchange rates and chronological obstacles plunge you into the truly Olympic sport of global leadership.
While leaders perform many valuable functions, the areas where they can provide the most practical benefit are:
- to help their people avoid two of the most common causes of failure: lack of clear goals and poor communication.
- to inspire people to overcome their inherent fear of failure and have the courage to set bold and challenging goals that may initially seem nearly impossible.
Many people occupy the position of leadership without demonstrating the qualities of leadership. Truly great leaders enable ordinary people to work together to accomplish extraordinary results out of reach of any one person’s grasp. Leadership is a journey to future possibilities that frequently seem impossible. Leadership unleashes the greatest potential of people in support of making a positive difference. And on a daily basis leadership is behaving in a way that inspires and sets an admirable example for other people. The purpose of leadership is to achieve what we cannot accomplish alone, to tackle dreams and possibilities that we can only fulfill together. Right now this planet is facing quite a few threats that could benefit from the collective genius of the human population. Based on watching the news (a big mistake: people who watch the news have been statistically proven to be more depressed), I’m thinking we’d better not wait for the official leaders of the world to solve these problems. Perhaps it’s time for a consciousness conspiracy? Wanna join?
Cross posted at www.SVProjectManagement.net
_________________________________________
Kimberly Wiefling specializes in enabling people to achieve what seems impossible, but is merely difficult. She is the author of one of the top project management books in the US, “Scrappy Project Management - The 12 Predictable and Avoidable Pitfalls Every Project Faces”, growing in popularity around the world, and published in Japanese by Nikkei Business Press. The founder of Wiefling Consulting, LLC, she consults to global business leaders. She spends about half of her time working with high-potential leaders in Japanese companies, facilitating leadership, innovation and execution excellence workshops to enable Japanese companies to solve global problems profitably.
More...
Most of the experiences that have increased my cynicism over the years are due to failures of leadership, both my own and others. I spent the first 10 years of my career naively expecting people in official leadership positions to step up, do the right thing and lead courageously, even at great possible cost to their own livelihood and career. (OK, I said I was naive.) From the perspective of my minuscule position of relative powerlessness, my organizations were steaming heaps of dysfunctional behavior and inefficiency, and what our official leaders needed to do seemed blindingly obvious. I just couldn’t understand why they were standing around smiling and slapping each other on the back about meeting monthly numbers while smoldering embers of inevitable corporate downfall were poised to burst into flames all around us.
It never occurred to me that things looked different from the top of the totem pole. It wasn’t until years later that someone told me that the hierarchy in companies is like a bunch of monkeys sitting in a tall tree. When you look down you just see a bunch of smiling faces, but when you look up . . . well, you get the picture. The guys at the top didn’t even perceive the gaping holes in our business fabric, while I saw tattered remnants resembling the effect of acid rain on clothing.
In those days I found myself constantly looking for help to descend from above, but help was not coming, at least not from that direction. The big whack on the side of my head that brought enlightenment was that I had a responsibility to lead no matter what my rank in the company. Leadership is not a position in a company org chart or a title on a business card. Leaders exist at all levels of an organization. They come in all shapes and sizes, from all kinds of backgrounds and different sorts of education. Leaders can be identified by the way they talk and the way they act.
Great leaders do not see themselves as victims of their circumstances. They do not lament their lack of formal authority, and they do not wait for others to come to their rescue. They accept responsibility for their contribution to the situation, and they are committed to making a positive difference.
What is leadership? Leadership is not the same as management. What’s the difference? In spite of the bovine reference, both are essential to successful businesses, but many organizations are over-managed and under-led. Budgets and schedules, while easy to measure and track, do not occupy the center of a great leader’s attention. Leadership is far different from management, and just as important. According to HBS’s Kotter, managers plan, budget, organize, staff, control and correct, while leaders set direction, align people, motivate and inspire.
Leadership is an inside-out job. I think of it as 5 concentric circles that build upon one another. It starts within through becoming consciously aware of ourselves, who we are, what we stand for, what we care about more than the next raise, promotion or the approval of those around us. Awareness enables choice, and is at the core of self-leadership. Once we can lead ourselves then we can reach out to lead others one-on-one. Aside from the example we set, the only way we have to lead other people is through communication, both talking and listening. Once we are capable of leading one person through effective communication we can tackle the more complex social dynamics involved in leading a team – keeping everyone rowing in the same direction. Beyond team leadership lays the challenge of leading a cross-functional organization, which is more like being the captain of a super-tanker. You can’t just grab the wheel and make a quick turn, and it can take a very long time to get your direction to turn into changes in where the ship is headed and how quickly. Beyond is the ultimate test of a leader, where culture, currency exchange rates and chronological obstacles plunge you into the truly Olympic sport of global leadership.
While leaders perform many valuable functions, the areas where they can provide the most practical benefit are:
- to help their people avoid two of the most common causes of failure: lack of clear goals and poor communication.
- to inspire people to overcome their inherent fear of failure and have the courage to set bold and challenging goals that may initially seem nearly impossible.
Many people occupy the position of leadership without demonstrating the qualities of leadership. Truly great leaders enable ordinary people to work together to accomplish extraordinary results out of reach of any one person’s grasp. Leadership is a journey to future possibilities that frequently seem impossible. Leadership unleashes the greatest potential of people in support of making a positive difference. And on a daily basis leadership is behaving in a way that inspires and sets an admirable example for other people. The purpose of leadership is to achieve what we cannot accomplish alone, to tackle dreams and possibilities that we can only fulfill together. Right now this planet is facing quite a few threats that could benefit from the collective genius of the human population. Based on watching the news (a big mistake: people who watch the news have been statistically proven to be more depressed), I’m thinking we’d better not wait for the official leaders of the world to solve these problems. Perhaps it’s time for a consciousness conspiracy? Wanna join?
Cross posted at www.SVProjectManagement.net
_________________________________________
Kimberly Wiefling specializes in enabling people to achieve what seems impossible, but is merely difficult. She is the author of one of the top project management books in the US, “Scrappy Project Management - The 12 Predictable and Avoidable Pitfalls Every Project Faces”, growing in popularity around the world, and published in Japanese by Nikkei Business Press. The founder of Wiefling Consulting, LLC, she consults to global business leaders. She spends about half of her time working with high-potential leaders in Japanese companies, facilitating leadership, innovation and execution excellence workshops to enable Japanese companies to solve global problems profitably.
More...
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Borrowing Borrowing Brilliance [Matt Schlegel]
In my previous blogs I have described a problem-solving process. By no means am I the first to describe a problem-solving process; there are many, many examples. In fact, I have recently come across David Murray’s book, Borrowing Brilliance, in which he describes a 6-step process. What is the same about Murray’s process and the one I have described in previous blogs? What is different? Why?
Murray provokes his readers by asserting that creativity is, in large part, simply borrowing ideas from others. He says that if you and your team allow yourselves to do this, you will enjoy much better solutions arrived at more quickly. Murray describes the first steps in this process by a series of four meetings:
So here’s how to incorporate the creative thinking process into the daily practices of your organization. Separate the concept development process into four different meetings, each with a different goal and different set of rules. These are:
1) a problem-definition meeting;
2) a borrowing-ideas meeting;
3) a new-idea meeting;
4) the judgment of these ideas at a separate time.
Holy smokes, these are exactly the same first four steps in the process that I have been describing! Coincidence? I hardly think so. If there truly is a fundamental method in the way that humans solve problems, and that method is somehow connected to the way the human brain works, then we would expect to see similarities in any problem-solving process described by a human. And, I think we do.
Here are the steps that Murray uses to describe his entire process:
The Six Steps to Business Innovation
Step 1: Defining ➜ Define the problem you’re trying to solve.
Step 2: Borrowing ➜ Borrow ideas from places with a similar problem.
Step 3: Combining ➜ Connect and combine these borrowed ideas.
Step 4: Incubating ➜ Allow the combinations to incubate into a solution.
Step 5 Judging ➜ Identify the strength and weakness of the solution.
Step 6: Enhancing ➜ Eliminate the weak points while enhancing the strong ones.
While Murray’s process gets off to a great start, it seems to get stuck in the latter steps. Incubating, Judging and Enhancing all seem very much part of the analysis process. Where is the part that the team makes a decision about the solution? Where is the part where the team sells that decision to management? Where is the part where solution is implemented and delivered? Murray’s process seems like a great methodology for an R&D department that is not required to deliver a final result but only well-formed ideas. The great clarity of vision with which Murray describes the first part of the process and the lack of clarity in the delivery part tells me much about Murray and what is important to him. It also provides me with clues about the part of the problem-solving process in which Murray excels – we all like to play to our strengths.
Every problem-solving process has its strengths and weaknesses (including the one that I have described.) In many cases, it is simply because the process is trying to solve only a very specific problem and not a general problem. In many cases, those strengths and weaknesses are attributable to the world view of the author. I love to analyze different problem-solving methods as I attempt to discover fundamental truths about human problem solving. Maybe you can help me? What is your favorite problem-solving method? The Scientific Method? A Bug Resolution Process? The Six-Sigma Method? Please share your methodology here and let’s discuss the similarities and differences between the different methods.
_________________________________________
Matt Schlegel has been developing his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use the process to help companies solve big challenges, and folds those experiences into the refinement of the process
More...
Murray provokes his readers by asserting that creativity is, in large part, simply borrowing ideas from others. He says that if you and your team allow yourselves to do this, you will enjoy much better solutions arrived at more quickly. Murray describes the first steps in this process by a series of four meetings:
So here’s how to incorporate the creative thinking process into the daily practices of your organization. Separate the concept development process into four different meetings, each with a different goal and different set of rules. These are:
1) a problem-definition meeting;
2) a borrowing-ideas meeting;
3) a new-idea meeting;
4) the judgment of these ideas at a separate time.
Holy smokes, these are exactly the same first four steps in the process that I have been describing! Coincidence? I hardly think so. If there truly is a fundamental method in the way that humans solve problems, and that method is somehow connected to the way the human brain works, then we would expect to see similarities in any problem-solving process described by a human. And, I think we do.
Here are the steps that Murray uses to describe his entire process:
The Six Steps to Business Innovation
Step 1: Defining ➜ Define the problem you’re trying to solve.
Step 2: Borrowing ➜ Borrow ideas from places with a similar problem.
Step 3: Combining ➜ Connect and combine these borrowed ideas.
Step 4: Incubating ➜ Allow the combinations to incubate into a solution.
Step 5 Judging ➜ Identify the strength and weakness of the solution.
Step 6: Enhancing ➜ Eliminate the weak points while enhancing the strong ones.
While Murray’s process gets off to a great start, it seems to get stuck in the latter steps. Incubating, Judging and Enhancing all seem very much part of the analysis process. Where is the part that the team makes a decision about the solution? Where is the part where the team sells that decision to management? Where is the part where solution is implemented and delivered? Murray’s process seems like a great methodology for an R&D department that is not required to deliver a final result but only well-formed ideas. The great clarity of vision with which Murray describes the first part of the process and the lack of clarity in the delivery part tells me much about Murray and what is important to him. It also provides me with clues about the part of the problem-solving process in which Murray excels – we all like to play to our strengths.
Every problem-solving process has its strengths and weaknesses (including the one that I have described.) In many cases, it is simply because the process is trying to solve only a very specific problem and not a general problem. In many cases, those strengths and weaknesses are attributable to the world view of the author. I love to analyze different problem-solving methods as I attempt to discover fundamental truths about human problem solving. Maybe you can help me? What is your favorite problem-solving method? The Scientific Method? A Bug Resolution Process? The Six-Sigma Method? Please share your methodology here and let’s discuss the similarities and differences between the different methods.
_________________________________________
Matt Schlegel has been developing his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use the process to help companies solve big challenges, and folds those experiences into the refinement of the process
More...
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Fractal Geometry of Problem Solving: how chaos becomes progress [Matt Schlegel]
I remember reading “The Fractal Geometry of Nature” by Benoit Mandelbrot many years ago. Mandelbrot made chaos cool. Since then the term “chaos” has been picked up by many disciplines, not the least of which is software product development. Often, chaos is the term we use to describe a messy, complex situation that we do not fully understand but that is required for creativity. Perhaps our perception of chaos is simply a lack of understanding of the fundamental geometric shape that can elegantly describe that creative process. Is there a fundamental geometry for problem solving and the creativity that comes with it?
Prior to Mandelbrot’s work on fractals, generating interesting graphical images by computer was extraordinarily processor intensive. Taking inspiration from Mandelbrot, Loren Carpenter realized he could create complex and realistic graphical simulations of nature using mere triangles, thereby greatly reducing the computation requirements. If you have not seen the movie he presented at SIGGRAPH in 1980, check it out here. Imagine creating all that from just triangles! This breakthrough was a turning point in the computer industry.
Isn’t problem solving another artifact of nature just like natural landscapes? Might not there be a fundamental fractal geometry for problem solving as well? In previous blogs, I have described an 8-step problem-solving process (9-steps by Enneagram count.) I often invoke an 8-section wheel to describe the process. I imagine that there is another 8- section wheel connected to each section of the main wheel, and another to each section of that, and so on in recursive fashion. This structure might form a problem-solving fractal.
Take the simple example of starting with step 1, defining the problem. At step 1, the problem is that “the Problem” is not yet defined. We need to find someone to clearly articulate that problem. We need to consider various ideas for how we might articulate the problem. We need to understand the impact of any articulation and the pros/cons of such articulation. We need to settle on one articulation and to make sure that everyone is in agreement with that articulation. We need to move on and use that articulation to drive the problem-solving process. And, we need to review that articulation periodically in order to ensure that it remains the correct articulation in light of any new data. In this fashion, we just used the entire problem-solving process to describe one section of the overall process.
Having an awareness of the scalability of the problem-solving process helps us better understand the ebbs and flows of the process and helps keep the team moving forward through the process. And, like using triangles for graphical simulation, it can be used to efficiently address the current problem confronting you, your team or your company, regardless of scale.
_________________________________________
Matt Schlegel remains a fan of Benoit Mandelbrot and recently enjoyed reading Mandelbrot’s book on markets entitled, The (Mis)behavior of Markets.
More...
Prior to Mandelbrot’s work on fractals, generating interesting graphical images by computer was extraordinarily processor intensive. Taking inspiration from Mandelbrot, Loren Carpenter realized he could create complex and realistic graphical simulations of nature using mere triangles, thereby greatly reducing the computation requirements. If you have not seen the movie he presented at SIGGRAPH in 1980, check it out here. Imagine creating all that from just triangles! This breakthrough was a turning point in the computer industry.
Isn’t problem solving another artifact of nature just like natural landscapes? Might not there be a fundamental fractal geometry for problem solving as well? In previous blogs, I have described an 8-step problem-solving process (9-steps by Enneagram count.) I often invoke an 8-section wheel to describe the process. I imagine that there is another 8- section wheel connected to each section of the main wheel, and another to each section of that, and so on in recursive fashion. This structure might form a problem-solving fractal.
Take the simple example of starting with step 1, defining the problem. At step 1, the problem is that “the Problem” is not yet defined. We need to find someone to clearly articulate that problem. We need to consider various ideas for how we might articulate the problem. We need to understand the impact of any articulation and the pros/cons of such articulation. We need to settle on one articulation and to make sure that everyone is in agreement with that articulation. We need to move on and use that articulation to drive the problem-solving process. And, we need to review that articulation periodically in order to ensure that it remains the correct articulation in light of any new data. In this fashion, we just used the entire problem-solving process to describe one section of the overall process.
Having an awareness of the scalability of the problem-solving process helps us better understand the ebbs and flows of the process and helps keep the team moving forward through the process. And, like using triangles for graphical simulation, it can be used to efficiently address the current problem confronting you, your team or your company, regardless of scale.
_________________________________________
Matt Schlegel remains a fan of Benoit Mandelbrot and recently enjoyed reading Mandelbrot’s book on markets entitled, The (Mis)behavior of Markets.
More...
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Problem Solving, the Brain, and the Enneagram [Matt Schlegel]
On the topic of problem solving and the brain, I want to bring to your attention a fascinating book called Personality and the Brain written by a local computer scientist and entrepreneur, Peter Savich. Peter became interested in the Enneagram and realized that there must be a link between how the brain operates and the core modality described by the Enneagram. His book makes a very compelling case for this link.
Peter asserts that there are two parts of the brain that drive personality, an old brain component, the amygdala, and a new brain component, the prefrontal cortex (PFC). The amygdala is in essence the fear processor, and the PFC is the optimism/pessimism processor. He goes on to describe how each of these brain components has a right side and a left side, corresponding with the right side and left side of your brain. And, each half invokes dominant characteristics. For instance, one side of your amygdala is your fear-aware processor (the flight processor) and the other is your fear-unaware processor (the fight processor). Likewise, one side of the PFC is your optimism processor (glass half full) and one side is your pessimism processor (glass half empty).
Just like there are 3 states of handedness, right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous, Peter asserts that both the amygdala and the PFC have three dominant modal states, and it is the combination of these states that give us the 9 states of the Enneagram. How cool is that! He goes on to examine studies from the body of neuroscience literature to show how pathologies in these brain components accentuate or diminish the behaviors that map to the behaviors described by the Enneagram, thereby making a very compelling case for connecting the dots between the brain and the Enneagram. I cannot thank Peter enough for developing and publishing this fascinating thesis.
With the help of this understanding, we are able to connect the dots from 1) a problem-solving process described by the Enneagram, to 2) the behaviors and capabilities important for each phase of that problem-solving process, to 3) our own unique set of behaviors and capabilities and, finally, to 4) our brain which governs those behaviors and capabilities. Just like the brain determines whether we end up being right-handed or left-handed, it also plays an important role in how we contribute to the problem-solving process.
____________________________________
According to Peter Savich’s framework, Matt Schlegel has an amygdala that is fear-aware dominant and a prefrontal cortex that is pessimistic processor dominant. This makes Matt uniquely suited for that part of the problem-solving process he characterizes as “finding the path of least danger.”
More...
Peter asserts that there are two parts of the brain that drive personality, an old brain component, the amygdala, and a new brain component, the prefrontal cortex (PFC). The amygdala is in essence the fear processor, and the PFC is the optimism/pessimism processor. He goes on to describe how each of these brain components has a right side and a left side, corresponding with the right side and left side of your brain. And, each half invokes dominant characteristics. For instance, one side of your amygdala is your fear-aware processor (the flight processor) and the other is your fear-unaware processor (the fight processor). Likewise, one side of the PFC is your optimism processor (glass half full) and one side is your pessimism processor (glass half empty).
Just like there are 3 states of handedness, right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous, Peter asserts that both the amygdala and the PFC have three dominant modal states, and it is the combination of these states that give us the 9 states of the Enneagram. How cool is that! He goes on to examine studies from the body of neuroscience literature to show how pathologies in these brain components accentuate or diminish the behaviors that map to the behaviors described by the Enneagram, thereby making a very compelling case for connecting the dots between the brain and the Enneagram. I cannot thank Peter enough for developing and publishing this fascinating thesis.
With the help of this understanding, we are able to connect the dots from 1) a problem-solving process described by the Enneagram, to 2) the behaviors and capabilities important for each phase of that problem-solving process, to 3) our own unique set of behaviors and capabilities and, finally, to 4) our brain which governs those behaviors and capabilities. Just like the brain determines whether we end up being right-handed or left-handed, it also plays an important role in how we contribute to the problem-solving process.
____________________________________
According to Peter Savich’s framework, Matt Schlegel has an amygdala that is fear-aware dominant and a prefrontal cortex that is pessimistic processor dominant. This makes Matt uniquely suited for that part of the problem-solving process he characterizes as “finding the path of least danger.”
More...
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Take stock of your problem-solving talents [Matt Schlegel]
In the last blog, I wrote about a talented right-handed pitcher. When it comes to throwing a ball, it is pretty easy for most of us to figure out which arm throws best. But what about problem solving? Each of us has a style that lends itself to contributing to the problem-solving process. How do we figure out what that style is and how we best contribute?
As you have read through the previous blogs describing the problem-solving process (and I hope that if you are reading this you will have done that), you may have been thinking to yourself about how you contribute at each phase in the process. You may have recognized those areas in which you feel you are strong or which you enjoy the most. Those are important clues in understanding where your personal talents lie when it comes to solving problems.
If we accept the 8 steps of the problem-solving process and acknowledge that as individuals we are strong in a few of the steps but perhaps not all of them, what happens when as individuals we attempt to solve problems? I can tell you from personal experience, I will focus on the steps in which I am strong and minimize or skip over the steps where I am weak. Here is how I would characterize myself: Firstly, I am not one to even make a big deal about problems. I may ignore them, live with them or tough them out. On the other hand, occasionally I get a “brilliant” idea that I want to try out. This idea will be a solution to a problem that I may or may not actually have. Yet, I will be so enthused about the idea that I will move forward and implement it, and I will be tenacious in doing so. After implementation, I will take steps to measure how effective the idea is in order to determine if it performs as I envisioned. At this point I usually stop and move on to the next thing.
So, which steps of the problem-solving process are my strengths and which are the weaknesses? Let’s start with weaknesses. I did not start off by having a clear problem statement, nor did I have any goals. I did not enlist the help of others. I did not consider many ideas, just the one that popped into my head. I did not explicitly analyze my idea, but there was the implicit analysis that my brain did to come up with the idea in the first place. I got very enthused about the idea, but I did not necessarily get others enthused about it. And, I worked hard to implement the idea and went back to see how well it worked. From this, you can see that I am personally weak in steps 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the process. On the other hand, I tend to be strong on steps 5, 7 and 8. Good to know.
And, dear reader, in terms of the problem-solving process, which steps do you identify in yourself as strengths? I encourage each of you to take stock of your strengths and understand how you best contribute to the problem-solving process.
Matt Schlegel lives in a household of 5 people, each contributes differently to the problem-solving process and two are teenagers. Matt’s keen awareness of his own problem-solving inadequacies may come from the constant and frank reminders of these inadequacies voiced by these teenagers. Kindly, his wife reminds him of his strengths.
More...
As you have read through the previous blogs describing the problem-solving process (and I hope that if you are reading this you will have done that), you may have been thinking to yourself about how you contribute at each phase in the process. You may have recognized those areas in which you feel you are strong or which you enjoy the most. Those are important clues in understanding where your personal talents lie when it comes to solving problems.
If we accept the 8 steps of the problem-solving process and acknowledge that as individuals we are strong in a few of the steps but perhaps not all of them, what happens when as individuals we attempt to solve problems? I can tell you from personal experience, I will focus on the steps in which I am strong and minimize or skip over the steps where I am weak. Here is how I would characterize myself: Firstly, I am not one to even make a big deal about problems. I may ignore them, live with them or tough them out. On the other hand, occasionally I get a “brilliant” idea that I want to try out. This idea will be a solution to a problem that I may or may not actually have. Yet, I will be so enthused about the idea that I will move forward and implement it, and I will be tenacious in doing so. After implementation, I will take steps to measure how effective the idea is in order to determine if it performs as I envisioned. At this point I usually stop and move on to the next thing.
So, which steps of the problem-solving process are my strengths and which are the weaknesses? Let’s start with weaknesses. I did not start off by having a clear problem statement, nor did I have any goals. I did not enlist the help of others. I did not consider many ideas, just the one that popped into my head. I did not explicitly analyze my idea, but there was the implicit analysis that my brain did to come up with the idea in the first place. I got very enthused about the idea, but I did not necessarily get others enthused about it. And, I worked hard to implement the idea and went back to see how well it worked. From this, you can see that I am personally weak in steps 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the process. On the other hand, I tend to be strong on steps 5, 7 and 8. Good to know.
And, dear reader, in terms of the problem-solving process, which steps do you identify in yourself as strengths? I encourage each of you to take stock of your strengths and understand how you best contribute to the problem-solving process.
Matt Schlegel lives in a household of 5 people, each contributes differently to the problem-solving process and two are teenagers. Matt’s keen awareness of his own problem-solving inadequacies may come from the constant and frank reminders of these inadequacies voiced by these teenagers. Kindly, his wife reminds him of his strengths.
More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
