Some Fundamental Considerations on ‘Managing Personal Effectiveness’?

Foreword

Offered as a preliminary exploration rather than a conclusive doctrine, this piece is an open question.   An invitation to engage in a dialogue of possibilities.  It ventures into often-unquestioned territories of personal development and educational norms

It posits an approach that places paramount importance on an individual’s sovereignty over their judgement and action, suggesting that true ‘ownership‘ of these aspects is crucial to personal ‘response-ability’.   It argues that without such ‘ownership’, the potential for fully leveraging personal potential is significantly compromised.

The argument presented diverges from the traditional prescriptive models of personal development, challenging the efficacy of instructive education that can prioritise external benchmarks over internal validation.

It advocates for a transition from an externally referenced ‘exclusive’ mode of thinking and towards (fully) ‘inclusive’, internally referenced thinking. Though this shift demands greater rigour, it promises a more powerful and self-determined path to learning and development.

A path that facilitates such rigour.

Offered, merely as a crude and preliminary exploration rather than a conclusive doctrine, this piece invites readers into a dialogue of possibilities.   It is an invitation to reevaluate and possibly, reimagine the foundations upon which we build understanding of our personal effectiveness.   As I continue to strive to refine and expand upon these ideas, I invite all comment and contributions.   Feedback is warmly welcomed. Only through the lens of diverse perspectives can the nuances of this proposal be fully explored and its presentation made more accessible. Future iterations and extensions will seek to integrate such concepts.

Feedback reduces the clumsiness of my attempts and enriches the discourse on navigating personal development, in a world that too often favours conformity over individuality.

Introduction

This piece is an open ended attempt, firstly to identify and explore essential core fundamentals that underlie and underpin our behaviours and determine the effectiveness of our individual endeavours.   Secondly, it investigates how such fundamentals are reflected at the societal level and how they constrain relationships between a society and its individual members.

Finally, it considers some possible implications for life in today’s environments.

It offers only tentative propositions which should be considered inadequate and certainly, no prescriptive advice or answers.   Should you draw implications arising from the content, they are for you to consider and exploit as you chose in the varying social environments you encounter.

It remains however, merely an outline sketching.   Further.   There is scope for future expansion yo which, your contributions are invited.

On Effectiveness

Every endeavour yields a result, even if not satisfactorily completed.   If no one is aware of it then it has zero effect and is ineffective.

If it is noticed, then is has had an effect on whoever is affected by it, some more powerfully than others.   Some may approve and others, abhor.

However, whether negatively or positively rated, its ‘effectiveness’, is proportional to the strength of its effect, as well as the ease and efficiency with which it was delivered.

On Personal Effectiveness

The world we live in; is a world shaped by the results of our endeavours.   The sum total of all human effectiveness.   Though opinions may vary on some effects, they, surely, reflect intent.   ‘Purpose’ is implicit and it indicates scope for learning and manageability.

Indeed, is not ‘personal effectiveness’, the sole core manageable resource, upon which all human endeavour rests?

For the purposes here, I am defining ‘Personal Effectiveness’ as

“The effect that a person has on their environment and the people in it, as assessed by the other people in that environment.”

It is constrained by the following:

1. “It is thus the product of the value of the perceived effect and the efficiency with which the ‘person’ executed it”
2. Note that: “As different affected individuals, will assign differing evaluations, there can (will) be differing consensus evaluations.”
3. “It is your choice with whose values you aim to align”

On Personal

There is an ‘industry’ that purveys prescriptions for improving ‘personal effectiveness’.   For some, such prescriptions may seem to offer benefit but the price of adoption is a limitation on one’s degree of freedom and resultant los of flexibility.

Whilst this piece does not suggest specific action, it does, strongly advocate for retention of personal sovereignty.

On Fundamental Considerations

‘If I were an alien visiting earth (and my wife sometime thinks I am) I would marvel at the time spent on the trivial and the lack of attention to the fundamentals’.

—-Stephen Hawking

This piece attempts to identify the core fundamentals underpinning ‘personal effectiveness’ and pay them some attention

Consideration of ‘fundamentals’ may benefit from approaching with a mind-set shifted from that employed to exploit ‘detail’.   We accept ‘detail’ as supported by ‘evidence’ and ‘theory’ and seek to gain confidence from corroborative validation.

On Fundamentals

‘Fundamentals’, are not supported by ‘theory’ but rather are the building blocks upon which they are based.   Perhaps, we should regard ‘fundamentals’, merely as propositions and constantly, test and challenge them.   A ‘fundamental’ gains robustness and is validated only by the degree by which it is is challenged.

If  you can achieve a goal WITHOUT what you propose is a  ‘fundamental’ determinant, then you have demolished the validity of your claim.

If one cannot find redundancy, then its candidacy stands – till next time – and one can maybe risk exploiting it with increased confidence?

The starting point

In order for one’s action to be regarded ‘effective’, it should be aligned with a ‘purpose’ which another (or others) will value.   Thus, ‘purpose’ is defined as the ‘fundamental’ objective.   So how to progress?

The process

In order to proceed, one needs:

1.  To be ‘aware’ of the prevailing situation.   An ‘awareness’ comprised of the data available from: the current environment, one’s past experience and the specification of the goal one aims to achieve.
2. To  make the best ‘choice’ from the various options discernible, in order to make one’s:
3. ‘Response’.   Note, that a ‘response’ can include a decision to do nothing.

So, the process is a nested model of a repeating three-stage cycle of; “Awareness – Choice Response”, where the ‘response’ is presented to a society comprised of individuals, each of whom has the same processing mechanism.

Where there is a significant individual or a group consensus ‘response’, it adds to the (initiating) individual’s ‘awareness’ and aids in guiding their ongoing ‘purpose’.

When the ‘choice(s)’ they make are optimum, they may be regarded as ‘wise’ and reflect ‘wisdom’.

On this basis, it is proposed that we regard the ‘choice’ process and its ‘purpose’, as guided by ‘wisdom’.

Wisdom

From the argument, so far, since ‘purpose’ seems to manageable and if ‘Wisdom’ is its guide, it remain s the sole, manageable resource, so far proposed.

After thirty years and several workshops and encounters, it has not been possible to identify any manageable element more ‘fundamental’ than ‘wisdom’.

However, in order to manage it, it has been found useful to regard it from differing perspectives, from which, strategies can be derived.

The following model has developed over over thirty years and started when a psychologist friend and I sat down and sketched a block diagram model for a functioning human.   Of the various elements we drew, we could only find three were directly manageable.   We felt that this, simplistic model, was likely insufficient and included a fourth ‘wild-card’ element, also presumed to be directly manageable.

Presented over six years or so, in workshops to several hundred people, this model proved useful, when solely considering individuals.   However, when application in social contexts was considered (particularly an MA course module in a university business school), a fourth element was found necessary and added.

This version must still be presumed inadequate and the ‘wild-card’ remains.   Though all challenges presented, so far, have failed to eliminate any proposed element or validate another.

At this stage, twenty five years ago, the elements were essential core skills, present in every human ‘response’ and in the absence of any one, that response was impossible.   They, thus would seem to be, universally ‘fundamental’ to all,  management.

These four, however are interlaced skills and cannot be regarded as components of ‘wisdom’, for which, to date, no determining ‘fundamentals’ have been successfully proposed.

Four  proposed perspectives on Wisdom and Four (inter-related) core skills:

• From the domain of (the illusion of) ‘certainty’, an ability to manage one’s assumptions of ‘reality’ or – ‘belief’, ultimately(?) based upon one or more presuppositions.
• From the domain of ‘uncertainty’, an ability to manage one’s ‘curiosity’.
• From the domain of ‘focus and redundancy’, an ability to manage one’s ‘concentration’.
• From the domain of ‘relevance’ (to the occasion),     an ability to manage one’s ‘timeliness’.

The proposition is that in the absence of any one of these, ‘purposeful’ activity cannot be accomplished and all other skills are composites of these four core elements.

Further, that the level of these skills combined defines an individual’s ‘capability’.

Note that this differs from an individual’s ‘competence’ which is an (arbitrary & segmentary) external evaluation of specific performance.

Beyond the Individual

I would find hermit life unrewarding.   Living with others of similar mind (not identical, for I would find myself the most boring acquaintance) could offer benefits, mental and physical, supportive, challenging and rewarding.

Individuals group into communities, cultures, societies, motivated by common areas of interest and agreement, leading to levels of ‘consensus’ but having to accept an accommodate varying viewpoints which necessitates degrees of ‘compliance’.

Similarly, subcultures in a society, can  have similar relationships with society, though they have greater inertia and lessened flexibility.

Though groupings of individuals, contain the accumulated characteristics and abilities of their members, They can only, at best, express them in proportion to levels of ‘consensus’ previously achieved.

• In order to survive, a society favours stability and will tend to resist change.

Whereas.

• In order to survive, an individual needs to be creative and can create change.
• Where there is ‘consensus’, there is no tension.

But

• Where consensus is lacking, there can be tension and ‘compliance’ is required.

• The balance between consensus and compliance within a society determines its stability and the individual’s freedom.

‘Consensus’ and ‘compliance’.

Where interaction is between but two individuals of ‘like mind’, consensus can be high and (first order) feedback can be rapid.  Diversity and inertia, both increase with group size and opportunities for consensus declines.

With increasing growth:

• There are increasingly varying evaluations to a particular ‘response’.
  • Increasing inertia in the system slows feedback.
  • Such growth leads to larger agglomerations and various cultures arise within societies.
  • Increases in inertia and reduction of areas of ‘consensus’, can weaken structure and cause members to question their membership and seek alternatives for commitment.

The solution is ‘compliance’ or better, a balance, acceptable to members, between ‘consensus’ and ‘compliance’.

If society has purpose, then it must retain and encourage membership. That members ‘comply’, adequately, is prerequisite.   The device at its disposal is ‘social conditioning’

Social Conditioning:

• A commonly acceptable resource for Societies, that aids social conditioning, is to encourage  and develop, customs, traditions, etc. that help form and maintain social bonds
• Further compliance (& even maybe, a measure of ‘consensus’) can be achieved by instructive education.
• Where necessary laws demand compliance.

These measures for social conditioning facilitate member’s acceptance of ‘compliance’, and facilitate negotiation/communication between individuals and society.

The cost is that members, must, to an extent, relinquish their degree of freedom but the contract between society and its members. Requires, that there be alignment

Further exploring this dynamic, each partner, whether an individual or a grouping, uses the same ‘awareness – choice – response’ mechanism to evaluate the extent of their ‘affection’ to any ‘response’.

An individual’s ‘awareness’ is from but a fraction, of the data available in the environment, plus a fraction of that in their store of experience.

Similarly, most(?) members of society, may well be unaware of an individual’s ‘response’.

Society’s judgements derive from several ‘consensuses’ of the perceived value of the individual’s ‘response’.

So, we have a metaphor somewhat like a coin. –  On the face, the individual and on the obverse, society.

Each draws on the same ‘awareness – choice – response’ model, though that of society, has less freedom and greater inertia (of responsiveness).

As the coin is flipped, humankind advances.

Within society there are numerous cultures and smaller associations and strive as they may to maintain stability and resist change, there are always elements of dynamism.

Thus, at any time, some ‘purposes’ will be better fitted to some sectors than others.

At the interface of societal relationships, each partner commences from an ‘awareness’ of the other party’s ‘response(s)’.

The; individual’s, ‘choice’ process is charged with selecting and developing a ‘response’, of optimal alignment with a need perceived in the culture/society from ‘the data bank of experience’ – or ‘beliefs’.

This process is driven by ‘purpose’ and guided by ‘wisdom’.

There will be several options, presented to ‘awareness’ to be addressed/exploited. The logical first selection is to make an ‘assessment of value’, of that of greatest ‘fitness of purpose’.

Next a strategy is needed, based upon an ‘assessment’ of which is the best to fit that purpose or of greatest ‘fitness for (that) purpose’.  From here follows a ‘response’, based upon an ’assessment’ of the most fit resources (‘knowledge’) currently accessible.

Society’s task is much simpler:.

Since it arises and is sustained by consensus, the terms of reference against which it makes ‘assessment’ are fixed (by previous consensus). Moreover, the criteria for evaluation are similarly predetermined.

These criteria are from consensus standards of reference, derived from current knowledge in use, which is historical.

The more society changes, the more standards will lag behind current knowledge.

Society thus makes its assessments, constrained by fixed frames of reference and normally, issues an evaluation of degree of ‘competence’. It does this by detecting and measuring error (or ‘incompetence’).

An individual, is not so constrained but has a full degree of freedom (‘capability’) – until becoming a member of a society.

Different individuals will have varying degrees of alignment with a consensus.

Where aligned, they are, perhaps but slightly, constrained and this does not significantly affect their ‘choices’.

Where they are not aligned, they must, at least, consider compliance and accept its impact and consequence.

Social conditioning will modify their approach, towards a bias of response strategy commencing with ‘knowledge in use’ and leading to assigning ‘competence’.

Even so constrained, intuition can promote individuals to commence with ‘purpose’.

If a society were open to all changes, existing consensus would likely evaporate and with it, the society.

Societies must, therefore, resist change and strive towards unchanging continuity. Compliance aids society in maintaining stability and limiting change.

Both parties’ assessments commence within a framework derived from experience set against the data perceived in the current environment.

Societies’ frames of reference are fixed in customs, traditions, laws, etc., which arise from earlier consensus.

Acceptance of some, older, elements may demand substantial ‘compliance’.

Compliance and Social Conditioning:

Compliance may be a glue of society. For individuals who are willing, it can help lubricate the wheels since, for without consensus, it is hard to go against one’s belief.

Where society can persuade us to adopt an alternative, ‘popular’ belief, life becomes easier. Successful social conditioning aids stability and can dampen change. A society that didn’t engage, would, surely be negligent.

An individual’s ideas come from experience of the (external) environment. These are then related to their fund of experiencing.  There they gain ‘value’ as we ‘learn’ to take ‘ownership’ and responsibility for them.

For society, its ‘ideas’, customs, traditions and particularly, laws, are clearly stated. They are presented as ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ which need no further development or justification.

If societies could interrupt our own ‘learning’ processes (as early as possible) and offer a system of ‘education’ which facilitated our willingness and ability to comply, life could be made ‘easier’ for all.

As individuals, though we hold our beliefs (both positive and negative) with varying degrees of ‘confidence’.  Though they have ‘value’ rather than truth, they are held as ‘good enough’ to be taken as if ‘true’ for the purpose in hand.

For society, were all to assume absolute truth, that would inhibit any opportunity to improve understanding and that would aid its purpose of maintaining stability.

If our natural ‘learning’ process could be redirected to accept ‘facts’ and ’truths’ aligned with society’s modelling, society’ would have an ‘education’ system, fit for (that) purpose.

The following parameters might be effective in such an extreme system:

• Data should be presented in separated ‘disciplines’ by ‘teachers’, each ‘expert’ in their field.
  • It should be presented with adequate (supporting) logic as being ‘true’.
• • ‘Students’ should ‘buy-into’ the models presented.
• • They should be able to reflect the instruction, be tested for lack of competence and ranked hierarchically and with incentives.
• • This hierarchy should extend throughout the system..
• • The higher the elevation in the hierarchy, the greater the esteem.
• • Questioning should not be, overly, encouraged.
• • Authority should not be questioned and any questioning should be inverse to the status of the ‘teacher’s’ elevation in the hierarchy.
  • ‘Wisdom’ should be regarded as a rare commodity, existing, at the peak of the hierarchy and possessed by but a few ‘wise men’.

Such an extreme model may be found perhaps in some authoritarian, religious fundamentalist cultures.

Though less common than in earlier times, behaviours implicit in and some practices emanating from, such cultures are not unknown today.   For societies crave stability and fear change.

Overarching the foregoing, survival and progress, both of individuals and their societies are dependent upon the four skills that guide ‘wisdom’ and enable the pursuit of ‘purpose’.

Without that individuals can retain their degrees of freedom, their ‘personal effectiveness’ is compromised and innovation supressed, resulting in reduced capacity to cope with the unforeseen.

A continuing dilemma for both societies and their individual members, especially in times of change?

Consequences and Characteristics of the Four Core Skills

As the proposed four skills derive from four perspectives regarding the single fundamental determinant of ‘purpose’ and its guide, ‘wisdom’; no single skill leads to enhancing the process, which leads to enhancing ‘personal effectiveness’.

Only full combination can be effective (though deficiency in any one skill will restrict the outcome) as they are interdependent:

Believing, strives to provide the bases upon which we can make assumptions of ‘reality’.   It requires; focus in order to be able to discriminate and curiosity and timeliness, in order to give a measure of validity and relevance, to anything offered as a term of reference.

Garnered from previous experience, it is comprised of informative elements, held with varying degrees of ‘confidence’ and coded as ‘beliefs’.

Curiosity, strives to provide protection against the unforeseen and where possible, to reveal opportunity.   It rests upon belief and timeliness to provide, at least, frames of reference as well as focus to enable discrimination.

It could be regarded as ‘thinking’ or (when shared) ‘communicating’.

Concentration, strives to optimise efficiency by eliminating redundancy and thus providing focus.   It needs the guidance of the other three, in order to know what it can focus on and may safely eliminate.

And

Timeliness, strives to align proposals for a ‘response’ with current conditions and requirements in the social environment.   If it is to evaluate what is required, needs to know the proposals offered by the other three, in order to be able to evaluate and select the ‘wisest’; the most ‘fit for purpose’.

So, if ‘wisdom’ is the guide to ‘purpose’, ‘timeliness’ is its arbiter.

Although it is important in sequencing ones internal processes, it becomes, perhaps, predominantly important once any social interface is introduced.

Their Characteristics:

‘Belief’:

For the Individual:

Geo. Box:-  “All theories are wrong but some are useful”

For the individual, ‘beliefs’ are the standards of reference – the start point.

The listing below sketches possible guidelines:

• The set of beliefs in use, though they may be held with varying degrees of confidence or ’value’. have sufficient validity to sustain the current position, of an assumption of ‘reality’
  • Every belief in ‘conscious awareness’ is supported by another/other belief/s.
• • Every belief can be improved upon.
• • Beliefs DO change.‘NEW’ ideas can be ‘half-baked’
• • It is possible to validate – check for relevance and ‘weakness’ (via ‘curiosity’).
• • A ‘weakness identified, holds potential for a future ‘strength’.
• • We hold beliefs (some of them ‘negative’) of which we may not be fully conscious.
• We find it difficult to act counter to our beliefs.

For society:

• It may(?) acknowledge that each person’s understanding(s) (beliefs) and network of ‘beliefs’ are unique.
• • Members beliefs, where there is ‘consensus’, are an aggregation.
• • When so aggregated, they are assumed to be ’true’.
• • Where ’consensus’ is not universal, members must comply.
• • Society must facilitate ‘compliance’, since its lack could lead to fragmentation.
• • ‘Social conditioning” can facilitate ‘compliance’.
• • Societal ‘beliefs’, are its ’scaffold’
• • .They are expressed in traditions, customs, laws, etc.
• To maintain structure, societal ‘beliefs’ (must) lack flexibility.

Curiosity:

At the individual level:

• ‘Curiosity’, implies, recognising, evaluating and comparing information, a skill of divining and organising from a field of uncertainty. It is, at its least, our protector: Please don’t try crossing a busy road without it!
• We can, maybe, be tutored to a degree in this respect.
• Is not, curiosity also, a driver of our genius?
• Please note that I think we are all blessed (or burdened?) with genius and that its expression, yields both positive and negative effects.
• Curiosity is a uniquely individual.  It is the engine of our thinking process (communicating with ourselves), powered by questioning and developing our ideas (‘beliefs’).
• It operates with maximum of degree of freedom, though, in practice, it is limited by ‘buy- in’ to social conformity (including instructive education?).

 

When others are involved:

• Curiosity, is an essentially and uniquely individual characteristic and though interaction with others may, at times, add stimulation, the best Society can do, is to state a (shared) belief that things are inadequate and that a solution is needed.
• Society finds difficulty in accommodating it, especially where it promotes change faster than the existing rate.
• When communicating with another, we seek to further our thinking and add value.
• Our thinking process is one of ‘asking’, seeking value, we do not ‘tell’ ourselves anything.
• We seek information from another to further our own thinking.
• Though we cannot fully comprehend another’s beliefs, we can gain benefit from being ‘curious’ about them.  Moving from our internal dialogue to a shared one.
• The tool here is ‘communication’. There is surely a need to defer to the other’s interest, for, unless they also see potential for benefit, why should they waste effort? – (compromise their ‘concentration’?)
• Unless both parties defer to each other on a win – win basis, it is unlikely that their two curiosities will blend to create further value.

 

Some possible points on Curiosity (communication) for consideration:

 

Logic does not have to be binary – there is always another option – from which flows:

• Curiosity does not have to stop activity – nor does it have to be stopped by activity (this is a process some call ‘suspending judgment)’ – and:
• “There are no answers – only questions” – Questions add value (to belief[s]) These strategies need to be considered where others are involved:
• Other people have different standards of reference (that is why it’s worth sharing communication with them).
• Therefore, seek to understand (operate in) the other’s reality.
• Prioritise other peoples needs so that communication is not suspended (Win/Win/Win strategy).  

 

Concentration:

Individually

The model of ‘concentration’ proposed here is one of prioritising and evaluating, by a process of minimising redundancy.

One of enhancing the desired object by minimising the undesired – As a chemist would concentrate a solution by evaporating the solvent or an engineer would improve a signal to noise ratio by focusing the signal and reducing the noise – Essentially, the concept is to eliminate unnecessary distraction(s).

Or “less is more” and not-doing the ‘unnecessary’.

This includes not spending unnecessary time ‘concentrating’. A skill that can be developed at the personal level:

Some points for consideration:

• We cannot ‘NOT-CONCENTRATE’, there is always something in our focus
• • Taking a regular breaks
• • .Optimising relaxation and operating with as few resources as possible.
  • Considering the skill of ‘fractionating trance’ (successive short intervals of focus interrupted by breaks to, otherwise irrelevant, issues).

Society’s’ ‘concentration’ strategy: is to compartmentalise/departmentalise shared values/beliefs in varying rigidity from customs and traditions to laws with penalties.

Timeliness

For the individual:

• This skill is largely intuitive
• There is a time and place for everything, ‘timeliness’ guides ‘wisdom’ to maximise relevance of activity.
• Presented by the other three factors with a selection of ‘awareness’, of both, the prevailing external data and previously experienced internal data, it guides strategy.
• In doing so it acknowledges patterns and rhythms in the, individual, societal and environmental domains.
• These include the various stages in the path of life; ‘bio-cycles’ including, brainwaves, to wakefulness, hunger, etc.; social/cultural events and patterns (e.g. days and hours of employment); daylight hours, seasons, etc.
• When ‘timeliness’ is effective, it coordinates an individuals’ patterns with those prevailing external environmental and social constraints.

Society sets the standards by its (various) feedback.

Only when a standard is (well) “past sell-by date” does it realise that adjustment is necessary.

‘Wisdom’:

Is thus constrained by the skill levels of all four aspects. This constraint, is the product and not the sum of the four separate levels of skill.

Suggested four-dimensional Improvement Strategy:

Please note that this is not included as ’advice’ but to illustrate the relation between the skills and that strategies (as are too commonly advocated) for enhancing particular (compound) skills, would be inappropriate at this (fundamental) level.

If we have four skill levels of say, 40%, 60% 70% and 80%, then ‘wisdom’ can only score 13.44%.  A 10% improvement in any one factor, will also yield an increase of10% in the level for ‘wisdom’.  The aspect scoring 40% is, probably the easiest one to which to add the 10%.

Reconciling the Individual/Societal Relationship

In the , hypothetical, case of a perfectly stable society, there could be no change.   All individuals would happily accept restriction of their degrees of freedom and of ‘curiosity’ to a point where they “did not upset the applecart” with creativity.

However, even in the most successful authoritarian societies there is dissent.   Change cannot be totally eliminated and the relationship between individuals and society is a constant negotiation between maintaining stability and fostering creativity.

 

Change

Whenever an individual’s (non-conventional) response promotes a new consensus, change arises and whereas the, previous, unchanging environment rested upon a circular cycle, such interventions disturb and cause the process to become spiral.

The greater the number of accepted interventions, the greater the rate of change and this, maybe, more closely represents our experience today.

We are experiencing escalating rates of change.

If the, hypothetical, unchanging state above is one extreme, the polar opposite, is one where change predominates to a point where when we awake, yesterday’s reality is redundant.   Again a hypothetical extreme.

James Thurber suggested that:

“In times of change, learners will inherit the earth, whilst the learned will be wonderfully equipped for a world that no longer exists”

And

“It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers”

Today, we experience differing rates of change in various aspects of our lives.

The tabulation below, indicates responses likely to be appropriate at these extremes.

Maybe a selection and blending from this tabulation could be appropriate?

Solely for convenience, the characteristics appropriate to zero change, are labelled as those of an (extreme) ‘Expert’.

Since those proposed for maximal change would, in any reality, be inappropriate to a point of ‘idiocy’, I am, for convenience, labelling them as those of an ‘Idiot’.

The table below suggests ‘responses’  at the two extremes.

Last things first; Since ‘personal effectiveness’ is determined by society. In order to be ‘effective’, an individual must always comply with the prevailing ‘Social Requirement’. Thus, whatever the state of development, such conformity must prevail.

With a minimal rate of change, social requirements can be clearly defined, stated and learnt. At the other extreme, requirements would change so rapidly as to be unclear and ‘Expert’ conformity with ‘yesterday’s’ requirements would prove ‘Idiotic’.

The above highlights the nature of society.   Society directs the individual ‘Expert’ when there is no change.

It is, however, the ‘Idiot’-(?)-creator who directs society, should change predominate.

In order to conform one’s Behaviours must be appropriate.

In a strictly unchanging environment, effectiveness can be served by competitive relationship when opportunities are limited. On the other hand uncertainty can prevail in an era of change and co-operation offers potential to maximise short-lived opportunities.

Though ‘Management’ can serve the administration of a stable environment but ‘Leadership’ is needed to move forward from the potential of chaos at a point of change.

In either case, energy is needed and where it is seen to be misapplied, stress may exhibit its side effects.

The expert’ approach is to limit its effect since this does not-change the status quo.

The ‘idiot’ approach seeks causality and an opportunity to increase efficiency. This however promotes change.

An ‘expert’ sees clearly defined ‘responsibility’ as the tool for social compliance whereas the ‘idiot’ seeks the ability to respond. I call this ’response-ability’. Note that, though in a stable society, such a response may be better – it could lead to change

Even in an ‘unchanging’ society, people pass on and their replacements need development.

The ‘expert’ approach preserves continuity by training to an established competence.

The ‘idiot’ approach of encouraging personal capability, may extend skills or even cause a change of frames of reference.

If, when communicating, one ‘tells’ another, the communication is better preserved within current convention(s), whereas if one ‘asks’, there is a possibility that creativity may result. Perhaps even in change?

In an ‘unchanging’ society, only an ‘ídiot’ would dare.

In general then, the best response strategy may be reactive unless the rate of change is adequate to receive one, pro-active

It is, however, difficult (maybe even nigh on impossible) to engage a behaviour counter to one’s under-pinning beliefs and values.

In an unchanging environment, beliefs in conventional obedience serve well towards a success factor.  Change may render a convention obsolete.   Freedom and flexibility of belief, become increasingly important with enhanced rates of change.

Problem and Solution Strategies are best served by differing beliefs and values according to environmental stability. ‘Controlling symptoms to fix it’ will not disturb the environment whereas exploiting the potential in the causality to make an improvement may do so.

One’s response to change and Risk Strategy are based upon, ‘expert’ beliefs that arise in a range of the worth of avoiding, containing, resisting, and limiting, to preserve stability. An ‘idiot’ acceptance, maybe to the point of welcome, leads to a desire to tread new ground and exploit potential.

Society provides strong motivation to ‘buy into’ received theory in use, yet full ‘personal ownership’ of one’s own ‘wisdom’ is required to be a ‘fully qualified idiot’.

Thus the CRITERIA for an ‘expert’ are ‘truth’, certainty and fitness for purpose ( since fitness of purpose must, universally, be accepted to preserve stability). Only an ‘idiot’ lives in the dangerous world of uncertainty, ‘value’ and ‘wisdom’ and queries fitness of purpose

Underlying all these beliefs are ultimate frames of reference that must for an ‘expert’ be external and require acceptance of received theory. ‘Idiots’ experience reality from their internal frames of reference, lost within fields of creating personal theory.

At our core – our Identity – that which defines us, the foundation to our beliefs and values and thus of our behaviours.

In an unchanging world our identity could become solid, stolid even. Even our ultimate ‘expert’ could become bored if capable of achieving such qualification and our ultimate ‘idiot’ surely totally manic long before change became infinite?

These are terms of convenience for this context. ‘Expert’ and ‘idiot’ are not intended for real individuals or real circumstances. I guess we each have and maybe recognise, elements of both of them in our several aspects.  Including our identities.  Perhaps we are all ‘expiots’ or ‘iderts’. I prefer the former, if only for the sound of it.

Remember that whilst the ‘idiot’ is always inappropriate and the ’expert’, may often be adequate (-just). An ‘expiot’ gets lucky (-sometimes)!

So, as we observe ‘expiots’, at the extreme polarities of rates of change, we may find the convergent thinking styles where change is unknown (divergence could upset such a tidy apple-cart) becoming increasingly divergent, as change renders established points for convergence obsolete.

In terms of alignment with their resourcefulness and orientation, we would likely observe use of ‘conscious’ conventional ‘logic’ in stable environments. Change, encourages less reliance on fully ‘conscious’ awareness and more on ‘intuition’ (inner-tuition?).

Appropriate approaches at the two extremes, contrasts a move away from attention to surface detail and towards fundamental overview (and purpose) as the rate of change increases.

So, change throws up dilemmas, some of which, the following table may (over) illustrate?

A Further step forward in the Development of this Model

Almost thirty years ago, when I presented this (and further) material as part of an MA course at a UK university, we encountered a dilemma arising from the tensions between individuals and established norms.

Participants were required to provide ‘personal ‘overview, including a dissertation and through their ‘personal’ assessments, to claim numerical evaluations, based on their own (defined) value logic but aligned with the university’s terms of reference.

Initially the university’s response was that there were books on ‘self-assessment’ that participants could use for guidance.  I felt that such resources could only impose restrictions on the degrees of participants’ freedom and they were thus inappropriate to assessment of a truly ‘personal’ investigation.

Aided by a mentor who devised the matrix below, the participants gained confidence in accepting a task which most had initially found, a daunting, if not insurmountable obstacle.

This matrix enabled individuals to present and justify, Their ‘personal’ assessments, without constraint, to a culture to the satisfaction of both parties.

Beyond this practical application, this device proved, even at that time, to have broader relevance, illuminating opportunity to exploit this model.

Twenty five years later, in today’s environment, changes perhaps give it greater relevance.

Where others are involved, we are in ‘society mode’ and unless in a small and familiar group, in which, we are sufficiently confident to engage in true dialogue, we will likely start negotiations in the top left hand corner.

Though true  dialogue is, in my experience, too rare, it often starts bottom right, addressing ‘fitness of purpose’.  Where there is adequate mutual trust, communication can (occasionally) lead to no particular individual claiming credit for creation

‘Society’, with its constrained degrees of freedom, defines the ‘rules of play’ and must approach with a perspective from the top left.

It will find difficulty navigating beyond reflecting and investigating, each to the levels of Knowledge and its fitness for purpose. The resulting ‘response’ being a ‘broadcast’ rather than communication.

Whatever, this process has inertia and is considered (the outcome logic is irrelevant).An individual, guided and protected, by accumulated experience and protected by their ‘wisdom’, has ‘purpose’.  That purpose is to communicate in the currency of ‘value’ by offering ‘response’ to perceived societal needs.

A consequence of several individuals’, (frustrated) ‘curiosity’ may lead to a consensus statement of a societal need. Since society cannot express ‘curiosity’, it makes statements of confidence of the existence of a problem and ‘tells’ us what it requires.

Aware of such statement, individuals are guided by ‘wisdom’, whether or not, to address the issue, on the basis of the ‘fitness of purpose’ of such endeavour.

This first stage question is essentially:- “What’s the best thing to do now?”

Next, ‘wisdom’, aids our selection of an appropriate strategy from our accumulated resource of experience to be most ‘fit for purpose’.

Progress, this far, is often without (‘conscious’) consideration or inertia. Only at this stage, is detailed knowledge necessary.

Where knowledge elements are missing, providing one is operating in a known field, this is today, but small problem.

One has access to global knowledge at a few keystrokes, investigating first and then reflecting.         A system almost ’topsy turvy’ to that of schooling and academia.

Thurber (1894 – 1961) quipped:

“Women are wiser than men because they know less and understand more”

In his era, women had less access to teaching than men and without judgement on the effect of gender on inherent wisdom, he maybe, had some basis for such observation.

Were they assisted in their wisdom by not having impairing by beliefs imposed upon them through being taught?

Nevertheless, even in an environment where change seemed almost infinite, everyone would need some foundation of experience and skill(s) in communicating.Is there a minimum of ‘teaching’ necessary, before one can take ownership of responsibility (or better, ’response-ability?) and move to ‘learning’?

Are we at, or moving towards, a time when ‘less teaching is more learning’?

If so, let us beware the danger of having ‘too little’.

If we are moving towards a time, where effectiveness will rest upon the exploitation of ‘wisdom’, can that ‘wisdom’ be more easily defined and if so, how might it look?

Within the model developed so far, ‘wisdom’ could perhaps, be a concentration of ‘beliefs’, derived through ‘curiosity’. Such, ‘beliefs’ would, very likely, differ from our current understanding.

Change could render ‘yesterday’s beliefs’, so short lived that ‘buy-in’ (to teachings) would no longer be sensible. They would have to rest upon ‘owned’ experience. The particular experience, of being and not being, ‘timely’.

Though society would, probably recognise ‘curiosity’ as its life blood, it could only do so where its members respected each of their peers’ individuality, communicating always on a win-win basis.

‘Wisdom’, would be a (the?) core constraint. Is that not so today?

Is there, or could there be, a facilitative/investigative process centred on ‘purpose’ and ‘fitness’ and could such a process define underlying essentials for personal knowledge? If so, what might they be?

In my life, I must have spent more than 30 years in courses of instruction.

If I reflect on the value added to my life and how long I should have taken to acquire the knowledge of value, crucial to enable my engagement and survival and to transport me to my current state, it seems that I should have acquired it in a matter of months (less than a year).

Furthermore, my most valuable enabling, has been derived from experiencing.

Nevertheless, the idea of taking full ownership from day one scares me beyond contemplation.

I would need a base before commencing such a project.  I guess I would need to have:

• confidence in the rules of engagement.
• At least, a minimum of competence in the tools and process of communication in order to negotiate my path.
• Sufficient language skills and this task would include some, communicable method, of quantifying value.
• Confidence in a model of human motivation and the elements on which it rested. I think that much of this, a young child assimilates through normal experiencing.

Of the rest, I feel that elegant facilitation could, maybe, service my needs, without unduly impeding my personal flexibility.

Could exploration of the two party – three stage process, resting on four determining perspectives, as proposed here help(?)

In the model proposed, there is a system with two processes of ‘awareness – choice – response’.  One of which is owned by the culture and the other owned by individual members.

Communication between them, forms and develops the culture. Where there is a response, in any way creative, we surely now, have a learning system?

Is there a difference between ‘management’ and ‘learning’, and if so, should there be? Surely ‘learning’ is ‘easy’ and its ‘not-learning’ that’s ‘hard’. Surely one cannot not learn? In response to a ‘teaching’ experience, one has infinite choice of responses:

“I don’t understand” – “I still don’t understand” – “I’ll never understand” – “I hate this subject” – “I hate the teacher” – etc. etc.

Or:

“that’s interesting – it fits with my other understandings” – “that’s interesting – I’d never thought that way before. It seems that it could open doors to things I can’t, currently comprehend”, etc. etc.

Insofar as these presuppositions have value, is it possible to ‘teach’ or can one merely demonstrate a base model and at best, attempt to facilitate others’ understandings in the hope that they gain personal value from the interaction?

How few fundamental skills, do aspiring members need to acquire, before they can own responsibility for their learning process and engage with and contribute to their culture?

Cultures, within society, arise from consensus of opinions of the individuals within it.

Unless the requirements for conformity are relaxed, such consensus then tends to limit further contribution. Should this process prevail, (theoretically?) we could arrive at a static and unchanging position.

Clearly, this is only hypothetical.

The Latest Step

At the end of 2023, some twenty four years since I had last engaged with this ‘stuff’, my son enthused to me about available Artificial Intelligence and how it helped him with a book he was writing.

I accessed a couple of systems on the ‘web’, ran some old notes on this stuff) by it, inviting critique and also became ‘hooked’.

It seemed, not only to offer encyclopaedic detail but to be able to evaluate and sort it logically.

Like previous experience with effective mentors, one could engage in empathetic dialogue but with clear bias, against which one could develop and hone thoughts.

The necessity to be able to utilise relevant detail had been greatly facilitated by information technology over the previous twenty years or so.

At that time mobile phones were just that, an early Nortel product failed – “Who wants a camera on their phone” and internet searching was by ‘dial-up’ and laborious

By 2023, even in its current state, AI offered validated information that was now virtually instantly available.   One could ask for options and discuss their benefits/disbenefits.

The struggle to find relevant detail was becoming redundant.

One’s actions could now be ‘purpose-led’.

CONCLUSION

“The ideas proposed here are merely an, exploratory rough sketch – an outline which I hope no one ‘buys-into’.   An attempt to access those fundamentals that enable us, both as individuals and as members of society.

The model offered is a developing one and I hope that I have illustrated some of the changes, so far.

In times of significant change, ‘product (and policy) lives’ become shortened and prescriptive practices less durable and the ability to adapt and maintain personal sovereignty becomes crucial.

External frames of reference and exclusive thinking styles become redundant.

Adopting an internally referenced, inclusive approach, though challenging, can be liberating.

It does however, require full ‘ownership’ of the risk of doing what is ‘good-enough’.

This becomes the new ‘right thing to do’.   Where ‘ownership’ moves beyond merely having ‘bought into’ something and to being aware of what one is aware of.

It is perhaps a plea for ’curiosity’. and a move towards becoming ‘purpose-aware’

Hopefully, this article may encourages curiosity and a shift towards being ‘purpose-aware’, challenging conventional wisdom that, too often prioritizes conformity over individual innovation.

How might you reinterpret or expand upon these ideas? What additional questions do they raise for you? By engaging in this ongoing dialogue, we can collectively deepen our understanding of ‘personal effectiveness’ and its broader implications.

“Or:  Jose Silva;

“The mind is like a parachute, it only works when open

”Alternatively:

The more ‘expert’ the path you chose, The more conformity requires that you minimise your curiosity and if that be your choice.

What do you chose to do, that A.I. cannot, today, (or tomorrow?) do better than that to which you could reasonably aspire?

In our current reality, who doesn’t face this dilemma, and how to resolve it, whilst remaining a member of society?

Perhaps: (from an Indian tantra)

“Embrace changes but do not repudiate your own values

And that:

If ‘Goals’ are the objectives of purpose – Obstacles are also ‘Goals’.

Curiosity? It’s just, another Dilemma.   Or may it be the fundamental dilemma and/or its answer?

I hope that this invites further questioning and exploration.   Rather than seeking to provide definitive answers, the aim is to foster a mindset of curiosity and continuous inquiry

The thoughts offered here are not ‘mine’ but the product of dialogue and only dialogue can extend them.

“Note: The documents on this site are intentionally exploratory and inconclusive. their aim is to provoke thought and invite diverse perspectives rather than present settled theories or prescriptive advice.”

Your input is vital !