This is where you get to say what you think about this blog. Plus, minus, wishy washy, whatever; I am all ears ... and nose too.
Here’s what some people had to say. Mind you they have some reason to be biased, they are my friends!
- Love that your blog grrrrrrrrrrrrr! ...thumbs up (P.O)
- What a really great idea. Just read your posts. So true yet so deep. We all need to find time to de-stress like this n still be social commentators! Good job! (B.A.K)
- Good blog. Very lively (K.G)
- I enjoyed your piece, you are a wonderful writer. You need to publish more of your writings. ........ (K.S)
- ...... its brilliant!!! I just visited and read your posts. Excellent!! (L.)
Your turn
Crush them Meeting Busters.
ReplyDeleteI just flpped through the script with the above theme which if my understanding will serve me right has a giggling reflection on your experiences at the just ended Module at OCIC.... I mean the classroom experience.
It may be a bit difficult trying to acquire knowledge in the mist of a "heterogenous" community.....a community of members who individually are endowed with diverse level of intellectuality. To reach a concensus on a particular subject under discussion becomes a herculean task. Often in the process you might slip off point, just as you mentioned in your script. The repercussion is time wasting, no meaningful work done, knowledge impartation minimal, to mention a few.
Yet, we are not discouraged because this is the system we have come to meet. As OD Practitioners, we are expected to exhibit a kind of behavior that would evolve change in whatever environment that we find ourselves. I mean a change that will increase productivity, a change that will enhance human relations, a change that will improve human capacity, to mention a few. I will say, at the end of it all we are in a learning process which should not be frowned upon, though it is difficult. To butress this, a political scientist Aaron Wildavsky warns students that "solutions to great public questions are not to be expected. In large part, it must be admitted, knowledge is negative. It tells us what we cannot do, where we cannot go, wherein we have been wrong, but not necessarily how to correct those errors. After all, if current efforts were judged wholly satisfactory, there would be little need for analysis and less for analysts."
I Celebrate the woman who is "too confident."
ReplyDeleteI will celebrate a woman who is confident but "not too confident." I think having confidence in oneself is a quality required of every individual.However, not every individual has this kind of quality. It will therefore be inappropriate if one should have too much of it......
Though, having confidence helps one to achieve his goals, we do not expect one to be too confident; else the too confident person may overlap in his/her endeavors. I have forgotten the person, but I remember the quotation, "If you have no confidence in self, you are twice defeated by the race of life." Much as we need this quality of confidence, we should watch carefully we don't have it "overdose."
Dear anonymous, once again I take your point however the characterization of 'too ...whatever" I refer to tends to be one that is often not subscribed by the self
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteOn Meeting Crushers:
Thank you for your comment which I find very interesting. I agree that the phenomenon I speak about is to be expected in many cases. However I also know that not all meetings are hair-raising nor are they expected to be be. If they were, why would anyone put effort into making them more effective?
Also my piece reflects the many many meetings and group situations I have found myself in and has little to do with the particular circumstance you mention, even though that experience has been enlightening.
I disagree with Wildavsky that "solutions to great public problems are not to be expected". That sounds rather defeatist and makes room for complacency and mediocrity. I believe that if we are so minded to appreciate our challenges (as the OD course you allude to seeks to nurture)then we should be ready to take the steps, individually and collectively to improve if not "correct" what we are now.
The concept of Emotional Intelligence does not seem interesting because the literature aspect may not be as simple as we may perceive. Though, it may not seem simple, it becomes interesting when one begins to understand the concept of Emotional Intelligence. I believe Emotional Intelligence will not appear a dry discipline that may cause deterrence in your effort to understand it. No qualms…….I believe you, you are an intelligent woman, and also on top of the English Language.
ReplyDeleteThe first manuscript (book) on Emotional Intelligence was published by Daniel Goleman in 1995. Currently, Emotional Intelligence has become the hottest catchphrase in corporate America.
The concept is a psychological one, and also being popular in corporate America has provoked the attention of Industrial and Organizational (I/O) psychologists to understand the meaning, and also the research and theory on which Emotional Intelligence is based. The research on Emotional Intelligence is connected to important work-related outcomes such as individual performance and organizational production.
Though the term is often abused by the media and other popular service providers, the concept of Emotional Intelligence is based on scientific research. Additionally, there are certain aspects of the concept that are not new, some aspects are. Lastly, Emotional Intelligence serves as a catalyst for I/O psychologists to make substantial predictions/projections for their client organizations.
Emotional Intelligence normally directs the individual to ask some questions about him/herself. Some of these questions are,
What are some of my dreams and aspirations in life?
What things did I do, that I need to work on?
The motive of the questions above is to identify my personal gaps that I need to work on.
Just a little for your consumption and readers.
On EI. Much appreciated A. Seems my journey will not be lonely. Let's see if my head can wrap itself around the subject.
ReplyDeleteHistorical Roots of Emotional Intelligence
ReplyDeleteIntelligence has been thought of by psychologists as the cognitive aspect- memory and problem solving. Psychologists tend to forget the non-cognitive part of intelligence: However, researchers such as Wechsler recognized early on the non-cognitive aspect of intelligence.
Wechsler defined intelligence as “the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment. Wechsler referred to “non-intellective” as well as “intellective” elements, by which he meant effective, personal, and social factors.
Wechsler affirms that the non-intellective abilities are essential for predicting one’s ability to succeed in life. He continues to express that apart from intellective factors, there are also definite non-intellective factors that determine intelligent behavior.
Robert Thorndike also mentioned social intelligence in the late thirties. Robert and Wechsler were not taken serious about their convictions regarding non-intellective factors until 1983 when Howard Gardner began to write about “multiple intelligence.” Gardner proposed that “Intrapersonal” and “Interpersonal intelligences are as important as the type of intelligence typically measured by IQ and related tasks.
The perception of I/O psychology regarding a research on Emotional Intelligence in the 1940’s revealed that evaluation of non-cognitive, as well as cognitive abilities should form a basis for assessment processes in the organization. For example, this process evolved into the “assessment center” in the private sector at AT&T in 1956. Many of the tools here included social and emotional competencies such as Communication, Sensitivity, Initiative, and Interpersonal skills.
Similarly, researchers in the 1990’s claimed that non-cognitive factors play significant role in helping people to succeed in both life and the workplace.
Will be back.