Month: September 2019

I am very on board with the research and tricks brought to the table in this video. I’ve read a lot about the topic of happiness, and listened to a variety of audiobooks and podcasts, and everything I learned or heard was in line with what this guy said. I think the most important thing is to view happiness as an actionable perspective or choice in life – it’s not something that “just happens” as you check certain boxes or achievements – but it’s also not an end in and of itself (because you will never reach that end) – it’s something that happens along the way.
I once had a professor make the bold assertion that “there is no such thing as stress.” Everyone was very skeptical, but he went on to clarify that what he meant is that there is no actual stress as an independent object, but rather a stress RESPONSE to a situation that you have deemed (subconsciously) as stressful. And this can absolutely be trained and modified throughout life, and explains how some people can be “stressed” by some things, but not by others, and how we cannot simply downplay people’s responses to things that we think may be trivial – because, to them, it’s still highly impactful.

“The Geography of Bliss” is a really interesting book that explores different countries rated the happiest, and the least happy, in the world – as well as why they are like that. Many countries with a standard of living that should dictate happiness are not really that happy, and many that should be miserable are quite happy (Latino countries and their emphasis on enjoying life and family ties are some of these). As the guy in the video said, perspective is key (choosing the lens and changing it over time through which we view our lives and the stimuli therein), as are relationships. A leading theory for why people live so long in the Blue Zones (places where people frequently live to over 100) is based on relationships. For a long time, people thought it was diet, exercise, climate, etc. These are all factors, but it is seeming more and more that the main factor is that people in these areas have socially based lives with frequent and meaningful human interaction. For example, you can imagine the old person who sits at home in his house and watches TV and goes to the grocery store occasionally, as opposed to the old person who walks (not drives) to the baker, the butcher, the grocer, etc., having conversations with people all along the way.

• I feel that I work pretty well with other people. At most jobs I’ve had, I’ve received the feedback of being approachable, giving what is requested to fellow employees in a timely manner and with a good attitude, and being friendly, trustworthy, and upfront. I can be rather shy about some things, but generally am quite outgoing, especially in a workplace environment. Sometimes I can “cross the line” a bit as far as some people’s comfort zones, but I generally find that I rarely get along with these types of people anyway.
  I am pretty upfront about most things – I don’t like when people dance around what they are trying to say in a professional environment. If you are making a sale, then people dance around, but I dislike having to play that game with people that are on my team and I work with on a daily basis. To facilitate this, I really do care about people and try to communicate that, and I want them to feel comfortable to be upfront with me in return. I have a highly collaborative mindset and am not afraid to ask for, or offer, help when needed.
  –
• I think that people would say that I can improve in general structure (timeliness consistency, little details, etc.) and sometimes in maybe being a bit more tactful or reserved. There are times professionally when being straightforward doesn’t necessarily pan out in the desired way, and they’ve seen that happen – or in some relationships / interactions. And they are certainly correct, as I’ve spent a lot of time trying to realize what the little details I neglect say to other people about me, and trying to fix some bad habits and create structure and discipline.

As I’ve gotten older, I have realized that my personal paradigm is one of a growth mindset (solidified through reading and digesting materials like Angela Duckworth’s work on the concept of “grit”). While this may just be a repackaged classic “fear of death,”  it leads into pretty much everything for me. I like feeling that I am growing and getting better at something or taking advantage of the time I have.
I love soccer and snowboarding and yoga and other sports – and I love to do them and feel like I am improving or at least being challenged. I enjoy podcasts and audiobooks because I love learning. I like to be around people – and date people – who want to be better people. These people tend to express issues they have, as well as listen to you (better conflict resolutions). They tend to keep reading and listening to quality things (always learn from them and never run out of things to talk about). They tend to be active, and easy to create memories with. Their relationships are deeper. They like to do new things and try new things. They like adventurous foods and good music. These people are way easier to work with, for me.

And that is my lens for work, life, and play – I want to be around people that can challenge me, even if it’s not particularly enjoyable or easy in the moment. I like tasks that are gratifying, even if they’re not easy at the time. I like feeling like I’m working toward something better, whether it’s as part of a team, part of a relationship, or part of a project at work. The lens through which I view things is one of opportunity for growth and building skills and competencies, or for making my life better or my work more meaningful. I struggle with passive aggression or with people who are OK being negative or stagnant. I struggle when work seems to have no point or any direct result or impact. I struggle when I feel like I’m not learning and I’m just wasting time.

I’ve found this can be at odds with a strength-emphasizing mindset; with trying to grow, it can be easy to focus on things you NEED to improve or GROW IN and measure yourself by exclusively those metrics, i.e. sucking less at something. As I’ve learned about the growth and strength mindset though, and tried to apply that to life, it’s been more and more rewarding over time, but requires no small degree of intentionality.

As far as referencing Burrell and Morgan’s paradigm Matrix, I have to do some more thinking on it but I think I fall somewhere between the Functionalist and Interpretive Paradigms, perhaps utilizing both depending on the situation or stimulus. I do think humans are fundamentally irrational (as anyone familiar with social sciences or behavioral economics can tell you), but we also do display consistent(ish) traits that draw on our fundamental assumptions and senses of self.

Something that stuck out to me in Buckingham’s videos was that he talked about international and cultural differences in “leveraging strengths.” My undergrad minor was in Asian studies, and my senior thesis to this effect dealt with neurological and sociocultural differences between “Eastern” and “Western” countries. I’ve also since read “Battle hymn of the tiger mother,” work by Angela Duckworth, etc. that touches on what Buckingham mentioned – that even though we’re still terrible at it, the USA is actually far higher on focusing on strengths and ignoring weaknesses than other countries. People with an Asian cultural background, according to the research, are far more prone to focus on, and shore up, weaknesses to become good at everything; Americans tend to shy away from weaknesses (largely because we don’t like to admit we are bad at things – the classic “my greatest weakness is that I’m a perfectionist” comes to mind) and only deal with our strengths – or at least, more than East Asians.  I remember this for my thesis in 2012, and was reminded of it by Buckingham. Of course, it’s way more complex than this, and has a wide variety of influences (the self esteem movement, the way we view parenting and success, the way we look at achievement, the way we find value in life and work, differences in views of people as malleable vs. character traits as fixed, etc. etc.), but it has always been interesting to me.
However, as Buckingham said, even though we may be “better” for whatever reason at focusing on strengths in the good ol’ USA, we still really suck at it.

Personally, I’m happy to embrace this mentality. Nobody really remembers you or values you for being “pretty good at everything.” They value you for what you are GREAT at doing. And that, with honesty and humility, is how you contribute to your own growth, the people around you, and whatever organization you find yourself a part of.

What really resonates with me with AI is the positive and insightful perspective that it brings to all matters of institutional change and growth. It’s obvious that all people are different and ergo have different strengths; however, we can rarely take this fact into account in the business world. As anyone who has worked with children or has one of their own can tell you, it’s essential to identify their strengths and passions to help them make the best that they can be in their way, as opposed to being mediocre in someone else’s way.
AI presents several challenges, of course; as it stands now, I can see a major one potentially being its application into the business world, especially in legacy industries so adherent to old school power dynamics and darwinian mindsets. It sounds very “soft,” and many higher managers in companies are more likely to rid themselves of anyone who seems weak, instead of fostering employees’ strengths.

From the AI commons, what I find most salient is the holistic approach to employees and people in an organization – frequently, we only view people through the lens of their current roles or jobs. However, as business progresses, we can see the more holistic approach – and fostering strengths as opposed to just shoring up deficits – in people who have been successful in identifying their skills and creating their own roles and positions.

Change can be difficult (in the sense that we are dealing with people, who present a LOT of variables) and understated (in the sense that many will underestimate its importance due to a lack of understanding or a willing resistance to thinking it’s important). Change is, however, essential, as pretty much the only constant in life is flux- it’s important to adhere to core principles that may have a bit more verisimilitude, but the issue of how to apply those principles to constantly changing employees, management, customers, products, markets, and stimuli is a constant conversation.

Hi! My name is Alejandro Gutierrez from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. I currently live in Baltimore, MD, after several years in South America (mostly Chile). Cheers!

Welcome to Sites At Penn State. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!