Written by◎ Coach Culture Expert/Coach Kang Shiteng Lin Zuwei Wesley
A recent book, "Fast Thinking and Slow Thinking", divides the human thinking system into two types: one is fast thinking, which is commonly known as intuition; The other is slow thinking, which is called logical thinking. Intuition is a programmed mindset that has the advantage of providing output quickly, and for life-threatening or psychologically threatening events, this fastness can effectively protect us from maximum harm. And when events are beyond the limits of our intuition, the slow-thinking system takes over. The slow-thinking system uses logical concepts to deduce inferences from events step by step.
For example, multiplication calculations, simple single-digit multiplication, can be used in our brains through the ninety-nine multiplication table (procedural knowledge), so that we can immediately reflect the multiplication results. But if it's multiplying multiple digits, we have to do the math with pen and paper, and then use the addition following digits to get the answer. In contrast, this uses the logic of a slow-thinking system. This is just a mathematical and logical event, and if it is a decision-making event in daily life (such as whether to buy a seasonal auction item), it will also be related to its relative complexity and personal experience, and decide whether to use the slow thinking system.
Extending the learning and application of our growth process, we will use two basic formal logics: "induction" and "deduction". "Induction" is like the evolution of human ancestors, all the learning of survival is through the observation of events, the accumulation of experience, and the synthesis of a "how to save life" argument. And then, "deductively" is based on this argument that we have a hypothesis that we use logic to infer certain situations as true. For example, if we were attacked or chased by wild dogs in the neighborhood when we were young, we would automatically conclude the link between physical tension and "dogs are vicious". So according to this hypothesis, as soon as you see a dog, the body naturally secretes hormones and accelerates the escape.
Here's the key problem: First, the fallacy of the "inductive" process can be misidentifying the number or type of sample, for example, when you happened to be a child, you were surrounded by vicious dogs, or you had the experience of being bitten (you may not have seen or unintentionally ignored the tame case), and thus the "all dogs are vicious" argument arises. Then in "deduction", there will be other fallacies that are incomplete or wrong assumptions. Because of the assumption that "dogs are vicious", the brain has a response that I just want to run fast, or inappropriate inferences, such as not entering new environmental parameters (tied up, or in a cage, or even just a puppy), can also lead to inappropriate inferences. So as soon as someone sees a dog (or even just hears a dog barking), the body automatically produces a large amount of hormones, and can't help but be afraid.
In the same way, in the accumulation of knowledge, we mostly use these two, either to learn more other people's knowledge or techniques or operations to accelerate the expansion and generalization of our experience, or to learn abstract logical thinking and enhance our judgment ability. To put it simply, all of the above is called "thinking". The focus of these thoughts is to solve a problem (to some extent, evasion is also a solution).
In some schools of psychotherapy (e.g., mindfulness related to MBSR), it is mentioned that our consciousness can be divided into doing mode and being mode. Modes of action include the above-mentioned intuitive responses and general thinking, while modes of existence are about reflection.
"Reflection" can be interpreted in two ways, the first is to step back, because it takes a step back to see the full picture (which is why you don't like to sit in the first row when watching movies). The second is about looking inward, such as taking a step back and discovering the sea and the sky (because you see more possibilities and have more choices, which is not generally interpreted as giving up and looking for another way), that is, to explore your values and beliefs within yourself. People who can reflect have a higher ability to see the problems that are related to each other, understand that they affect the whole body, and it is possible to find more effective solutions to the overall system.
Going back to the discussion of leadership traits, there is often a discussion about talent or nurture. One school of thought says that if it's just a talent, then you probably don't need to learn too much, just dig it out, that is, remove the obstacles as much as possible. The other school of thought would say that everyone can be a good leader by learning the various aspects of leadership. My explanation is that the two are compatible, and the point is that whether you are gifted or not, you need to learn, but this learning is not like thinking about management skills, but about the reflection of the above.
There are many definitions of leadership, some of which are as follows: "Leadership is a process in which a leader influences his followers, in which the followers understand what to do and how to do it, and the leader uses it to elevate individual and group efforts to achieve shared goals," (Gary Yukl). And there are many ways to get this group of people there, but I can divide them into three types of leadership: teaching (authoritarian), teaching (authoritarian) and coaching (empowering).
(1) A lesson-oriented leader must first have considerable resources (turnips) and strict discipline (sticks), as well as a true genius who can demonstrate the results of many successful decisions (often a failure) to prove that he is in control of the team (or fighters).
(2) Instructional leaders (authoritarian) must have a high degree of authority (the ability to allocate resources) or a high degree of professionalism (the ability to make wise judgments) to lead the team (or warriors) by being able to delegate resources and professional guidance.
(3) Coaching leader (empowerment), who must first have the ability to listen to a high degree, the ability to respond immediately and distinguish between states, to help followers find the best solution and be willing to take responsibility. He has to be with the team, giving back, encouraging and inspiring different perspectives. What he does is support the whole team (or partners).
First of all, there are three different leadership styles that are better at it, and their effectiveness varies according to the situation and purpose. For example, in the event of a temporary fire, a leader who teaches or teaches to bring immediate decisions and actions is often acceptable to everyone.
However, project managers: think about whether you can give enough resources (rewards and punishments), have high authority, or have all the disciplines to convince everyone in your team? In my experience, on the contrary, project managers are often faced with a resource-critical project, working with a variety of people with different disciplines and qualifications, and may even be in a junior management position. By comparison, you can see why a coaching leader is a leadership model that is almost exclusively for project managers.
Another important part of leadership is about your followers, what kind of relationship do you plan to build with them? Is it a top-to-bottom or equal relationship? What about the relationship between them? Are you at the center, or are they connected in parallel, and do they act through you, or is each one an organic individual? Do you want the team to be like cogs, waiting for someone else to start the game, or is it an organic group of cells that can respond to the situation? Do you believe that you can always make the best decisions, or do you believe in the wisdom of teamwork?
The answer seems to be clear--- but this understanding must also be a reflection on the mode of "existence". And when you understand it, this practice is about to begin.
About the Author:
Coach Culture Expert/Constance Coach Joseph Lin Zuwei Wesley
Coach Lin Zuwei has both PMI project management license and ICF corporate coaching license.
You must be logged in to post a comment.