There are many ways to read oneself.
Among them, the easiest and fastest is to read a book. That said, the old saying that what comes easy is lost just as easily does not exactly miss the mark here either. Of course, I do not think anyone would take the bewildering step of giving up reading because of that.
Another way is to use the other person as a mirror to see myself. This one is very hard. If you receive the other emotionally or misread their intent, identification can happen, where you start to resemble the other. So I think some psychological background is very much needed. (* Identification = the phenomenon where the state of mind or behavior of the other person becomes the same as your own.)
Also, instead of looking at and judging the other person's behavior itself, you need to first understand the cause, motivation, and environment behind that behavior, which takes time. (Here, 'needing time' is not just a nicely polished phrase about not making hasty judgments and holding a middle position; it means…) You have to accept and endure the internal and external misunderstandings and rumors that arise in the gap of that time. You need the problem-solving capacity to work through that situation—whether it is an interpersonal one or an inner psychological conflict.
For that reason, I want to practice 'using the other person as a mirror to see myself.' Or, loosely put, it is more like a bit of grumbling I hope to exchange over a drink with the me who might become me in the future.
Mirroring Myself 06 - From knowledge to competence, and on to potential
Not only trends and eras, but economic structures themselves are changing rapidly. America's hegemony collapsed long ago; stable jobs from securities to doctors and civil servants have been under threat for years, new technology changes by the day, and even the average lifespan of global corporations has been cut by more than half.
Come to think of it, I wondered whether we are simply returning to the very basics. 'From nothing to something, through the diversification and transformation of uses, and back to minimal (optimal) possession.' To put it grandly, a process of consilience?
Standards by which we evaluate people differ from person to person, but
when we look at wise rulers of old, we frequently encounter the phrase 'look at the measure (vessel) of the person.'Situations and circumstances change like flowing water, but if a person's character or vessel is different, you can place trust there—that is probably what they meant.
The greatest value has shifted from intelligence and knowledge to competence, and now to potential.
From an age where 'knowledge is power,' we are moving to one where 'the will to know and curiosity' are valued.
Right now, this moment—feeling that you are alive—
An emotion that can perceive the moment, beyond thinking, beyond knowledge—
And crafting the circumstances so as not to lose that sense —
And the flexibility to create a 'what if—?!' option, instead of an 'unavoidable choice' in an 'unavoidable situation' —
In short, it is probably self-motivation for a life with purpose.
* The reference article that prompted the reflection ( while reading a SERI forum email… )
In 1972, an airliner carrying the Uruguayan rugby team to Chile crashed in the Andes. At the time everyone assumed all 45 passengers had perished. But 72 days after the accident, 16 people were dramatically rescued, drawing worldwide media attention. Their survival story was later made into the 1993 film 'Alive.'
Pedro Algorta is one of the survivors. Even amid the grim situation of going back and forth across the threshold of death, he did not despair. Algorta took a 'curiosity' about his surroundings and paid attention to water streaming from the ice. As a result he gained the 'insight' that the pilot had reported the wrong position to the search team. Guessing from the direction of the water flow, he saw that contrary to the pilot's judgment, they were on the Argentine side of the Andes, not the Chilean side. Algorta also worked hard at 'building relationships' with the other survivors. He devoted himself to a friend dying of a broken leg, trying to reduce his suffering, and cared for him faithfully. While encouraging his fellow survivors not to lose hope, he also showed the 'resolve' to persuade them, if they died, to allow their bodies to be used as food for the others.
Curiosity and insight, the building of relationships, and resolve. According to Claudio Fernández-Aráoz, senior advisor at global headhunting firm Egon Zehnder, these are precisely the qualities 21st-century talent must possess. Despite having no experience in consumer goods and no background in marketing or sales, Algorta became the general manager of Quilmes Brewery, a Latin America-based beer company, and stood out as a CEO; the explanation is that, grounded in these qualities, he had the 'potential' to adapt to any environment. The following is a summary of the main points of the article 'Finding 21st-Century Talent' introduced in the June issue of Harvard Business Review Korea.
○ Potential matters more than intelligence or competence
From the early to late 20th century, the quality companies most valued in evaluating talent was IQ—capability in language, analysis, arithmetic, and logic. Academic background and test scores were also important evaluation factors. Because many tasks were standardized and specialized and a company's established routines held similar, it was enough to hire by referring to past performance. If a company needed an engineer or an accountant, for example, it would find and hire the smartest and most experienced engineer or accountant.
Entering the 1980s, the ideal of what talent should look like began to shift. As technological evolution and convergence across industries made work increasingly complex, past experience and track record in a prior role increasingly became meaningless. The center of gravity in evaluating talent moved from intelligence to competence. It was around then that leaders rich in EQ rather than IQ began to receive more attention.
So what does talent in the limelight look like in the 21st century? Is competency-based evaluation still effective? In an environment as rapidly changing, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous as today, the factors that made someone successful in a specific role 'today' do not guarantee the same 'tomorrow.' The key is not whether your people have the competencies required by the current role, but whether they have the potential to learn new capabilities going forward.
○ Curiosity and insight, relationship-building and resolve
Evaluating potential is not easy as it sounds, but it is not impossible either. According to analysis by HR consulting firm Egon Zehnder, the most important indicator for evaluating potential is proper motivation. You must first judge whether a person pursues unselfish goals with an intense will to deliver outstanding results.
Beyond that, four other indicators are crucial for evaluating potential: curiosity, insight, relationship-building, and resolve. Only with curiosity to seek out new experiences, knowledge, and candid feedback can one hold an open stance toward learning and change. But mere curiosity without the ability to see the big picture is not enough. When you encounter new knowledge, you need the insight to identify and understand the threads of new possibilities within it. You must also actively build relationships with people, communicate a vision persuasively, and use emotion and logic appropriately in communicating with others. Finally, the will to fight for an ambitious goal no matter the obstacle, and the ability to bounce back like a roly-poly when you hit adversity, also matter. Given that the 21st century becomes ever more complex and unpredictable, it is easy to see why resolve is so important.
○ Retention matters as much as hiring
Keeping high-potential hires at the organization matters as much as hiring them in the first place. As Daniel Pink explained in his book 'Drive,' most of us, especially knowledge workers, are energized by three core factors: the freedom to direct our own lives ('autonomy'), the desire to get better at something ('mastery'), and the longing for our work to contribute to something larger than ourselves ('purpose'). Salary matters too, of course. But an Egon Zehnder analysis of people who were hired and succeeded at a company but left within three years found that only 4 percent said more money was the main reason for changing jobs. The main reasons that led them to decide to leave were things like a poor boss, insufficient support, and a lack of opportunities for growth.
In the end, paying a fair salary matters, but so does granting autonomy to your people. In particular, it is good to grant autonomy on the four 'T' dimensions: task (what is done), time (when it is done), team (with whom), and technique (how). Set challenging but achievable goals, keep them from getting complacent, and help them grow. And work to place them on larger teams and to include them in goals that contribute at the organization or societal level. Giving high-potential people challenging assignments is also necessary. Providing self-development opportunities that take the best talent beyond their comfort zones is precisely what lets them exercise the potential they originally held.
Compiled by reporter Lee Bang-sil smile@donga.com
