This past month, we have been going through a process of evaluation. We’ll share some of the issues that keep coming up in the past year, because chances are, some of these issues are rather typical in a work and social setting.
So here they are: how we could appreciate one another, how we could be more helpful, how we could argue about an idea but avoid personal conflicts, how we could be more mindful about other people’s feeling, how we can be more discipline with our time, how can we improve synergy between production and marketing, how we could improve communication with other departments (not that we have that many people in our office), etc., etc.
We were thinking about what actions we could do in the next year to overcome these problems, when Petra , our customer relation manager came up with this brilliant idea: we just need to be open and truthful to one another (why did we not think of this before!!)
The lack of synergy between departments can be bridged if we are open about our intentions and discuss them together. If we feel that someone is not appreciative, is not helpful, is not mindful of our feeling, is not discipline with their time and tasks, then all we need to do is being open and truthful to that person.
Conflicts can be avoided. To begin with, of course, we need to first have open communication. And when issues arise (which are unavoidable), we can be truthful about our feelings and views about the situation.
When you find yourself cornered in this situation, here’s tips from Kayee:
1. Try to see the situation from the other person’s perspective
2. Start with “I” statement. For example “X, I feel that …” (“I” statement would lessen the chance of the other person feeling defensive)
3. End with a suggestion: “It would be great if …”
As the person on the other side of the table, what you should do is listen and defer your judgment during the process. Try it out! It seems to be working in our team!
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Suspend judgment to generate creative solutions
A group of managers meet with the agenda to discuss how to come up with new products or added-value customer service:
"Let's sell our products on our website."
"No,too risky. Imagine all the cost in setting it up and maintaining it. We don't have the expertise. Anyway, sales are good, we're doing fine the way we are."
"We could do a cost benefit analysis to justify the costs."
"Who's got the time to do that now? Not me."
"Let's try working with other companies."
"No, we've tried that before."
"Let's train our staff on new marketing techniques."
"No, the boss won't approve, so why bother."
"Let's hire a consultant."
"No, let's not rock the boat."
"Maybe we can reshuffle the groups. Mix people from different branches."
"No, we don't work like that here."
In this example, we see how the birth of ideas is immediately killed by judgments. The comments in the above dialogue may not even warrant the term "judgment". At best, they are a knee-jerk negativism that resides in most of us. Worse still, once we start on the track of such negativism, it's difficult to set ourselves back on the track of generating ideas again.
Have you ever tried coming up with an idea only to kill it yourself because your mind has quietly told you that your idea won't work? Ray and Myers, in their book Creativity in Business (1986) call this the VOJ -- the voice of judgment.
Let's go back in time. Who, during Leonardo da Vinci's time, would've thought that human flight could be possible? Da Vinci not only suspended his VOJ, but his ignorance of others' VOJ enabled him to proceed on his own to invent a flying contraption. It didn't work, but it laid the foundation for others to build on, and eventually resulted in what we now know as the airplane. Many people in da Vinci's time must have thought he was crazy. But most, if not all, new ideas will seem crazy at the time of their birth.
There are two types of thinking involved in creative thinking: generating ideas and evaluating ideas. It is our tendency to do both at the same time. The secret is to separate the generation and evaluation of ideas into two different stages of thinking.
First, generate as many ideas as you can without judging them in any way, then select the ideas that appeal to you. Then judge the ideas, think about ways to improve on the good ones and think about how to realize the impossible ones.
Of all the golden rules for generating ideas laid down by the inventor of brainstorming, Alex Osborn, the first and foremost one is known as "defer judgment" -- generate first, then evaluate.
In simple language, to defer judgment simply means to not judge an idea prematurely. It's all about exercising one's mental flexibility. Deferring judgment allows us to keep a new idea alive to ensure that the idea receives a fair evaluation.
Deferring or delaying our judgment may mean that we will find ourselves coming up with obvious, crazy or fantastical ideas that we will immediately consider worthy of discarding. But the moment we start thinking whether it's an idea worth getting out of our heads (because we are judging it silently in our minds), we will lose our flow of ideas.
After we learn to defer our own voice of judgment, then it's time for us to defer our judgment on other people' ideas.
From our experience in teaching people to think creatively, people who defer judgment while generating ideas generate on average 100 percent more ideas in the same amount of time than before the "defer judgment" rule is taught to them. Since getting many ideas will increase our chances of getting good ones, the "defer judgment" rule will ensure that we generate the quantity we need.
Once, we conducted a brainstorming session with children between 6-12 years old on how we might improve one of Jakarta's problems: the annual floods. They came up with ideas like blow-dry it, use a giant mop, stop the rain, shoot clouds, cover up the sky, etc. These may sound wildly imaginative, impractical or downright ridiculous.
But let's defer our judgment according to the rule of brainstorming and see what we do have.
Take, for example, the idea of using a giant mop. Although it sounds childlike, we liked the idea. After we played around with it, we thought, why not have the street become a giant mop? If we consider the hundreds of kilometers of asphalted roads that traverse Jakarta, and if the roads are water-absorbent, then this could be one possible solution to Jakarta's floods.
In fact, scientists are currently researching ways on how asphalt can be made water-absorbent. Prof. Bruce Ferguson, Associate Dean of the University of Georgia's Landscape Architecture Graduate School, is working on precisely this matter.
How would you react if someone raised an idea of using coconuts to make sportswear? If you defer your judgment long enough, you would hear out Greg Haggquist, who did just this to create cycling wear that absorbs odor and provides UV-ray protection. Haggquist used the carbon from coconuts and infused it into threads to create a new kind of polyester.
Well, now we know to stop ourselves from reacting negatively the moment someone shares a new idea. Listening doesn't mean approving, but when we hear an idea out, we know to first look for the good, then the bad or concerns we may have with the initial idea, and we can discuss with the idea-generator how might the concerns be overcome.
The next time you make a negative statement, turn it into a question and try to find possible solutions for it. We can turn "that client will never receive my call" into how can I get the client to return my calls?" and "we'll never get this done on time" into "how can we get this done on time?"
Just try it and see the difference it'll make.
Even when we seem to have found the ideas we like, try to push for more. Even when we think we have decided on one solution to a problem we're facing, don't think that we have found the best one. There will always be room for improvement, so don't forget to keep the doors open.
Deferring judgment ensures that we generate a broad range of ideas to increase our chances of finding elegant solutions to the problem or issue at hand. Deferring judgment also keeps new ideas alive until they've been given a fair evaluation.
Remember, most new ideas will seem crazy when they are first suggested. But next time you hear your negative inner voice nagging at you, you can tell it to come back later.
Published in The Jakarta Post May 21, 2006
"Let's sell our products on our website."
"No,too risky. Imagine all the cost in setting it up and maintaining it. We don't have the expertise. Anyway, sales are good, we're doing fine the way we are."
"We could do a cost benefit analysis to justify the costs."
"Who's got the time to do that now? Not me."
"Let's try working with other companies."
"No, we've tried that before."
"Let's train our staff on new marketing techniques."
"No, the boss won't approve, so why bother."
"Let's hire a consultant."
"No, let's not rock the boat."
"Maybe we can reshuffle the groups. Mix people from different branches."
"No, we don't work like that here."
In this example, we see how the birth of ideas is immediately killed by judgments. The comments in the above dialogue may not even warrant the term "judgment". At best, they are a knee-jerk negativism that resides in most of us. Worse still, once we start on the track of such negativism, it's difficult to set ourselves back on the track of generating ideas again.
Have you ever tried coming up with an idea only to kill it yourself because your mind has quietly told you that your idea won't work? Ray and Myers, in their book Creativity in Business (1986) call this the VOJ -- the voice of judgment.
Let's go back in time. Who, during Leonardo da Vinci's time, would've thought that human flight could be possible? Da Vinci not only suspended his VOJ, but his ignorance of others' VOJ enabled him to proceed on his own to invent a flying contraption. It didn't work, but it laid the foundation for others to build on, and eventually resulted in what we now know as the airplane. Many people in da Vinci's time must have thought he was crazy. But most, if not all, new ideas will seem crazy at the time of their birth.
There are two types of thinking involved in creative thinking: generating ideas and evaluating ideas. It is our tendency to do both at the same time. The secret is to separate the generation and evaluation of ideas into two different stages of thinking.
First, generate as many ideas as you can without judging them in any way, then select the ideas that appeal to you. Then judge the ideas, think about ways to improve on the good ones and think about how to realize the impossible ones.
Of all the golden rules for generating ideas laid down by the inventor of brainstorming, Alex Osborn, the first and foremost one is known as "defer judgment" -- generate first, then evaluate.
In simple language, to defer judgment simply means to not judge an idea prematurely. It's all about exercising one's mental flexibility. Deferring judgment allows us to keep a new idea alive to ensure that the idea receives a fair evaluation.
Deferring or delaying our judgment may mean that we will find ourselves coming up with obvious, crazy or fantastical ideas that we will immediately consider worthy of discarding. But the moment we start thinking whether it's an idea worth getting out of our heads (because we are judging it silently in our minds), we will lose our flow of ideas.
After we learn to defer our own voice of judgment, then it's time for us to defer our judgment on other people' ideas.
From our experience in teaching people to think creatively, people who defer judgment while generating ideas generate on average 100 percent more ideas in the same amount of time than before the "defer judgment" rule is taught to them. Since getting many ideas will increase our chances of getting good ones, the "defer judgment" rule will ensure that we generate the quantity we need.
Once, we conducted a brainstorming session with children between 6-12 years old on how we might improve one of Jakarta's problems: the annual floods. They came up with ideas like blow-dry it, use a giant mop, stop the rain, shoot clouds, cover up the sky, etc. These may sound wildly imaginative, impractical or downright ridiculous.
But let's defer our judgment according to the rule of brainstorming and see what we do have.
Take, for example, the idea of using a giant mop. Although it sounds childlike, we liked the idea. After we played around with it, we thought, why not have the street become a giant mop? If we consider the hundreds of kilometers of asphalted roads that traverse Jakarta, and if the roads are water-absorbent, then this could be one possible solution to Jakarta's floods.
In fact, scientists are currently researching ways on how asphalt can be made water-absorbent. Prof. Bruce Ferguson, Associate Dean of the University of Georgia's Landscape Architecture Graduate School, is working on precisely this matter.
How would you react if someone raised an idea of using coconuts to make sportswear? If you defer your judgment long enough, you would hear out Greg Haggquist, who did just this to create cycling wear that absorbs odor and provides UV-ray protection. Haggquist used the carbon from coconuts and infused it into threads to create a new kind of polyester.
Well, now we know to stop ourselves from reacting negatively the moment someone shares a new idea. Listening doesn't mean approving, but when we hear an idea out, we know to first look for the good, then the bad or concerns we may have with the initial idea, and we can discuss with the idea-generator how might the concerns be overcome.
The next time you make a negative statement, turn it into a question and try to find possible solutions for it. We can turn "that client will never receive my call" into how can I get the client to return my calls?" and "we'll never get this done on time" into "how can we get this done on time?"
Just try it and see the difference it'll make.
Even when we seem to have found the ideas we like, try to push for more. Even when we think we have decided on one solution to a problem we're facing, don't think that we have found the best one. There will always be room for improvement, so don't forget to keep the doors open.
Deferring judgment ensures that we generate a broad range of ideas to increase our chances of finding elegant solutions to the problem or issue at hand. Deferring judgment also keeps new ideas alive until they've been given a fair evaluation.
Remember, most new ideas will seem crazy when they are first suggested. But next time you hear your negative inner voice nagging at you, you can tell it to come back later.
Published in The Jakarta Post May 21, 2006
The Incentive to Learn
I read a review on Freakonomics written by my economist friend Arya Gaduh a while ago. But only recently I finished reading this interesting and highly entertaining book [1] by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. Among many things that could be discussed in relation to creativity, the one that I would like to bring up in this posting is the claim that most people are driven by incentives, be it in the form of financial, social, and/or moral reward. How would this in relation with learning? What are the incentives to learn?
Within school setting, the reason why students perform is without a doubt to get good grades. Yet, there’s a danger to stop here, for the reason that once school (or class) is over, the motivation to learn would stop accordingly. This may explain the lack of motivation I encountered in my ex-students as mentioned in this posting.
Getting good grades may bring praise and admiration from teachers and peers alike. For some, getting good grades may even bring financial rewards – be it from their own parents or to get/ maintain scholarship. Yet, these rewards leave us with the dilemma of having external instead of internal motivators to learning. Externally-motivated learning is more or less controlled by other people, which would most probably stop when the external motivator is no longer monitoring the learning process (and product).
If we extend the motivation to get good grades to getting social and moral rewards, we may get longer-lasting result – albeit still externally-motivated. So what must we do to instill intrinsic motivation to learn? Nothing much perhaps, because intrinsic motivation is processed within a person. But getting social and moral rewards will bring with it a sense of pride, and most likely the personal joy of what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called flow – that special feeling of personal satisfaction when we are so immerse in the process of doing something we really enjoy.
In the scheme of incentives-driven world of economics, I’m not sure where this ‘personal incentive’ would fit in. But it is this ‘personal incentive’ that will keep the desire to learn burning within us – even long after school is over.
Note
[1] Trust me, before I read Freakonomics, I wouldn’t put the word economics in the same sentence with interesting and entertaining! No offense to all economists in the world :)
Within school setting, the reason why students perform is without a doubt to get good grades. Yet, there’s a danger to stop here, for the reason that once school (or class) is over, the motivation to learn would stop accordingly. This may explain the lack of motivation I encountered in my ex-students as mentioned in this posting.
Getting good grades may bring praise and admiration from teachers and peers alike. For some, getting good grades may even bring financial rewards – be it from their own parents or to get/ maintain scholarship. Yet, these rewards leave us with the dilemma of having external instead of internal motivators to learning. Externally-motivated learning is more or less controlled by other people, which would most probably stop when the external motivator is no longer monitoring the learning process (and product).
If we extend the motivation to get good grades to getting social and moral rewards, we may get longer-lasting result – albeit still externally-motivated. So what must we do to instill intrinsic motivation to learn? Nothing much perhaps, because intrinsic motivation is processed within a person. But getting social and moral rewards will bring with it a sense of pride, and most likely the personal joy of what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called flow – that special feeling of personal satisfaction when we are so immerse in the process of doing something we really enjoy.
In the scheme of incentives-driven world of economics, I’m not sure where this ‘personal incentive’ would fit in. But it is this ‘personal incentive’ that will keep the desire to learn burning within us – even long after school is over.
Note
[1] Trust me, before I read Freakonomics, I wouldn’t put the word economics in the same sentence with interesting and entertaining! No offense to all economists in the world :)
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Creativity in Adversity
Oka, one of our team members, often forwards us emails with interesting visuals. One of them was this picture of a person who created sandals from two plastic bottles. This reminded me of my experience in training facilitators from East Bali Poverty Project. Below were some of their definitions of creativity, which they formulated before the training started.Kreativitas adalah suatu kegiatan yang bersifat positif – yang mewakili hati nurani (Kartawa).Under adverse condition, people will find a way out and think creatively. See here and here for other examples. What about us?
Kreativitas adalah kemampuan diri kita untuk mengeluarkan atau mengekspresikan kemampuan yang ada dalam diri kita untuk mencapai apa yang kita inginkan (I Nyoman Subagia Bimartha).
Kreativitas adalah kemampuan seseorang untuk menciptakan sesuatu yang bersifat positif yang dapat ditampilkan atau digunakan oleh orang lain atau juga untuk diri sendiri (Kadek Indah Sari Dewi).
Kreativitas adalah kemampuan seseorang untuk dapat memanfaatkan/ mengolah sesuatu yang ada di sekelilingnya dari yang tidak berguna menjadi benda yang bermanfaat untuk diri sendiri maupun orang lain (I Nyoman Subagia Arnawa).
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Only Fools Work (Seriously!)
Person 1: What do you get when you cross a pig and a centipede?
Answer: Bacon and legs.
Person 2: Knock knock.
Answer: Who’s there?
Person 2: Scott.
Answer: Scott who?
Person 2: Scott nothing to do with you.
Person 3: What is a ten letter word that starts with gas?
Answer: Automobile.
Person 4: Why does Superman have a S on the front of his shirt?
Answer: Because Batman bought all the medium and large ones.
Person 5: Why is Batman more stupid than Superman?
Answer: Because he wears a cape even though he can’t fly.
We all know about the five senses: taste, smell, sight, touch and sound, and most of us were born with these senses. Some are said to have the sixth sense: intuition, and sometimes it is interpreted as the awareness for other-worldly creatures. Kayee has a friend who adds a seventh sense to the list: humour.
While it is tempting to discuss the sixth sense and for once beat the rate of TV shows such as “Pemburu Hantu” (“Ghost Buster” in Lativi) or “Dunia Lain” (“The Other World” in Trans TV), unfortunately we can’t seem to associate ourselves with such fame… yet. Instead, we will attempt to have some fun while exploring the sense of humour.
So, why all of a sudden we are interested in humour, you may wonder. Believe it or not (not in Ripley’s Believe It or Not sense but in the everyday sense), humour and creativity are related. According to E. Paul Torrance, Professor of Educational Psychology Department at University of Georgia, both creativity and humour revolve around unusual combinations, element of surprise, conceptual and perceptual incongruities (Torrance, 1999).
Think about it: good jokes require a great deal of wit. In the examples above, the answers take us by surprise because we find them unusual, absurd, un-thought of, and therefore funny. The answers make unlikely interpretation of the questions (joke 3), make connections with what we are familiar with – but at the same time turn it into unfamiliar setting (joke 1 and 4), and make uncommon combinations (joke 2 and 5).
And yes, creative thinking is about making unusual combinations, looking at things differently, and thinking of and seeing things that don’t normally ‘fit’ or ‘belong’ together. This is why many experts on creative thinking actually prescribe humour (playfulness, spontaneity) as one of the necessary ingredients to being creative.
Dr. Göran Ekvall, Professor Emeritus of Industrial and Organizational Psychology at University of Lund, conducted research in major corporations to find out what differentiates companies that produce more innovative products to those that are less innovative. Among other things, Ekvall’s research showed that organizations that had a playful and humourous environment were more likely to have creative behaviour exhibited by employees.
Back in February this year, Time magazine reported Google to be the biggest media company in the world, in market-cap terms. Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the founders of Google were described as “playful” (they used to take part in the regular roller-hockey games in the Google parking lot). The Time article featured a photograph of Brin and Page playing with Lego pieces during the interview.
Not only are the founders of Google playful people, Googleplex, as the headquarters of Google is known, is also described as “quirky”. Toys for employees and their children, individualized road signs inside the building, electronic scooters to get from one place to another, a sand-volleyball court, a ball pit with brightly coloured plastic balls and a London style telephone booth (minus the telephone) were just some of the examples cited that contribute to Googleplex’s quirkiness (Time magazine, February 20, 2006).
Amidst all this playfulness, however, much serious work gets done. Brin and Page were reported to be “tough sells” when it comes to approving projects and keeping their engineers on their toes with their project proposals.
So we don’t need to be serious all the time to be productive. Dr. Roger L. Firestien, Associate Professor of International Center for Studies in Creativity at Buffalo State College, concludes that “There is a positive link between humour, productivity and creativity!”. People with a sense of humour are less rigid, less tense, less stressed and therefore able to get more work done. Humour is also found to alleviate boredom (very useful when one needs to get through those unavoidable mundane tasks).
And here is a bonus for having a sense of humour: research shows that group leaders who are able to laugh at themselves are perceived to be more effective at relieving tension, better at encouraging member participation and more willing to share opinions. Humour has a positive influence on effective communication in groups.
Our experience in facilitating problem solving groups and training substantiates what research and the creativity literature are telling us about having a sense of humour. We have never failed to have a smiling participant and a more relaxed atmosphere once we pose to participants the problem of how they can stop us from talking. A more relaxed atmosphere enables participants to focus on learning and generating ideas rather than being on ‘defensive’ mode.
So now the big question…if we don’t have one already, how do we go about acquiring a sense of humour? Moody – and the name is not a joke! – describes a person with a good sense of humour as one who sees himself and others in a detached way, thus being able to laugh at himself and things that don’t quite go right and remain positive at the same time (in Torrance, 1978: p.223).
So, first, you have to be willing. Having read this far in this article, we would assume that you are interested in acquiring a sense of humour, or at least to explore the idea of acquiring a sense of humour. As we believe, once you are aware and willing, you are half way to positive change.
So, here’s our recipe for a sense of humour. What you can do on your own: Set a quota for a laugh a day (our motto: a laugh a day keeps the doctor away). Read humour or joke books (keep some in the office). Meditate to relax. Put a funny mirror in your bathroom or on your desk. Imagine. Take deep breaths. Think of happy thoughts. Exchange your brain for a day. Use laughing gas (joke!).
What you can do with your coworkers: Ask yourselves silly questions (e.g. how to stuff an elephant into my boss’ mouth). Throw a party. Pop balloons (exercise sends oxygen to the brain and has an invigorating effect). Meet our boss, Elli. Treat your employees or employers like they’re your precious kids. Dance at work.
What you can do whether you are alone or with a group of people you know or even do not know (we suggest you try various situations and don’t forget to let us know the result!): Pretend you’re the guest star. Start playing. Exercise your mouth muscles. Watch comedies. Smile for nothing. Tickle yourself (it doesn’t work, so get someone else to tickle you). Talk to, play with, or pretend to be children, animals, or plants. Or, just laugh when others are laughing (even if you don’t know what they’re laughing about).
We love to play and laugh. If none of the above work for you, come and join us. We get lots of work done too.
“We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” (George Bernard Shaw).
Answer: Bacon and legs.
Person 2: Knock knock.
Answer: Who’s there?
Person 2: Scott.
Answer: Scott who?
Person 2: Scott nothing to do with you.
Person 3: What is a ten letter word that starts with gas?
Answer: Automobile.
Person 4: Why does Superman have a S on the front of his shirt?
Answer: Because Batman bought all the medium and large ones.
Person 5: Why is Batman more stupid than Superman?
Answer: Because he wears a cape even though he can’t fly.
We all know about the five senses: taste, smell, sight, touch and sound, and most of us were born with these senses. Some are said to have the sixth sense: intuition, and sometimes it is interpreted as the awareness for other-worldly creatures. Kayee has a friend who adds a seventh sense to the list: humour.
While it is tempting to discuss the sixth sense and for once beat the rate of TV shows such as “Pemburu Hantu” (“Ghost Buster” in Lativi) or “Dunia Lain” (“The Other World” in Trans TV), unfortunately we can’t seem to associate ourselves with such fame… yet. Instead, we will attempt to have some fun while exploring the sense of humour.
So, why all of a sudden we are interested in humour, you may wonder. Believe it or not (not in Ripley’s Believe It or Not sense but in the everyday sense), humour and creativity are related. According to E. Paul Torrance, Professor of Educational Psychology Department at University of Georgia, both creativity and humour revolve around unusual combinations, element of surprise, conceptual and perceptual incongruities (Torrance, 1999).
Think about it: good jokes require a great deal of wit. In the examples above, the answers take us by surprise because we find them unusual, absurd, un-thought of, and therefore funny. The answers make unlikely interpretation of the questions (joke 3), make connections with what we are familiar with – but at the same time turn it into unfamiliar setting (joke 1 and 4), and make uncommon combinations (joke 2 and 5).
And yes, creative thinking is about making unusual combinations, looking at things differently, and thinking of and seeing things that don’t normally ‘fit’ or ‘belong’ together. This is why many experts on creative thinking actually prescribe humour (playfulness, spontaneity) as one of the necessary ingredients to being creative.
Dr. Göran Ekvall, Professor Emeritus of Industrial and Organizational Psychology at University of Lund, conducted research in major corporations to find out what differentiates companies that produce more innovative products to those that are less innovative. Among other things, Ekvall’s research showed that organizations that had a playful and humourous environment were more likely to have creative behaviour exhibited by employees.
Back in February this year, Time magazine reported Google to be the biggest media company in the world, in market-cap terms. Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the founders of Google were described as “playful” (they used to take part in the regular roller-hockey games in the Google parking lot). The Time article featured a photograph of Brin and Page playing with Lego pieces during the interview.
Not only are the founders of Google playful people, Googleplex, as the headquarters of Google is known, is also described as “quirky”. Toys for employees and their children, individualized road signs inside the building, electronic scooters to get from one place to another, a sand-volleyball court, a ball pit with brightly coloured plastic balls and a London style telephone booth (minus the telephone) were just some of the examples cited that contribute to Googleplex’s quirkiness (Time magazine, February 20, 2006).
Amidst all this playfulness, however, much serious work gets done. Brin and Page were reported to be “tough sells” when it comes to approving projects and keeping their engineers on their toes with their project proposals.
So we don’t need to be serious all the time to be productive. Dr. Roger L. Firestien, Associate Professor of International Center for Studies in Creativity at Buffalo State College, concludes that “There is a positive link between humour, productivity and creativity!”. People with a sense of humour are less rigid, less tense, less stressed and therefore able to get more work done. Humour is also found to alleviate boredom (very useful when one needs to get through those unavoidable mundane tasks).
And here is a bonus for having a sense of humour: research shows that group leaders who are able to laugh at themselves are perceived to be more effective at relieving tension, better at encouraging member participation and more willing to share opinions. Humour has a positive influence on effective communication in groups.
Our experience in facilitating problem solving groups and training substantiates what research and the creativity literature are telling us about having a sense of humour. We have never failed to have a smiling participant and a more relaxed atmosphere once we pose to participants the problem of how they can stop us from talking. A more relaxed atmosphere enables participants to focus on learning and generating ideas rather than being on ‘defensive’ mode.
So now the big question…if we don’t have one already, how do we go about acquiring a sense of humour? Moody – and the name is not a joke! – describes a person with a good sense of humour as one who sees himself and others in a detached way, thus being able to laugh at himself and things that don’t quite go right and remain positive at the same time (in Torrance, 1978: p.223).
So, first, you have to be willing. Having read this far in this article, we would assume that you are interested in acquiring a sense of humour, or at least to explore the idea of acquiring a sense of humour. As we believe, once you are aware and willing, you are half way to positive change.
So, here’s our recipe for a sense of humour. What you can do on your own: Set a quota for a laugh a day (our motto: a laugh a day keeps the doctor away). Read humour or joke books (keep some in the office). Meditate to relax. Put a funny mirror in your bathroom or on your desk. Imagine. Take deep breaths. Think of happy thoughts. Exchange your brain for a day. Use laughing gas (joke!).
What you can do with your coworkers: Ask yourselves silly questions (e.g. how to stuff an elephant into my boss’ mouth). Throw a party. Pop balloons (exercise sends oxygen to the brain and has an invigorating effect). Meet our boss, Elli. Treat your employees or employers like they’re your precious kids. Dance at work.
What you can do whether you are alone or with a group of people you know or even do not know (we suggest you try various situations and don’t forget to let us know the result!): Pretend you’re the guest star. Start playing. Exercise your mouth muscles. Watch comedies. Smile for nothing. Tickle yourself (it doesn’t work, so get someone else to tickle you). Talk to, play with, or pretend to be children, animals, or plants. Or, just laugh when others are laughing (even if you don’t know what they’re laughing about).
We love to play and laugh. If none of the above work for you, come and join us. We get lots of work done too.
“We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” (George Bernard Shaw).
Friday, September 08, 2006
Should Parents Leave Education to Teachers?
While working on our annual review (we were established in the month of August – thus the oddity of timing), we noticed the lack of participations in our parenting seminars and the little response we got in our parenting surveys. In the past three years, on average, parents’ participations on free seminars we conducted had been less than 5%, while surveys, although waged better than seminars, were at less than 20% of our database.
While this result came as no surprise, this year we discussed the issue and were strucked by our own conclusion. In general, we categorize parents into: (1) those who want to get involved with their children’s education and development vs. those who don’t want to get involved; (2) those who have time to get involved vs. those who don’t have time; (3) those who are motivated to get involved and put (1) and (2) into action vs. those who are not motivated.
Now this coming part may come across rather harsh and judgmental, but we find that we can only get through to parents who want to get involved, have time to get involved, and are motivated to get involved with their children’s education and development. Any other combination won’t work (e.g. want to, have time, but don’t have motivation; or want to, have motivation, but don’t have time; and the rest of the variations).
Point (2) that has to do with time is probably the least problematic. Time is a luxury that not everybody has. While some people can schedule their own time, others are strictly regulated by schedules that are set by other people. So we can understand if parents can’t find the time to attend our seminars or fill in our parenting surveys, with a note that they actually spend time for their children’s education and development at home. But if the latter one is also difficult, then maybe it’s time for them to rethink their priorities in allocating time. Time is finite, so we often must juggle our priorities to figure out which one we will spend time for. And we would argue that if we find something is important, we will definitely spend the time for. Thus, we would ask: What is more important than your own children?
Point (1) gets a little bit more tricky, and can be broken down into three sub-problems. Don’t parents want to get involved because (a) they don’t want to or because (b) they can’t or because (c) they feel they can’t? Of these three sub-problems, the last one is the least problematic. Parents can always get involve. In fact, parents must get involved. When you look at who you are today, we bet that a lot of who you are is influenced by your parents – be it in a positive or in a negative way. So is and will be your influence to your own children. We think that you can always get involved if you want to – a sub-problem we will turn into soon enough.
Now, to the sub-problem (1b): what if one can not get involved? We will have to ask: Why? Is it because of time (which has been discussed in point (2) above)? Is it because of capability? What other possibilities are there? If it’s a matter of capability, there’s a saying that we would like to share at this point: “I can, because I believe I can”. We would add to this that as long as there’s will (which is related to point (3) motivation), and time (i.e. you want to put your children as a priority for your time allocation), you will be able to get involved in your own children’s education and development.
But what if the problem is the sub-problem (1a): you don’t want to get involved? Well, we can only rest our case. We would just ask you to remember the time when your child was born: how did you feel about him or her? What were your hopes and fear for him or her?
We could only say the same when it comes to point (3), which is motivation to get involved in the education and development of your own children. As we discussed in this article, education is as much a responsibility of students as it is of teachers. When the students are young, then parents do have major part in sharing this responsibily with teachers. As the best kind of motivation comes from within, when parents role-model intrinsic motivation for their children, they too will most likely become intrinsically motivated individuals.
Education is as much a responsibility of parents as it is of teachers.
While this result came as no surprise, this year we discussed the issue and were strucked by our own conclusion. In general, we categorize parents into: (1) those who want to get involved with their children’s education and development vs. those who don’t want to get involved; (2) those who have time to get involved vs. those who don’t have time; (3) those who are motivated to get involved and put (1) and (2) into action vs. those who are not motivated.
Now this coming part may come across rather harsh and judgmental, but we find that we can only get through to parents who want to get involved, have time to get involved, and are motivated to get involved with their children’s education and development. Any other combination won’t work (e.g. want to, have time, but don’t have motivation; or want to, have motivation, but don’t have time; and the rest of the variations).
Point (2) that has to do with time is probably the least problematic. Time is a luxury that not everybody has. While some people can schedule their own time, others are strictly regulated by schedules that are set by other people. So we can understand if parents can’t find the time to attend our seminars or fill in our parenting surveys, with a note that they actually spend time for their children’s education and development at home. But if the latter one is also difficult, then maybe it’s time for them to rethink their priorities in allocating time. Time is finite, so we often must juggle our priorities to figure out which one we will spend time for. And we would argue that if we find something is important, we will definitely spend the time for. Thus, we would ask: What is more important than your own children?
Point (1) gets a little bit more tricky, and can be broken down into three sub-problems. Don’t parents want to get involved because (a) they don’t want to or because (b) they can’t or because (c) they feel they can’t? Of these three sub-problems, the last one is the least problematic. Parents can always get involve. In fact, parents must get involved. When you look at who you are today, we bet that a lot of who you are is influenced by your parents – be it in a positive or in a negative way. So is and will be your influence to your own children. We think that you can always get involved if you want to – a sub-problem we will turn into soon enough.
Now, to the sub-problem (1b): what if one can not get involved? We will have to ask: Why? Is it because of time (which has been discussed in point (2) above)? Is it because of capability? What other possibilities are there? If it’s a matter of capability, there’s a saying that we would like to share at this point: “I can, because I believe I can”. We would add to this that as long as there’s will (which is related to point (3) motivation), and time (i.e. you want to put your children as a priority for your time allocation), you will be able to get involved in your own children’s education and development.
But what if the problem is the sub-problem (1a): you don’t want to get involved? Well, we can only rest our case. We would just ask you to remember the time when your child was born: how did you feel about him or her? What were your hopes and fear for him or her?
We could only say the same when it comes to point (3), which is motivation to get involved in the education and development of your own children. As we discussed in this article, education is as much a responsibility of students as it is of teachers. When the students are young, then parents do have major part in sharing this responsibily with teachers. As the best kind of motivation comes from within, when parents role-model intrinsic motivation for their children, they too will most likely become intrinsically motivated individuals.
Education is as much a responsibility of parents as it is of teachers.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Education: A Shared Responsibility
Yesterday’s article in Kompas attracted our attention. Ika Dewi Ana in “Kearifan dalam Pendidikan” wrote:
The article puts the responsibility on the hands of the lecturer and the system of education in university level. But where should the responsibility of students be?
We are currently conducting surveys with university-level students who have gone through trainings on Creative Problem Solving within this past year in preparation for this conference: “Creativity or Conformity? Building Cultures of Creativity in Higher Education”, hosted by Cardiff School of Art&Design UWIC in UK.
We have received about a third of the total number of response we expect. So far we conclude two general findings. First, some students admit openly that they are lazy. Second, although most students know that the training has increased their ideas and open-mindedness, and for some their creativity, they are not interested in expanding their knowledge and practice of creative thinking. In other words: they are not motivated to learn beyond what is required by the facilitator.
These two findings raised some questions in our mind: Are students unable to transfer knowledge they gain from one class to another? But what can we (facilitators, trainers, teachers) do when students are not motivated to learn and to extend their own knowledge? What can we do when students realize that they are lazy but don’t want to do anything about it? Where does the responsibility of facilitators stop and the responsibility of students begin?
We would like to advocate that learning is as much the responsibility of facilitators as it is the responsibility of each and every students. Learning can’t happen when students are being spoon-feed by their facilitators. Likewise, learning can’t happen when students are lazy and unmotivated.
In her full article here, she noted that learning at university level seems to still focus on “transfer of information”, through which students lose the opportunity to learn.“Mahasiswa sekadar datang, duduk, mendengar, dan mencatat (dikurangi berpikir) apa yang disampaikan dosen. Usai kuliah, salah seorang mahasiswa akan meminta salinan kuliah yang biasanya disusun dalam presentasi power point. Tak ada lagi hakikat belajar.”
The article puts the responsibility on the hands of the lecturer and the system of education in university level. But where should the responsibility of students be?
We are currently conducting surveys with university-level students who have gone through trainings on Creative Problem Solving within this past year in preparation for this conference: “Creativity or Conformity? Building Cultures of Creativity in Higher Education”, hosted by Cardiff School of Art&Design UWIC in UK.
We have received about a third of the total number of response we expect. So far we conclude two general findings. First, some students admit openly that they are lazy. Second, although most students know that the training has increased their ideas and open-mindedness, and for some their creativity, they are not interested in expanding their knowledge and practice of creative thinking. In other words: they are not motivated to learn beyond what is required by the facilitator.
These two findings raised some questions in our mind: Are students unable to transfer knowledge they gain from one class to another? But what can we (facilitators, trainers, teachers) do when students are not motivated to learn and to extend their own knowledge? What can we do when students realize that they are lazy but don’t want to do anything about it? Where does the responsibility of facilitators stop and the responsibility of students begin?
We would like to advocate that learning is as much the responsibility of facilitators as it is the responsibility of each and every students. Learning can’t happen when students are being spoon-feed by their facilitators. Likewise, learning can’t happen when students are lazy and unmotivated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)