Plan your activities in blocks of time

Reading once again tips for being more productive, I found a good one from Amanda Mock. So, I would like to share with you her fifth tip from her post on dashburst.

I don’t know about you but I have often written out a to-do list in hopes of getting it all done. I have this fantasy in my head where like a productive machine I go through my day with my handy dandy to-do list, crossing each item off, accomplishing every last thing. All because I had a to-do list. But, fantasies aside, when I have barely finished half of my list at the end of a day, the harsh reality hits me: it just doesn’t work that way. The alternative I have found is to set blocks of time in my schedule, not for individual tasks, but for particular activities. 2 hours a day for working out, 2 hours a day for marketing my business, 3 hours a day for client work, and so on. Dividing my day into blocks allows me to focus on whole concepts or projects at a time. At the end of the day, I feel a sense of accomplishment I never used to experience when working off to-do lists. This sense of accomplishment keep me energized.

However, I tend to expand the hours working on tasks I prefer, and eventually minimize the time for the other activities. Finally, I try to put a priority to the tasks I deteste, just for keeping a balance.
How do you plan your activities and what kind of obstacles you encounter?

Adaptation

I don't know how many people are familiar with Ron Heifetz and his work on adaptive leadership, I guess a lot. In any case, I provide a link just to get you introduced or to remind you of this work.
adaptive leadership

Personally, I believe in this theory not only in the workplace but in everyday life as well. I do believe in the power of adaptation and I try as much as possible to expose myself in situations outside of my comfort zone. Actually, I don't try anymore. It has become a habit and every time I have to take a decision about what to do, I choose the one that I 'm not familiar with. Of course this doesn't mean that I take the right decision, but this is just me.

My sense after several years living like this is like not having a comfort zone at all. I can assure you that it is unsettling. However, I can't stop it. It seems impossible for me to "feel like home". I have no close friends anymore and I face problems in my relationship, since my emotional situation constantly changes. There is not this magic place where I can go and relax and feel secure. This insecurity (created by me) is apparent to my girlfriend, and eventually she feels insecure too. Sadly, I still don't want to stop. In my way of view, people should never stop trying to develop themselves. In my mind, there is always a "what-if" scenario. I constantly try to stretch myself to uncomfortable situations. I want to explore my limits and I always find that I can do something more. So, how can I stop it knowing that there is more? That wouldn't be me.

I was always complaining that there is nothing interesting enough to fascinate me. I was always jealous of my sister (and people like her) who knew that she wants to be a doctor since she was five years old. I never had such a commitment to something.Now, I realize that I have. I am committed to adaptation.

Finally, in an attempt to get some feedback from my actions, I think that I should not share my feelings from this journey. Maybe I should just share the experiences and results.

A culture killing-lesson!

In relation to my previous post, I would like to remind you a post by Jack Welch, the famous CEO, about the importance of corporate culture.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/12/goldman-sachs-culture-values/

A great HBR article on organizational culture

Should a company fire a great talent that doesn't fit in with its culture? Check this out!

http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hbreditors/2012/12/zero_dark_thirty_and_corporate.html?utm_campaign=Socialflow&utm_source=Socialflow&utm_medium=Tweet

Ineffective team building

Team building activities give the opportunity to collegues to get to know one another better. In this way, cooperation becomes easier and employees feel more comfortable. The main difficulty in such activities is to persuade people to participate. For this reason, many companies choose something easy to realize such as dinner at a restaurant. It is considered that as long as they participate, the results are positive and the company is benefited. However, is this always true?

In my opinion, most of the times team building activities have something positive to offer. But there is a possibility that a deeper knowledge of a colleague's personality harms communication. Indeed, while communication in work lies within a context familiar to anyone, communication in a restaurant is almost free. As a result, some of the participants  may not be able to get along with. For example, introverts may feel outshined by extroverts who rule the discussion. Or some others may find that they just don't fit in this environment, while they don't face any problem at work.

Recently I had a discussion with a friend who found a new job and he was sharing his experience with me. He told me that he cooperates really nice at work with his colleagues, but, listening to some of them talking outside of the workplace, he felt "disgusted" (that's the word he used) by their way of thinking.

I am sure that such an experience cannot be a serious obstacle in the way they work. On the other hand, it creates a sense of distrust which can be harmful in the long run.

Since trust is essential in leadership development, team leaders should take actions in advance, and protect the framework of communication in team building activities, as long as it is possible. And it is very crucial that they don't make their colleagues feel uncomfortable with their behaviour.Even outside of the workplace, they should stick to the rules of communication. Besides, a leader communicates constantly!

Unusual facts!

In Greece, many married couples with children decide to take a divorce, so that their children would be accepted to a kindergarden!

Moral numbers

Nowadays that economy struggles, managers and governors have to watch every detail in their data. Everything seems to be number-driven. My question is if this "numberocracy" has a limit. Is there any context out of which one can't use numbers and indexes?
For example, it would be useful for our economy to kill pensioners. Of course, noone would dare such a thing. But, where is that limit when we stop deciding upon numbers and we take into consideration other factors?

Social loafing and division of labour

I can’t understand people. They say they don’t want to be treated like sheep, but they don’t do the work of the shepherd as well. They waste their time hanging around. Who gave them the right to waste their time and relax?

Social loafing.  We leave important things to be done by others. So, give me a single reason, why the one who did what it had to be done, according to his opinion of course, not to take advantage of his authority.

Finally, I tend to believe that the division of labour encourages social loafing. Although productivity is increased, our sense of responsibility is reduced. Thus, we become socially inactive, always waiting for someone else to take responsibility of a situation. 

About Unions

When a union takes place, for example a marriage or a merger, both parts obtain access to the resources of the other, but they are accountable for its obligations as well.

In the very special case of the EU, however, they attempt to make a political union (since there is a government) with the aim to manage more efficiently the union's resources and that's it. There is not such thing as union as far as obligations are concerned.

I am not specialized in such issues and maybe I am wrong, but in my mind it seems that either we should move on an absolute union with a single strong government or we should keep just the structure of a free trade union. The existing situation lies somewhere in the middle and it just creates counter-productive disputes.

My position is that we should move on, since so many structures are already made. What we should fix right now is the cultural issue. A union will never be realised as long as we have different values from our partners. There is the "north" and the "south" culture.

Indeed, using Hofstede's dimensions on culture, one can see the difference. I chose five northern and five southern countries and I estimated the averages on each dimension. Then I sorted the scores of the ten countries from largest to smallest for each dimension separately and draw a line to separate countries above and below the average.

In power distance dimension (PDI) they are perfectly seperated in southern and northern.

In individualism vs collectivism dimension (IDV), below the average there are only southern countries again. (Although France and Italy score high in individualism).

In masculinity vs femininity (MAS) dimension, southern countries score much higher, with the exception of Germany.

In the uncertainty avoidance dimension (UAI), there is a clear separation again into southern and northern countries.

In the long term vs short term orientation index (LTO), there is a mixed result. In this dimension there is no score available for Greece.

According to these simple observations, it is implied that we should work towards an alignment in PDI, UAI and MAS dimensions in general, while Greece and Portugal should raise their individualism score.

Is this feasible? We are talking about a huge change which needs certainly more than one generation in time to take place. Has this ever happened before in such a large scale? Of course not, but we also have to take into consideration that cultural changes are easier to happen mostly due to the web.

And this situation leads to another question raised in Hofstede's website.

"Will there be one big world culture in 50 years from now?"

I am not sure.

Generic strategies

It is said that there are two kinds of generic strategies: low cost or differentiation. I was thinking of how species apply those strategies in their reproduction. So if we consider the offspring as a product, then species like humans, which choose to produce a few children but to invest a lot of resources to secure their survival, follow a differentiated strategy. The other option is to produce as many offspring as possible, investing a few resources in each one (low cost strategy), and hoping for the survival of as many as possible.

A question that crosses my mind after my previous thought is whether we really choose a strategy, or it is imposed in reality by other factors. In my example, modern society doesn’t allow people to follow a low cost strategy; otherwise they will be sentenced to life in prison. Indeed, as I read in “Moral Minds”, by Marc Hauser, Jack and Sylvia Darner chose to follow this strategy. Due to the fact that only 2 of their 15 children survived, they found guilty for intentionally overproducing children.

The previous thoughts lead me to suppose that in a certain environment, in a certain context, there are forces letting only one kind of strategy to survive. The other one is sooner or later doomed.

About love

Some people consider love as something that you give and receive. If one is receiving, she thinks that the other one loves her. When she doesn't, then he doesn't love her anymore. Well, I imagine love as a separate existence; a third part where you put your investment: feelings, time, money, dreams, sacrifices etc; a third part where both put their investment. Sometimes maybe one of them puts more than the other; but always they put both. And each one of them withdraws love currency when in need.
In the case that one doesn't contribute to the love union, the whole building collapses. They get separated. I don't know if they get something back from their investment in this case. And I don't know if it really matters. The only thing I do know is that it takes time to make profit. So you 'd better find a good partner!

Gender’s lost IDs

Women claim that nowadays it is hard to find “real” men. By this, I suppose they mean that today men can’t take decisions and responsibilities just as their father’s did. And this may be true. But why this happens?

1.       Modern women have undertaken this role voluntarily. In contrast with the previous generations, modern women are free to do whatever men use to do. The point is how they do it. They don’t have an example set by their mother, so they have to imitate their father’s behaviour. As a result, they adopt masculine patterns of behaviour, according to the stereotypes of the past, and part of this is the procedure to undertake the decision and the responsibility.

2.      Modern men permit women doing so. The previous model of family where father was the boss seems to be unfair for the mother of the young boy. So, he rejects it and adopts a more democratic way of behaviour towards women.

Nowadays, a woman is looking for a man like her father, and either she can’t find one or she can’t have him since she wants to be in charge. On the other hand, a man is looking for a woman like his mother, but also either he can’t find one or he can’t attract her since he doesn’t try to be in charge.

Keep it short!

I'd prefer reading magazine articles in the form of bullet points. I struggle to get the information through the writing "sauce" of each author. So, please stop pretending to be an author of the previous century and give me the stuff!

What is communication?

Evolution

I was surfing at bbc scotland website when I saw the following photo, taken by Sean Young:

It is a real photo of people enjoying the sunset; however, the first thing that came to my mind was that someone had set it up aiming to pass a message.

The combination of these pictures can take various meanings.People behind the leader stopped following him. And due to the fact that people behind the leader represent the past and they can't have changed direction, it seems that rather the leader has take the wrong way. Possibly we lost our orientation.

Another interesting meaning would be that the evolution leads to the sunset. Nothing to do with spaghetti films,   it could mean that we are moving towards an end.

In any case, I don't want to be pessimistic. After any sunset, a new sunrise follows.

Communication distance

I think that people usually prefer to keep a middle distance on their daily interactions with others. They feel unconfortable being strangers, so introducing to people that surround them makes them feel better. However, coming very close to each other also makes them feel uncomfortable for various reasons.
But this may be a little offensive. Imagine that you 're in a bus or a train and the next seated person introduces herself to you. You get to know each other and then you lose contact. What happened there? Have you been used to help an unknown pass the boring time of commuting? During this time you could have done something more productive for you.
That is the case of people doing networking. They create contacts, sharing every now and then pretty much useless information to keep the contact alive. Sadly, it is usual that when a contact needs them, they can't be available. They can't afford so many contacts and they are not really interested in all of them.
So if we define as micro-distance how easily you make connections and macro-distance how easily you get close with a connection, then, speaking of myself, I would have a very short micro and a very long macro. This means, it's very easy for me to get introduced to people, but it is hard for me to have a stronger relationship with this contact. It seems that it is a quantity-quality issue and though I prefer quality, I give priority to quantity.

Nice advertisement quote

"Some are happy the way they are. Others, like us, prefer to discover what we can become".

Advertisement of a spanish financial institution.

Gymno Domatio, by Nikos Karvelas

One of my very favourite songs, it is called in free translation "empty room". It talks about someone who is left just waiting in an empty room for something to happen, even if this would be the end.

Instead of following a way, let the way follow you!

It's true. Connections and mentors can help you find your way much faster. But there is always a trap over there. There are people who invest so much on networking, there are people who are based so much on advices. As a result, they forget the most important key to success: WORK. You have to search and see for yourself, don't rely on someone else's opinion, you have to work hard. So, do not expect anyone to help you unless you work hard and have something to give in enchange. But if you do, don't sell it short!

I think this rule applies globally. Can you imagine the consequences of giving something expensive for free? Easy come, easy go, they say. 

This thought lead me to another. Nowadays, research is easier than ever. The resources are millions through the web. As a result, when someone tries to support a thesis, she can find articles from previous researches to support it. Those researches are based on other researches etc, it's like a pyramid. However, we should take into consideration that each research has a context. Applying one theory to prove another requires to check the restrictions. Unfortunately, in this furious era and in front of the need to show results, people have combine  

ideas incompatible.There is a confusion. Instead of working with the primary tools to construct something solid, that you own it, you borrow comlex tools which few know how to use them, and the result is poor. 

Mixing my previous thoughts, I conclude to the following:

 Instead of asking for advices on which way to follow, make your own way.

Instead of following a way, let the way follow you!

My default settings

Recently, I noticed something strange. I was just waken up and shaving, when I remembered that the previous night I fell asleep listening to music. For some reason, I felt a sense of shame for the kind of songs I was enjoying the previous night. And that was happening again and again. After sleeping, I have different music taste. More specifically, during daytime I am used to listening to western kind of music, while at noon I prefer an eastern one.
Then, I realised that this phenomenon used to be more general. As long as my mind is clear, I am keen on western way of life and my behaviour follows the context of my western-type education. By the time I got tired, my mind returns to its "default settings": the eastern way of life and behaviour of my parents.
Based on this, I formed a theory: our early education and character shaping is much stronger than the one we obtain later on from school. Our development during early childhood shapes our "default settings". Our education provides adjustments to these settings and forms our new values and behavioral norms. All of our "default settings" may be subjected to change through our lifetime. However, their core always exists buried in our mind and it comes to surface during "brain failure" (e.g.fatigue).
Can this be right? Is there a similar established theory? And if true, how can it be helpful?