Peer co-mentoring is a phrase I came up with to describe what I do with Trevor when we get together for lunch. Since work schedules can be crazy at times, and Trevor now works in a different building than I do with a pretty social group of people, a couple months went by where we didn't get together very often, and when we did it was always with a bunch of others. While there was nothing wrong with going to lunch with others, doing so at the expense of the conversations I've had with Trevor was a cost that made me unhappy. So what we did was set up a recurring weekly "meeting" entitled "Peer Co-mentoring" to make sure that we got together for lunch at least once a week.
[Trevor, since you read my blog, you might want to stop reading this entry now. I'm going to say more good things about talking to you, and if you read about it, your head might get all big (or should I say "bigger"?) and you'll be unable to get out the door of your office.]
The last time we got together we talked about quite a few different things. First we both aired current frustrations, most of which have to do with work, or what we now call "villifying our enemies" in reference to article Trevor once described to me. But then we hit on a few particularly interesting subjects: why write a blog and what should be in it to make it engaging to a wider audience; Peter Drucker and his views on management, the purpose of companies, and the role of profit; and the concept of a personal satisfaction score, which we commonly refer to as "TSAT" and "ASAT" for "Trevor Satisfaction" and "Aaron Satisfaction."
I am planning to post further entries to this blog over the next couple days on these subjects and perhaps a couple others I left out, as it's now Friday and the conversation from Wednesday is still one of the things foremost on my mind. How many conversations (not including, say words exchanged in anger) do you actively think about and expand upon in your own thoughts days later? I'd wager (hah, another Texas Hold'Em reference!) that it's not very many.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Drucker is an interesting read whether you agree with him or not. So is Sun Tzu, for that matter. I have a few doubts about your analogies, though.
Speaking of holes, there is one in my understanding. Let's say I come to a hole in the world and want to cross. From experience with past holes, I expect to jump a certain distance. This is useful expectation, because if the hole is bigger than what I actually can jump, then I will fall on trying. Since a hole in the world is very deep, a fall would end my journey. I choose to look for another way to cross.
On the other hand, consider the case where I believe the hole to be smaller than my ability to leap or fly. I can, indeed, expend maximum effort. That probably is harmless, provided I expect no future holes to turn up on my path. There is no need to conserve energy, in that case, and I will have to travel the same distance, whether jumping or walking. But suppose I expect (that word again) to encounter one or more additional holes. Jumping, for me, expends more energy than walking. Since I don't know how many holes will appear ahead, it is to my benefit to cross this one with minimal expenditure of energy. I will then jump the width of the hole, plus an inch, plus a little more to allow for error.
I willingly choose a conservative expenditure of energy to protect against expected but unseen future challenges.
Rational conservatism, chosen based on expectations, which are in turn based on experience can be a good thing. Expectations are how we make decisions when faced with future unknowns. If we truly eliminate expectations, we are forced to seek absolute proof of concept before we decide anything. That leaves many of us staring off into space, experiencing each moment as it comes, without hope of changing anything.
Which leads to competence. You, and I, and, I expect (sorry), anyone who reads your blog, can do many things reasonably well. This is adequate for most purposes and permits one to focus on one or a very few things which you may hope to do excellently well.
Competence, in my view, is a very different thing from excellence. I have seen many organizations write plans and objectives in which they claim excellence nearly everywhere. This is utter nonsense. I have met in my time some extremely bright, competent people, a few of whom have demonstrated excellence in multiple areas. I have never met a person or an organization showing excellence in everything. Universal excellence is a fantasy. Universal competence is probably a fantasy as well, but the difference it that it is not uncommon to find people and organizations with competence in many areas and, perhaps, excellence in one or more. Wisdom lies in recognizing limits, rejecting paths that exceed real limits, and focusing on those where achievement, even excellence, is possible.
Your desired outcome, to "focus on your strengths", is the same as mine. I expect you have an unstated desire to expand the areas in which you are strong. We are probably saying the same thing. You seem young enough, in your picture, and in your activities described, to have room to grow. Go and do.
Anne Onony
Post a Comment