Comments for Beyond Chalk

Comment on Change the way you think by Isaacpv

Isaacpv — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 02:33:00 +0000

Real innovation and creativity prbably doesnot come from thinking. It comes from “non-thinking”. You are most creative when your mind is still. Still, not empty. Its the stillness of the mind that facilitates all creative ideas and concepts.

Comment on Change the way you think by Jonathon Mascorella

Jonathon Mascorella — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 07:27:00 +0000

The concept that something is “new and improved” is what consumerism thrives on, and unfortunately is the cornerstone of everything we buy. Even mobile phones are caught up in that hype, where a new version with minor upgrades is seen as evolutionary, even though it is not. I see this often in education, where we change the name, but the basics stay the same. We believe the “product” is “new and improved” but unfortunately it is not.

We need to focus on how we can improve something, not make it new. A new school might tick all the boxes visually, and even simple things like changing terminology might make it look new, but it does not change the fact that pedagogy (teaching style) stays the same, assessments are still factored on the same values of 50 years ago, and students are still “educated”, rather than taught to learn.

Interesting comments, and an insightful critique.

Comment on Future Proof: Genetically Modified Teams by samster28

samster28 — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:11:46 +0000

Very interesting article. I will be following this with interest.

Comment on Future Proof: Sexist pigs? by ajnabee

ajnabee — Wed, 26 May 2010 15:51:40 +0000

Hi Peter – had not realised that you had moved into the diversity field. Check out my new venture at http://www.orijen.com.au – Executive Womens Business. Have been talking to Dom Thurbon as well. Can you share the full extent of your research with me? And one of my ex-McKinsey colleagues is interested in what you are doing – whats the most direct way to contact you? She is based in Houston.

Cheers, Kriti (Colless)

Comment on Future Proof: Sexist pigs? by Bonnie

Bonnie — Thu, 20 May 2010 00:08:39 +0000

Dr Angie has some pertinent points.

I believe the Parents in our world need to instill confidence that our girls can be what ever they want to be. This is the way I was brought up, and I have achieved almost everything I set out to do. The sky is the limit, not our gender.

Peter's research was interesting and I would like more details on how "companies with greater diversity (namely women) in senior roles outperform the market by as much as 33%".

Peter, shall I contact you for this?

Comment on Future Proof: Sexist pigs? by Dr. Angie (Nearly)

Dr. Angie (Nearly) — Tue, 11 May 2010 16:13:12 +0000

Let's face it, women and young women ages 0-99 are undervalued all over the world in almost every situation. Data indicate that in third world countries that if you want to make societal improvements you have to support women. You have to address fundamental issues and make female education and health care a priority. If you are raised from day one to be a second class citizen, then it is almost impossible to completely abandon that mindset. Companies that are serious about promoting women, will also support girls' education, locally and globally. Starting at the top with executive leadership initiatives won't do it. Without a solid foundation, the "building" will soon crumble.

Comment on Future Proof: Twitter-induced paranoia by AMorey

AMorey — Tue, 04 May 2010 00:47:11 +0000

I think the lack of though that comes with instant communications means that people may actually "say" something they regret and when thought through may change or reconsider thier opinion. The judgemental nature of twittering can be damning and damaging. What about taking a moment to digest an idea or new thought?

Comment on Future Proof: Genetically Modified Teams by Darren Ryan

Darren Ryan — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:32:21 +0000

My Wife is in genetics so i know enough to sound like i know what i am talking about. I think eventually it could be used but right now the industry is too young. we know of a few genes that are related to breast cancer but not all genes related to it. Could it not be the same for the risk taking gene? i think until we have a good map of the human genome it will be too difficult to discriminate and win the court battle.

Comment on Future Proof: Twitter-induced paranoia by Darren Ryan

Darren Ryan — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:18:46 +0000

I think people are overly brutal when they have the security of the anonymous comment. But if you can read it with a grain of salt you can gather some truly great customer feedback from these mediums.

Comment on Future Proof: Sexist pigs? by Maarten Vanneste

Maarten Vanneste — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:18:37 +0000

The next thing I expect to happen in the coming years is scientific proof of the fact that women generally speaking don't want to be in leadership positions. That it is their natural, biological and neurological condition and that it may take a few hundred generations to change. Scientific evidence is probably available today (2010), but it is too early to change that paradigm.

Comment on Future Proof: Sexist pigs? by Ridwan

Ridwan — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:02:03 +0000

Experts have talked about this before. How many times have you read about the importance of ‘adding value’ for your audience? How many times have you read about ‘building trust’ with your readers/prospects?
Many, many times. You know it well. Every marketing guru has spoken about this topic. I’m sick of hearing it. But it STILL bears repeating.
http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Comment on Future Proof: Genetically Modified Teams by alan mccrindle

alan mccrindle — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:39:21 +0000

I have two issues. One is related to risk taking and the second related to genetics as sufficient measure for assessing employee fit with functional fit.

Lets start with risk

How many employed people are "risk" takers?

How many people who do MBA's are creative or risk takers? If they were risk takers they wouldn't have bothered with MBA's. Did you bother to get one? My guess is that you didn't.

The guys who created the CDO's etc. that blew up weren't risk takers. They passed the risk onto pension funds etc. which meant that the risk eventually ended up with Joe six pack. Moreover they were using other peoples money and had were their pay was based on short term incentives with no claw back provision. These are strategic level thinkers who are good at innovating around the rules.

Now to the concept of genetics as a sufficient measure of fit for a role.

The idea of matching the genetics, or nature, of an organism to the environmental characteristics which best support its functioning is actual quite old - at least 2500 years old and stems back to Ayurveda - the first version of complex adaptive systems thinking I know of. It is a great win win idea for both the person and the organisation and you can work out the "genetics" without a traditional genetics test.

My observation is that by itself it is insufficient to measure total fit because it ignores at least two other uncorrelated variables that relate to fitness - the values and world view/stage of development of a person and their preferred lens for viewing the world. These are well understood in the integral world and you can learn more here. ( http://integrallife.com/ )

For example, People's values and their sense of morals change as they move through developmental levels and their world view expands. A person with an integral world view and values would not be motivated by the values and relatively limited world view that underpin the free market system as we know it.