Posted by: Kate Woodley
on Jun 07, 2011
People who read this blog or follow me on Twitter would be aware of my interest in the science of positivity and its benefits, how to create enduring meaningful happiness and ways in which we can strengthen ourselves when the going gets tough. My emphasis here is on 'evidence-based' interventions - things that the research suggests will actually have a good chance of working.
A lot of my time is spent looking at other blogs, reading what the research literature suggests and 'keeping an ear to the ground' by reading the popular literature and the press. So I find it a little alarming that a 'fitness guru' or 'lifestyle expert' are published as being experts in the field of psychological wellbeing and development, when they may not be trained to make such assertions.
its a bit like asking your hairdresser what they thing of climate change; you may get an answer but not necessarily a helpful one. Not to put down the well-meaning types who practice such arts, I do however implore people to look for the credentials of the person they are reading or listening to.
Posted by: Kate Woodley
on Mar 07, 2011
Yesterday my adult son had an accident on his bicycle. He went across a car bonnet, broke the windscreen with his bare head then skidded onto the ground.
Whilst in the ambulance he logged onto Facebook on his iPhone, updated his status to alert that he had been hit by a car and 'checked in' to Royal Melbourne Hospital -then he collapsed. We were alerted to the accident via Facebook. We updated everyone on progress in the hospital via Facebook. Support and care poured in from all over the country, all day, via Facebook. Formerly ambivalent, I've got to admit it was really helpful, practical and useful. The mechanism is value-free, neutral and inert without our engagement. Social networking is neither 'good' nor 'bad'; it is only as helpful as our actions cause it to be.
Posted by: Kate Woodley
on Mar 06, 2011
I recently had the opportunity to explore the MCPA; based on the work of Elliot Jacques, it is a methodology designed to determine ones 'preferred approach to cognitive complexity', which apparently increases over time. The approach requires answering nine questions, selecting statements that are 'most like me' and 'least like me' from a prescribed range. A text based commentary is then required to supplement the answers chosen. The final plank in the process is a probing interview, drilling down into earlier life and career experiences. The output places the candidate on one of 7 levels, providing both an assessment of current level of capability and a trajectory for cognitive complexity. The point of it all is to ensure that one is in a role/context that provides 'flow'- a healthy tension between skills and challenge that ensures best possible engagement. Too much of one or the other can result in anxiety, dissonance and frustration.
What did I learn? It was a fascinating exercise, one that steps outside the traditional measure of IQ or problem solving ability. My take is the MCPA is most useful in career management, aligning the cognitive complexity trajectory with current or future expectations and context. It seems to provide an explanation for why some people fit readily in particular roles and organisations and others struggle. It also confirmed my decision to work independently and to continue to develop new applications for how we develop ourselves throughout our working lives.
