Author: alearningaday

Most situational feedback we receive has three elements –

1. Our behavior in the situation

2. Past perception of our behavior that might have resurfaced in this situation

3. The intent and insecurities of the person giving the feedback

Situational feedback is the most helpful variant of feedback as the giver focuses on a concrete situation.

But, such feedback – as helpful as it usually is –  still has more to it than just your behavior in that situation. Past perceptions and the intent and insecurities of the giver all play roles to varying degrees.

And, understanding this helps us become better receivers and givers of situational feedback.

“Trust is choosing to make something important to you vulnerable to the actions of someone else.” | Charles Feltman

We are trusted by others when they choose to make themselves vulnerable to our actions – this happens when they share confidential information, care for us, place their reputation on the line, or express thoughts and emotions that matter to them.

And, we earn or lose this trust by virtue of how carefully or carelessly we deal with what they’ve placed in our care.

I don’t think COVID-19 is going to change everything and usher in a remote-only future of work. While folks smarter than me seem to be making decisions that would lead us to believe as much, I think some of these decisions are reactionary.

There is no question however that it is going to change a lot. And, the longer we live outside of “normal” circumstances, the more change we will see.

As it is certain that we’re in it for the next 6 months (at least) and as we’ve been fortunate to have a bit of bandwidth after pre-schools reopened in our area, here are 6 questions I’m asking myself –

1. What improvements do I need to make in my work-from-home set up? (Specifically, are there any obvious upgrades that need to be made – workspace, webcam, accessories, etc.?)

2. How can I ensure I’m investing in relationships vs. simply reaping the benefits of prior relationships?

3. How can I build the right fitness systems/habits at home?

4. How can I read more?

5. How can I eat better?

6. How should my weekdays be structured?

No answers yet. But, here’s to arriving at those in time…

Louis Litt : Get the f- You read “Lord of the Rings”?

Jessica Pearson : Four times. I mean, it is about power.

Louis Litt : That’s funny. I always thought it was about friendship.

---

I recently caught this exchange on the show “Suits.” Jessica Pearson’s character is that of a career woman who cares about her firm above everything else.

Louis, on the other hand, is a fellow partner who is an emotional hot head on a perennial search for friendship.

What’s telling about the exchange is that they both reflected on the “Lord of the Rings” and saw what they seek the most.

Perspective.

A powerful daily demonstration of courage is owning up to mistakes we make.

PS: I started with a five paragraph version of this post and eventually whittled it all down to one line as it was the best way to do justice to what I was trying to say. Less is often more.. and hard to do.

“One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it.” | Master Oogway

There’s a small group of people in most classes and organization who have the smarts to consistently figure out the smart way of getting a job done.

They see the system, figure out the right place to apply the effort, do it with intensity, and get it done.

I  have marveled at their ability over the years.

And, I’ve also learnt that I’m not one of them.

My learning, as a result, has been that smart work and hard work are inextricably linked. And, as I can’t count on figuring out the smart path when I’m trying something new, I know I need to count on doing the work.

And, often, doing a lot of it.

After a few cycles of hard work and reflection, it becomes easier to figure out the smart way to get it done.

But, there’s no shortcut to those cycles of hard work.

At least there hasn’t been for me.

It is amazing how much progress we can make by learning to habitually look for and ask folks who know better.

Andy Dufresne in “The Shawshank Redemption” shared a line about hope in a note to his friend Red – “Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.”

It is a beautiful note about Hope. Hope, after all, is an incredibly uplifting and powerful force. It can help see us through the darkest of times and get us to believe when our backs are against the wall.

For all the wonderful things hope is, there is one thing it is not. A strategy.

I caught myself making this mistake recently. It may have been a result of tiredness or naivete or a combination of both. But, I hoped that things would work out a certain way.

It didn’t.

I was disappointed.

That disappointment was a waste of time, energy, and emotion.

A better approach would have been to have multiple contingency plans and act with the assumption that things would go wrong.

Because they do.

Hope is not a strategy.

The University of California’s Board of Regents recently voted to stop requiring SATs for incoming students. They will now take until 2025 to create a new test. And, if that effort fails (and, let’s face it, it likely will…), they will remove the need for a standardized test altogether.

This was a momentous decision as it is expected to be the beginnings of a trend that is adopted by universities across the United States.

The reason for the removal of the test is that preparation highlights racial and class inequities. Richer kids have access to test prep infrastructure that poor kids just do not.

And, yet, the U of C’s Academic Senate strongly recommended keeping the standardized test. Their argument was that their analysis showed that the presence of these test scores actually protected the very folks – under represented, marginalized and low-income minorities – that the Board wants to help.

Theoretical Computer Scientist and Professor at the University of Texas Scott Aaronson had a powerful take on the subject.

---

As a result, admissions to the top US universities—and hence, most chances for social advancement in the US—will henceforth be based entirely on shifting and nebulous criteria that rich, well-connected kids and their parents spend most of their lives figuring out, rather than merely mostly based on such criteria.

The last side door for smart noncomformist kids is now being slammed shut. From now on, in the US, the only paths to success that clearly delineate their rules will be sports, gambling, reality TV, and the like.

In case it matters to anyone reading this, I feel certain that a 15-year-old me wouldn’t stand a chance in the emerging regime—any more than nerdy Jewish kids did in the USSR of the 1970s, or the US of the 1920s. (As I’ve previously recounted on this blog, the US’s “holistic” college admissions system, with its baffling-to-foreigners emphasis on “character,” “leadership,” “well-roundedness,” etc. rather than test scores, originated in a successful push a century ago by the presidents of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale to keep Jewish enrollments down. Today the system fulfills precisely the same function, except against Asian-Americans rather than Jews.)

Ironically but predictably, the death of the SAT—i.e., of one of the most fearsome weapons against entrenched wealth and power ever devised—is being celebrated by the self-described champions of the underdog. I have one question for those champions: do you not understand what your system will actually do to society’s underdogs? Or do you understand perfectly well, and approve?

---

Universities, as things stand, are powerful arbiters of privilege. Getting the admissions process right matters for society. Removing standardized tests – with all their flaws – without suitable replacements is a step backward.