Comments on: Context and Purpose http://www.danmulhern.com/wordpress/2007/10/context-and-purpose/ A weekly stimulant for those who lead Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:17:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: V http://www.danmulhern.com/wordpress/2007/10/context-and-purpose/#comment-47905 Sat, 02 Aug 2008 00:10:12 +0000 http://www.danmulhern.com/wordpress/2007/10/context-and-purpose/#comment-47905 I just want to make one comment. Dave Goodreau did not only kill Jody Lynn Watts but he also killed a schoolmate of mine, Kathy Nankervis, whom was disabled with two small children. I believe that Dave Goodreau was her SSA worker. Let us who live not forget her life as well. I just want to make one comment.

Dave Goodreau did not only kill Jody Lynn Watts but he also killed a schoolmate of mine, Kathy Nankervis, whom was disabled with two small children. I believe that Dave Goodreau was her SSA worker.

Let us who live not forget her life as well.

]]> by: GAPetrie http://www.danmulhern.com/wordpress/2007/10/context-and-purpose/#comment-17002 Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:07:10 +0000 http://www.danmulhern.com/wordpress/2007/10/context-and-purpose/#comment-17002 I went through the same error as you describe. I thought perhaps Mr.DGM would illustrate that both of these women were working toward the same goal but through two different approaches, though to perform the illustration would require choosing a dimensionality for the diagram: we could say that the first voice worked from the "outside", by ensuring that happiness is found by people despite their circumstances; and we could say the second worked from the "inside", by empathically seeking acknowledgement of pain wherever it can be found, so that it can be dealt with and energy redirected toward more positive feelings; in the dichotomy we could show that the "inside" is at the root of what we find along the "outside" surface, but that sometimes what is outside is too heavy (or too pressurized) to allow what's inside to grow in a new, more positive direction. Perhaps the focus isn't too intense -- perhaps we could find both approaches in the same person, but really here with two workers we might find equal ergs to two "dualistic" workers but with the additional individualised focus that each one has chosen. This reminds me of Mr.DGM's earlier meditation on the ability of several work group members being "greater than the sum of its parts" -- a sentiment I normally take issue with but only because it seems to squelch or marginalize the individuality as nothing more than a predestined line for the group product -- though thinking about it now, these two voices do match the criteria for this "greater than the sum" effort, but only because their individual efforts are autonomous; they don't suborn to a unified authority which awaits their product. This is not just another way to show that Marx was wrong, it just proves exactly what Mr.DGM has said this letter: when you've found the proper context for actions (perhaps testing such an important contextualisation first by theoretically analysing their words), for behaviours, or even for a person's goal in the scheme of things (without relegating it as a "niche"), you increase the definition of the boundary of that context proportionate to the qualities and attributes (strengths, in this positive tone) of the person. Sometimes that context comes first and foremost as your own worldview, as what changes is your concept of personality judgement -- who knows? I also thought for a moment that Mr.DGM was going to pooh-pooh the second voice for wasting an opportunity to say something inspiring by saying something neutral. I'm glad he showed exactly the right path you could take to coming around to see someone as a potential internal moderator (who's working for that purpose) instead of an opponent. Practicing empathy and neutrality for the good of others raises a hard-to-answer question about motivations, as seen by others and as wondered on introspectively. Are you helping them for your own good? Is your own good synonymous with the greater good? Again, it takes a third party to contextualise it (as we did with our illustration). Otherwise there's no point of observation by which to give rise to a convention, and therefore no basis for measurement. On a personal note, I'm glad Dan could say this to us: <blockquote>"People's words truly make sense only to the degree you understand the context in their thought and their life." -- DGM </blockquote> Something like losing your parents (I've gone through nearly the same thing) raises a question: are you like others, or not? And often times, even after you've given yourself a deeply sought-after and welcome answer, the question is raised again and again by, well, the rest of everybody. It can even raise another question: how much am I really part of everybody if I'm constantly confronted by this distancing difference? And even: is this how people are defining me, as a tragedy, a mere token of their own reflective sadness? The questions can pile up, and sometimes (and I apologize for being so digressively analytical), especially with that question "me and everybody else, what gives" unanswered, it can seem like a lot of weight, and a person gives up just when they're directly confronted with a way to really help a lot of people: if you can empathise with the losses lived through by another, just ask yourself if what you've gone through is better or worse than what they have, and answer the question honestly. The answer is that it's both, neither, it doesn't matter -- that question is the only one that, in normal practice of empathy, doesn't have any placement and isn't positive. It's an erroneous question, and not answering it (so you know not to) causes the motivations behind the rest of the questions (which may be piling up or may be yet to be asked) to give way -- vanity, guilt, pride, prejudice, and so on. Because for everybody who's going to make you feel out of place by joining the masses of others in, sometimes coarsely, treating you like you're different for your losses, there is somebody who has gone through the same thing or worse. The internal healing is really already done: you know on your own (best authority) that you're alright enough to go on and that you are already practicing helping others get to the same point, hence the discovery. It's a positive feedback, an upward spiral, a precious cycle. Perhaps there are many others who will continue to treat you differently, but they are the blessed mass, something you can fade into the background like any behaviourist or artist would if it became too difficult to deal with, so that you can focus on the subject of your work (the other voice that's different, too). Anyways, that's just what some people go through. I can't speak for everybody. But great RFL, really great. I went through the same error as you describe. I thought perhaps Mr.DGM would illustrate that both of these women were working toward the same goal but through two different approaches, though to perform the illustration would require choosing a dimensionality for the diagram: we could say that the first voice worked from the “outside”, by ensuring that happiness is found by people despite their circumstances; and we could say the second worked from the “inside”, by empathically seeking acknowledgement of pain wherever it can be found, so that it can be dealt with and energy redirected toward more positive feelings; in the dichotomy we could show that the “inside” is at the root of what we find along the “outside” surface, but that sometimes what is outside is too heavy (or too pressurized) to allow what’s inside to grow in a new, more positive direction. Perhaps the focus isn’t too intense — perhaps we could find both approaches in the same person, but really here with two workers we might find equal ergs to two “dualistic” workers but with the additional individualised focus that each one has chosen. This reminds me of Mr.DGM’s earlier meditation on the ability of several work group members being “greater than the sum of its parts” — a sentiment I normally take issue with but only because it seems to squelch or marginalize the individuality as nothing more than a predestined line for the group product — though thinking about it now, these two voices do match the criteria for this “greater than the sum” effort, but only because their individual efforts are autonomous; they don’t suborn to a unified authority which awaits their product. This is not just another way to show that Marx was wrong, it just proves exactly what Mr.DGM has said this letter: when you’ve found the proper context for actions (perhaps testing such an important contextualisation first by theoretically analysing their words), for behaviours, or even for a person’s goal in the scheme of things (without relegating it as a “niche”), you increase the definition of the boundary of that context proportionate to the qualities and attributes (strengths, in this positive tone) of the person. Sometimes that context comes first and foremost as your own worldview, as what changes is your concept of personality judgement — who knows?

I also thought for a moment that Mr.DGM was going to pooh-pooh the second voice for wasting an opportunity to say something inspiring by saying something neutral. I’m glad he showed exactly the right path you could take to coming around to see someone as a potential internal moderator (who’s working for that purpose) instead of an opponent. Practicing empathy and neutrality for the good of others raises a hard-to-answer question about motivations, as seen by others and as wondered on introspectively. Are you helping them for your own good? Is your own good synonymous with the greater good? Again, it takes a third party to contextualise it (as we did with our illustration). Otherwise there’s no point of observation by which to give rise to a convention, and therefore no basis for measurement.

On a personal note, I’m glad Dan could say this to us:

“People’s words truly make sense only to the degree you understand the context in their thought and their life.” — DGM

Something like losing your parents (I’ve gone through nearly the same thing) raises a question: are you like others, or not? And often times, even after you’ve given yourself a deeply sought-after and welcome answer, the question is raised again and again by, well, the rest of everybody. It can even raise another question: how much am I really part of everybody if I’m constantly confronted by this distancing difference? And even: is this how people are defining me, as a tragedy, a mere token of their own reflective sadness? The questions can pile up, and sometimes (and I apologize for being so digressively analytical), especially with that question “me and everybody else, what gives” unanswered, it can seem like a lot of weight, and a person gives up just when they’re directly confronted with a way to really help a lot of people: if you can empathise with the losses lived through by another, just ask yourself if what you’ve gone through is better or worse than what they have, and answer the question honestly. The answer is that it’s both, neither, it doesn’t matter — that question is the only one that, in normal practice of empathy, doesn’t have any placement and isn’t positive. It’s an erroneous question, and not answering it (so you know not to) causes the motivations behind the rest of the questions (which may be piling up or may be yet to be asked) to give way — vanity, guilt, pride, prejudice, and so on. Because for everybody who’s going to make you feel out of place by joining the masses of others in, sometimes coarsely, treating you like you’re different for your losses, there is somebody who has gone through the same thing or worse. The internal healing is really already done: you know on your own (best authority) that you’re alright enough to go on and that you are already practicing helping others get to the same point, hence the discovery. It’s a positive feedback, an upward spiral, a precious cycle. Perhaps there are many others who will continue to treat you differently, but they are the blessed mass, something you can fade into the background like any behaviourist or artist would if it became too difficult to deal with, so that you can focus on the subject of your work (the other voice that’s different, too).

Anyways, that’s just what some people go through. I can’t speak for everybody. But great RFL, really great.

]]> by: Anonymous http://www.danmulhern.com/wordpress/2007/10/context-and-purpose/#comment-16993 Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:13:14 +0000 http://www.danmulhern.com/wordpress/2007/10/context-and-purpose/#comment-16993 Than you Mr. Mulhern for this message. For some reason, I felt more power in the second young lady's mission BEFORE you revealed the context. I though you were going to go on to say that leaders have to acknowledge that things are NOT great and that communication and working with others is the key to being a great leader. I think you did point out the power of the second voice. The problem I see in much of our leadership today is that often leaders feel the need to stay focused on their goal, even when people disagree, stay positive and on their message, and they forget the part of two-way communication and working with people. Why don't leaders take the risk of communicating and working with people as an everyday mode of leadership? If the goal is inclusive enough, you are a leader who cannot do anything but listen, and never be content to keep the followers on your message, but on communication and working with others. I hope that second young lady goes on to lead many using the insights found in her tragedy. Than you Mr. Mulhern for this message.

For some reason, I felt more power in the second young lady’s mission BEFORE you revealed the context. I though you were going to go on to say that leaders have to acknowledge that things are NOT great and that communication and working with others is the key to being a great leader. I think you did point out the power of the second voice.

The problem I see in much of our leadership today is that often leaders feel the need to stay focused on their goal, even when people disagree, stay positive and on their message, and they forget the part of two-way communication and working with people. Why don’t leaders take the risk of communicating and working with people as an everyday mode of leadership? If the goal is inclusive enough, you are a leader who cannot do anything but listen, and never be content to keep the followers on your message, but on communication and working with others.

I hope that second young lady goes on to lead many using the insights found in her tragedy.

]]> by: John G. Agno http://www.danmulhern.com/wordpress/2007/10/context-and-purpose/#comment-16989 Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:08:31 +0000 http://www.danmulhern.com/wordpress/2007/10/context-and-purpose/#comment-16989 Dan, I have had the pleasure of personally coaching an exceptional young man while he was in high school (to suppliment his mentoring by the CEO of large Michigan-based firm). I truly enjoyed the progress this person made in engineering a life vision that he went on to polish while attending Michigan State University. Today, he works on Wall Street living that vision. Helping high school students think like a leadership coach and/or consultant is important as they decide how best to live their life. Today, in Japan, there is a new book by a former McKinsey consultant that is meant to help middle and high school students think like a consultant. "The World's Easiest Problem-Solving Class" by Kensuke Watanabe has become an adult best-seller in Japan. This 117-page paperback offers two case studies: a kids' band looking to increase concert attendance and a teenager saving to buy a computer. Both use 'business' graphics like logic trees, along with cute drawings. This simple approach also appeals to adult readers. Perhaps, an American publisher will decide to translate and publish this book for the U.S. marketplace....so more middle and high school students here can develop their thinking ability and construct a life vision to build on in college and afterwards. Dan,

I have had the pleasure of personally coaching an exceptional young man while he was in high school (to suppliment his mentoring by the CEO of large Michigan-based firm). I truly enjoyed the progress this person made in engineering a life vision that he went on to polish while attending Michigan State University. Today, he works on Wall Street living that vision.

Helping high school students think like a leadership coach and/or consultant is important as they decide how best to live their life.

Today, in Japan, there is a new book by a former McKinsey consultant that is meant to help middle and high school students think like a consultant. “The World’s Easiest Problem-Solving Class” by Kensuke Watanabe has become an adult best-seller in Japan. This 117-page paperback offers two case studies: a kids’ band looking to increase concert attendance and a teenager saving to buy a computer. Both use ‘business’ graphics like logic trees, along with cute drawings. This simple approach also appeals to adult readers.

Perhaps, an American publisher will decide to translate and publish this book for the U.S. marketplace….so more middle and high school students here can develop their thinking ability and construct a life vision to build on in college and afterwards.

]]> by: Mick McKellar http://www.danmulhern.com/wordpress/2007/10/context-and-purpose/#comment-16984 Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:34:43 +0000 http://www.danmulhern.com/wordpress/2007/10/context-and-purpose/#comment-16984 <strong>Dan</strong>, Your article on context and purpose struck a deep and resonant chord with me. In 1987, I left a job with the Social Security Administration to work for my alma mater. I was directly involved in choosing my replacement, basically because ours was a small and remote office. The young man I recommended was a good-looking, personable, fellow named David Goodreau. He was married and had a couple of nice kids. David seemed capable and intelligent, and was a religious father and husband, sending his wife and kids to Bible camp regularly. We had lunch and I was taken with his easy-going personality and quiet confidence. All in all, he seemed a good choice. A few years later (1991), the young daughter of a coworker at Michigan Tech was brutally murdered while jogging early in the morning. Her broken body discovered a short distance from the police station toward which she was crawling. Eventually, the courts convicted David of the murder and of stalking other women in the area. He apparently was a serial killer who practiced his pasttime while his family was off on religious or vacation trips. Until that time, I had prided myself on my ability to judge people - a skill gained while interviewing thousands of applicants for benefits over 20 years. It shattered my illusion and made me deeply aware of how little I know or could ever know about what really motivates people to do what they do. It haunts my dreams and casts a shadow that looms behind every decision I must make about another's motivation. It was a hard way to learn about the fallibility of human intuition. Thank God the darkness of the depths of human depravity is balanced by the light of the sunrise of the human spirit. It was a terrible tragedy and will stay with me forever, though I did not know Jodi Lynn. Mick McKellar <a href="mailto:mick@pasty.net" rel="nofollow">mick@pasty.net</a> Info on the murder available at:<a href="http://mtulodearchives.com/index.php?issuedate=&section=12&artid=1176" rel="nofollow">http://mtulodearchives.com/index.php?issuedate=&section=12&artid=1176</a>Very little else is available on the Internet. Perhaps this is because the murder happened before the Internet because ubiquitous. Dan,

Your article on context and purpose struck a deep and resonant chord with me. In 1987, I left a job with the Social Security Administration to work for my alma mater. I was directly involved in choosing my replacement, basically because ours was a small and remote office. The young man I recommended was a good-looking, personable, fellow named David Goodreau. He was married and had a couple of nice kids. David seemed capable and intelligent, and was a religious father and husband, sending his wife and kids to Bible camp regularly. We had lunch and I was taken with his easy-going personality and quiet confidence. All in all, he seemed a good choice.

A few years later (1991), the young daughter of a coworker at Michigan Tech was brutally murdered while jogging early in the
morning. Her broken body discovered a short distance from the police station toward which she was crawling. Eventually, the courts convicted David of the murder and of stalking other women in the area. He apparently was a serial killer who practiced his pasttime while his family was off on religious or
vacation trips. Until that time, I had prided myself on my ability to judge people - a skill gained while interviewing thousands of applicants for benefits over 20 years. It shattered my illusion and made me deeply aware of how little I
know or could ever know about what really motivates people to do what they do.

It haunts my dreams and casts a shadow that looms behind every decision I must make about another’s motivation. It was a hard way to learn about the fallibility of human intuition. Thank God the darkness of the depths of human depravity is balanced by the light of the sunrise of the human spirit. It was a
terrible tragedy and will stay with me forever, though I did not know Jodi Lynn.

Mick McKellar
mick@pasty.net

Info on the murder available at:http://mtulodearchives.com/index.php?issuedate=&section=12&artid=1176Very
little else is available on the Internet. Perhaps this is because the murder happened before the Internet because ubiquitous.

]]>