32 Capabilities of Highly Effective People in Any Field : Towards Defining Customer Requirements for Educational Institutions, Corporate Universities, and Personal Careers
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
Research Questions; 1. What prevents colleges, of all sorts, corporate, public, and private, from turning out effective people as grads? 2. What is a scientifically valid way to define "effectiveness", those components of it shared across diverse fields/professions? 3. What are domain general effectiveness capabilities as defined by people in diverse fields/professions who are known as highly effective people? 4. What distinguishes educatedness, creativity, and effectiveness? 5. How do models of effectiveness from research literatures differ from models from highly effective people, given interviews and questionnaires? Managers in industry typically find it takes two or more years before MBAs from the world's best universities become effective in fundamental ways (Bok, 1990). Hiring organizations, public and private, find humanities and social science graduates of the world's best universities are missing brainstorming, teamwork, editing, political, neurosis self management, and time management skills essential for effective work (Soundings, 2003). Employers find engineering and science graduates cripplingly lacking in the social, political, and psychological skills, and most importantly in the verbal expressiveness skills essential to teamwork in modern organizations (Soundings, 2003). Highly educated people, in terms of degrees earned, and highly creative people in terms of maverick dispositions and early accomplishments typically are ineffective in modern work organizations, many of them throughout their entire careers (Xerox, 1992). Even the most famous corporate universities privately admit that they continually retrain employees and managers in the same or similar skills because even slight changes of context confuse employees and cause them to fail to map previous skills to new task areas. Since modern business amounts to continual change of customer, market, and product, employees and managers end up re-training, re-re-training, and re-re-re-training in the same skills throughout their careers (Motorola, 1995). Many decades ago, research already demonstrated that to the extent that colleges emphasized intellectual success they stunted lifetime good outcomes of their students (Heath, 1977); it was psychic maturity achieved in college that predicted good lifetime outcomes, not grades, GREs, or the like (and treatment of such maturity as a goal of educating was happenstance where it existed at all, including a great deal of imprecision about just what it was). It could not be more apparent that colleges and corporate universities are either unable or unwilling to graduate people capable of operating effectively in modern organizations. Apparently they either do not know what effectiveness requires or, if they know it, they do not wish to provide it. Five explanations of this refusal of making grads into effective people are explored: culture gap, goal gap, speciality plethora, context sensitivity, and mystification. Several of these causes of ineffective grads can be blunted if a consensus on what effectiveness consists of, across fields, is obtained in a valid and reliable manner. That is the task this paper undertakes. We are all more likely to create effective people if we know what effectiveness consists of, based on a scientificly valid study of who the world's most effective people are and what it is that makes them capable of such effectiveness. Research Method: 1. Double stage recommendations of 315 eminent people nominating 150 "highly effective people" half US, half global, in 63 diverse strata of society 2. The 150 people nominated as highly effective, given questionnaires and interviews, asking what makes them effective and what makes others effective To this end an artificial intelligence technology approach combined with a total quality approach to defining "effectiveness" was pursued by asking 315 (5 per each of 63 parts of US society) eminent people in a stratified sample of 63 parts of society, half American, half global, to nominate "highly effective people". These eminent nominators were asked who was the most effective person in their lives and in their particular discipline/profession, what behaviors were unique to such highly effective people, and how they distinguished highly effective behaviors/responses from highly educated and highly creative ones. They were also asked what, exactly, they expected of highly effective people in various roles around them in their career and work (using certain total quality customer satisfaction dimensions). Their answers were used to add items to an interview given to the highly effective people that they nominated in the same of 63 parts of US society they were from. A total of 150 such nominated people were given interviews and questionnaires that resulted from interviewing the people who nominated them. Data Analysis: 1. Thousands of statements in questionnaires and interviews given by 150 subjects nominated as "highly effective people" categorized by similiarity on one level then those results categorized to form another level, till a top level of 8 overall concepts is attained 2. Research literatures of various kinds of effectiveness similarly categorized in a bottom up manner to produce models of effectiveness to be compared with the model from the 150 "highly effective people" Analysis of questionnaires and interview transcripts was done, marking behaviors unique to effectiveness, marking distinctions of effectiveness from educatedness and creativity, naming marked ideas, grouping similar such ideas, ordering them, resulting in a hierarchical model having 8, 32, 96, 288 dimensions of "effective person behavior" (each dimension at the 96 item layer in the model was mentioned by at least 30 nominees) and 288 step by step procedures, 1 for each of the 288 smallest scale dimensions. The results were put into a Fractal Concept Model format (where different hierarchical layers of ideas, each with the same "branching factor" follow the same ordering principle), and a book explaining each of 96 domain-general effectiveness methods. 32 general capabilities of highly effective people were thusly identified, then information processing models of each general capability were formed. Component functions of effectiveness for each of the 32 capabilities were articulated from components of each in the dataset. The resulting model was compared with models of effective behaviors in 8 fields developed by academic researchers. Explanations of particular gaps between these models and this paper's model are offered as hypotheses for testing in later research. Results: 32 capabilities, 96 methods, 288 functions, and 288 procedures of highly effective people produced from categorization of questionnaire and interview results Use of this paper's effectiveness model to assess the degree of "effectiveness" produced by various institutions and instructors, and to specify exact solutions, for certain hard-flaws-to-correct in business persons, that any manager encounters, is described.
- 関西学院大学の論文
著者
関連論文
- 32 Capabilities of Highly Effective People in Any Field : Towards Defining Customer Requirements for Educational Institutions, Corporate Universities, and Personal Careers
- 60 Models of Creativity : For Studying How Particular Repertoires of Such Models in Creators Affect Their Creativity