Mind states: subjectivity

Summary: [You might view the earlier post “Mind states: the age gaps” before this.] We think and act in certain ways at different points on our lifespan because of the social learning, not actual age.




Research now tells us that the basic human processes of cognition, emotion and motivation are influenced not so much by our chronological age, as by our sense of time.


The time index


At different points in our lifespan, we view time differently. Our social learning is that time encourages the young-old differences.

Chronological markers predict children’s physical growth, sensorimotor coordination, cognition, and language abilities. They are assumed to have far yet to go to achieve goals of education, work and so forth. This is the first index of time. Looking forward, we perceive its horizon to be limitless.

Then in adulthood, the person stops growing in height and begins to mature. They’re
assumed to be done with development and learning. The concerns are with achievements in life, looking back over the years. This is the second index of time. Its horizon is limited by the life span seen as still remaining.

Accordingly we tend to evaluate and live life.

The social assumptions

We’ve thus learned over the years, to prioritize our goals and our behaviour according to the ‘norms’ of the society we live in.

We equate youth with dramatic and quick changing outlooks, because in common knowledge, elders are ‘too old’ for it.

Our untested assumptions have become that anybody not conforming to these cultural norms we’re used to isn’t normal.

Manipulating constraints

In the experiment, the researchers tested assumptions manipulating people’s subjectivity – that is, their individual state of mind regarding time.

In the first instance, the older people had felt their age and chose accordingly. But when the age constraint was (experimentally) eliminated, the norms no longer applied, and they thought and chose outside the box.

The young people were expectedly carefree in choice in the first instance. But when the security constraint was (experimentally) applied, and circumstances became uncertain, they were motivated to reason out their selections, as elders tend to do.

Events

The experimental manipulation caused the participants to think differently. The researchers say that when states of mind become identical, so do goals and choices, irrespective of age.

Similarly, September 11th attacks, SARS epidemic, or HIV especially before effective treatments were available, are events that have wiped away the age differences. The affected young viewed their social world in the same way as the old generally do.

Adapt to newness

Fact is diversity and other environmental challenges are now causing us to think as normally we don’t do or want to.

These stereotypes we now need to reassess, as we have to adapt to new reality and new processes. Norms are challenged all around the globe. Perhaps with new learning forced on us, 'wide’ age gaps might also close.

Comments/Opinions Anyone??

Mind states: the age gaps

Summary: We assume youth explore as they prepare for careers, and older people prefer to consolidate positions. But perceptions and choices in life can change.


We know by common knowledge that the emotional, cognitive and motivational states of elders and youth are opposites.

The difference

Organizations generally recruit and retain on the age basis because they assume that human faculties only diminish with advancing years.

Old-young differences are in attention focus, in taking in and remembering informational details.

Certainly time impacts people’s motivations. But are stereotypical choices an undeniable fact of ageing – or simply stereotypical thinking?

Preparation and consolidation

Preparing, and consolidating in life and work are goals generally associated with younger and older age groups respectively.

In stages of preparation - as for a career – people seek the acquisition of knowledge. They explore and experience novelty, and gather information to broaden intellect, looking forward to the future.

In the consolidative stages, short-term results become important, as people look back on the life they have led and the careers they have built. Therein they seek the psychological wellbeing of fulfilment, and achievements.

The positivity effect

Youth finds that which is negative far more attractive, even soothing. Like they’d call destruction, art!

Older people seem to prefer positive information and emotionally satisfying.

This focus on negative stimuli in youth dissipating across adulthood to the focus on the positives in old age is called the positivity effect.

Perception

To test the age theory, researchers developed pairs of advertisements, identical except for their slogans. One slogan invited expanded horizons, and the other promised emotional rewards.

These were used on the two different age groups. Initially, both groups reacted to the slogans just as might have been predicted.

Older people responded to emotion-related slogans, and remembered products associated with them better.

And just as surely, younger people didn’t look out for emotionally closeness with social partners, but looked forward to novelty.

Changing choice

But then, researchers introduced the ‘experimental’ variable to alter scenarios.

They asked the older participants to first imagine an expanded future before choosing. The younger people were asked to imagine moving to a new geographical location.

The responses changed dramatically in result. Older people, visualizing a bright future, preferred the knowledge-based slogans. And challenged by the unknown location, the young people began to look like they were old, and chose emotionally close social partners instead!

Cont’d 2…subjectivity

Trends: population influences

Summary: [You might view the earlier post “Trends: the consumer search” before this.] Some companies grow faster because they figure out probable influences on the micromarkets. Tracking them can provide the company a competitive advantage.


This homework on consumer trends adds effectiveness to the business performance.

Ethnic homework

Some companies track ethnic cultures and habits. For example, Lufthansa airlines launched a cultural website sometime ago, focused on immigrant communities.

They paired attractive travel packages with the immigrant people’s customary holiday plans. Within three months they had 190,000 visitors to their ’site. Consequently, revenue generated online was 91 percent over expectation.

Age a trend

Ageing for example, is one such important trend. Yes, older age groups too can make or break the bottomline!

A study focused on the effect of ageing populations in developed economies found that Italy has low birth rates, and high life expectancy.

Hence the senior citizens’ social group in Italy is growing to be the largest demographically. And that could affect product sales.

Significant rise and fall

The researchers estimated that in Italian markets, from the present to the year 2020, there would be increased demand for healthcare, housing, energy, food and beverages.

And over this same period, a significant drop would appear in demand for apparel, furniture, and automobiles. Games, toys and sports would be the hardest hit because of an ageing populace!

Global growth rates

A study comparing the global growth rates of industries, found that some companies grew faster than others did. Why?

They had exposure to subindustries and product categories and could figure out the probable influences of environmental change in future moments. Those that didn’t have knowledge about the micromarkets couldn’t adapt well enough.

Competitive advantage

Trends can have far reaching effects that are not always obvious. Researchers say that by breaking megatrends down into microtrends, companies can understand how specific products will do, since all are not affected in the same way.

Companies that add the tracking of trends to their knowledge base, add competitive advantage. Based on the ready analysis, strategies may be devised to focus appropriately to ride the waves of consumer change successfully.

Comments/Opinions Anyone??

Trends: the consumer search

Summary: Trends represent change, even for business. Product lines survive (or die) on them.

Trends, for many of us, are just styles we avidly follow when we’re young - like wearing loud colours in earlier times, and electro sound activated t-shirts today - and heartily disapprove of as we age.

Just ignore them?

Like soap bubbles they start, swell and burst. Their existence is momentary and will soon pass, we believe. They capture the imagination for a while, and then all interest is lost. So, we say, it’s best to just ignore them.

Nike did. Their shoe ad campaign content emphasizing image and celebrity was a hit with the boomer generation. It built customer loyalty to the brand.

The company assumed that some things don’t change and carried the same focus forward to Generation Y.

Ready to change

And Nike suffered. Within two generations, the strategy bombed. The new consumer trend is a search for the uncommon and unusual. It may wax and wane, but it also heralds a complete change.

It turns out the Millennials’ youthful change of consumer taste isn’t about to evaporate. They’re unimpressed with the celebrity image that earlier generations aspired to.

Demand unpredictable

Trends are important even for business, as many product lines survive (or die) on them. Cars, clothing styles, games, toys or furniture companies need to be alert always since demand is essentially unpredictable.

For example, Benetton’s ad campaigns keep track of and highlight sensitive issues of diversity packaged in their ‘united colours’. These invite controversy, and also attract much public attention.

But the company remains alert and sensitive to change. In addition, to match shifts in customer needs and choices as and when they arise, the clothing company has efficient but flexible factory processes to change or modify colours week by week.

Research awareness

Marketing research is important for product sales. The point for many companies is to increase chances of success and avoid wastage of resources.

They create awareness of the product before its launch, and collect critical feedback from the targeted populations about possible consumer trends even in the future.

Cont’d 2… population influences

Generations: growing virtually

Summary: [You might view the earlier post “Generations: coexisting turmoil” before this.] Conflict generates energy for change. Groups need to integrate their knowledge base.

Virtual reality supports the spread of new trends across cultures, borders and generations. This global change is traumatizing the organization’s status quo.

Evolving changes

Much learning and interacting is done on Internet. Individual interests and purpose are changing now. Preferences for the unusual and uncommon seem to be growing.

Organizational members, both male and female –

• don’t plan on permanence at the first job
• want to be at the top right away
• are competitive with themselves and coworkers
• prefer small companies to giant ones

Managing styles are also evolving. Online leaders centralize group needs and goals. They adopt interpersonal language to refer to the group rather than to themselves, and put together ideas posted by others rather than solely contribute their own.

Energy from conflict

The conflict isn’t between older and younger age groups per se, but between orthodoxy (resistance to change) and progressiveness (disruptions of existing structure). Conflict actually alerts organizational members to issues needing attention, and opportunities to integrate diversity. It generates the energy for change.

A survey found that the top answers within the workforce to the question of where management could improve were:

• Use my skills and abilities better
• Step in and resolve conflicts
• Ask for, and listen to, my ideas.
  

‘Change’ is the important new trend here to stay.

Benefits of innovation

Companies are incorporating innovations in work processes, like digitizing accounting records, developing edutainment podcasts, etc.

Keeping up with technology is difficult because all organizational members aren’t on the same tech page. Older generations can perceive ‘threat’ in the move and resist change.

The benefits for them should be clear for the processes to work – an end to long waits for client data, the tedium of manual entries, stacks of print matter, etc.

Embracing differences

The system needs all its members to move forward together embracing their differences.

Older generations contribute matured thinking and varied experiences to the system. Social networking between generations would ensure that younger people benefit from elder wisdom on life and work, while they help with new technology and practices.

When generations get used to sharing experience and creativity, perceptions of threat may be effectively removed. It isn’t impossible then for diverse people of all ages to work together. Heterogeneous elements functioning as a team is critical for any organization to sustain high performance.

Comments/Opinions Anyone??

Generations: coexisting turmoil

Summary: Coexisting generations leads to conflict and stress. But differences can’t be denied.


Companies, like individuals, find high performance hard to sustain. The surveys say only about 5 percent can keep it up for a decade or more.

The threat

Globalization raises concerns about the effects of increasing diversity - race, culture, nationality, gender and skills - on the organization and its performance. Technology is getting ahead of people development.

Those used to sameness don’t readily accept ideas or processes that may threaten comfort zones. The fear of losing control raises the resistance to newness.

Coexisting groups

Now the challenge is furthered with four generations coexisting in the workplace. These groups are also all used to different periods of time and work attitudes.
These member groups are also all used to different things.

For example:

• ‘Traditionalists’ (born before 1945) are familiar with mass productions and assembly lines.
• Baby boomers (born between 1946-1964) have experienced cold war competiveness.
• Generation X (born between 1965-1979) have grown up with the confusions between colonialism and globalization.
• Millennials or Generation Y (born 1980 onwards) are used to worldwide Internet, diversity and business process outsourcing.
  

Coexistence leads to conflict and stress.

Differences abound

So each group carries into the system different experiences and understanding of economic, sociocultural, political and technological change. When beliefs and perceptions vary, so do outlooks and behaviours.

Differences of age, organizational experience, attitudes and creativity are most glaring with the newest entrants to the workforce, the Millennials. The fingers of blame commonly point at them, as responsible for the organizational turmoil forcing change!

New perspective

But evolving differences can’t be denied. Technology alters lifestyles and structures. High-speed computer connectivity encourages the ‘www’ relationships.
People constantly surfing the ’Net are far more aware of the outside world than about immediate neighbours or relatives. They don’t anchor on specific people or places, but have a global perspective - much less ideological, much more issue-based.

Stressed employers

The tech savvy think and act in ways that upsets the organizational status quo. The hierarchical leadership style of generating the ideas, using powerful language and sticking to task is also being eroded.

Authority structures are shaken by the conflict. So, survey reports say, up to 60% of employers experience stress at work.

Cont’d 2…growing virtually

Jell or lose

Summary: Reality shows provide insight and learning from others’ experience.

On winner-take-all TV reality shows we glimpse the human side - the bonds and spats between individuals vying for one ultimate win.

The spice

Following Top Chef episodes won’t make us experts on exotic seasoning, or provide from the get go detailed knowledge on how to cook cordon bleu.

But as viewers we clearly understand that being a great cook isn’t all there is to getting the title.

Cameras almost everywhere 24/7 capture emotions, words and actions between fishbowl inhabitants. The more spice in interactions, the higher the viewer ratings!

Lessons

Entertainment also isn’t their sole utility. We’re provided insight, and the opportunity to learn from others’ experience.

The shows give us lessons on life. They make clear that collaborations matter in competition as do people skills for adaptability to situations.

Interaction counts

Technical skills count of course, for each competitor to complete tasks effectively – say, in cuisine. The initial rounds of the competition weed out the grossly incompetent.

But thereafter, the quality of interaction counts more than the competence or creativity of each individual contestant.

Keen memories

In the title round of Top Chef, teams of sous chefs chosen from those eliminated in earlier rounds assist the finalists.

Since these ‘others’ were once competitors, they might consider their own skills at least at par, if not better than the finalists themselves. They may also retain keen memories of earlier exchanges.

Win-lose ability

Being able to vibe with different backgrounds or age groups becomes important to win the title - or lose it.

The ultimate test is in the readiness of the winner to manage others’ performance as well. Thinking future is crucial. This, in life and work, we tend to forget.

Fish dish

The ‘top chef’ holds the overview, like a manager in any organization, and the goal (of dream cuisine). But self-absorption is weakness because if the getting across of what is to be done and how falters, it may soon hurt the enterprise.

When everything is heaped on one plate, something will slip off. The failure to include others in the thinking, planning and decision-making shows in the lack of teamwork in final execution.

For instance, for an unusual fish dish on Chef’s menu, the fish may be left behind.

The labour

Few people are born with the charisma to naturally attract a dedicated following.

The autocrat (“Silence in the kitchen!”) gets no feedback, and no fresh ideas. The poor communicator (“I had too much faith in their understanding!”) fails to share the big picture and finds the devil in the detail far too late.

Being acceptable to the group is labour for most. Micromanaging or abdicating responsibility is equally disastrous.

Showcase talents

At crunch time, whatever can go wrong does go wrong. If undercurrents seethe in the team, problem solving or creating alternatives on the fly become stressful.

Avoid the effort to jell the group, and the dream itself may be chopped to bits. Ensuring everybody else on the team also has opportunity to showcase talents motivates their working together.

The cohesiveness

Astute leadership fully utilizes available skills; recognizes who does what best, and delegates to individual strengths. The point is to channelize group energy towards the common objective - creating the best possible cuisine.

High performance needs group cohesiveness. This is built on knowledge and respect for one another’s abilities. People skills make or break career aspirations in any system. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding...and the Top title!

Comments/Opinions, Anyone??