So let me actually answer the question this time. I believe the hiring process should reflect the performance review process because right now there isn’t that alignment. There has to be unity in what someone is hired for and what they’re measured against. I believe that because I’ve experienced that myself. I’ve also heard others describe how the position that they thought they were interviewing for was an entirely different job description from the reality of once they started the job. That what makes someone good at interviewing is a different skill set than what makes them competent at their job.
I like things fitting into systems so this goes against that. When something doesn’t neatly fit in, it bothers me. I have to make it integrate. Sometimes, overcompensate. But it’s not to that point at all here. Sometimes there’s so much dissonance between these two things that it makes me wonder if we have the right people in place. Speaking here more in terms of larger corporations.
People can just play a game, and game the system to get a job. And you can even game the system to have ‘success’ in performance reviews and move up the ladder. But I would guess that those people will be always looking for more, in a negative connotation. No amount of private jets, sports cars, luxury suites can make them feel as happy as they can be.
When you game the system, again it comes back to systems where if you set up the wrong systems, it can take decades, centuries, generations to reverse. That’s what we’re trying to transcend as a society. Systemic oppression. Systemic inequity. Systemic racism. Systemic disfunction. Organizational discombobulation. That it should be a meritocracy, a level playing field where the system rewards intelligence and diligence in one area but also highlights those who have intelligence and diligence in other areas. But that’s not the society we live in now. So it can’t be governed like a meritocracy until everything truly is equal.
So why do I believe that the hiring and performance review process should reflect more closely of each other? Because systemic misalignment and disunity are so glaring that I can’t reconcile it.
Next question.
Why do I believe I want to make the mundane appealing?
Because life can be mundane. Or life can be appealing. It’s only our mindset and intentions that make something mundane or appealing or any other feeling. Because I think we associate routine with mundane. That anything we have to do repeatedly, it’s mundane.
Humans crave novelty. We don’t want the same thing over and over again. We like something new and exciting. But hmm, I could say the exact inverse statements and it still be true. That humans crave a routine. And that we fear something new. Why is that?
I think it’s the context. We want something new within the context of something old / we know. We crave routine amidst a sea of novelty.
[see pics of 2x2 quadrant]
[*Quadrant and brainstorming explained as text*:
Current Axes: Existing & New.
Future Axes: Existing & New.
Existing (Current) x Existing (Future) = Mundane / positive habit
Existing (Current) x New (Future) = Comfort zone / creativity
New (Current) x Existing (Future) = Comfort zone / creativity
New (Current) x Existing (Future) = Fearful / excitement or adventure
Growth vs fixed mindset. Future state & current state. Novelty scale.]
This is not necessarily a neat 2x2 quadrant though. It’s a spectrum on both axes. So to directly answer the question, it’s because I have a growth mindset.
Now what are examples of each?
Existing within an existing: Right now, it’s doing Shambhavi. I’ve known it for 3 years so it’s something I do repeatedly. But Shambhavi was initially something that could be categorized as a new experience within an existing context. So I felt some level of comfort but also learning novelty with it. The existing experience being meditation.
Existing experience within a new context: following along with YouTube workout videos. Because I’ve worked out before but not in the context of following a YouTube video.
New experience with in an existing context is traveling to a new place. These too seem very similar. And they are. There’s a very fine line between the two. And functionally, I’m not actually sure that there’s any difference.
New experience with a new context: when I first started vlogging. Recording myself was new and talking about my day and then posting that online was new. Or even creating, publishing, and distributing my website was a new-new experience.
But how we approach each of these experiences is up to us. Even the growth vs. fixed mindset vernacular is a false discrete dichotomy. That too is a spectrum and range.
If Existing-Existing and fixed mindset, that’s actually the comfort zone, mundane, same-old routine, safe and secure.
If Existing-Existing and growth mindset, it’s more of a positive habit building, 1% growth each day.
But if it’s actually too much of a growth-mindset, then there’s restlessness wanting to jump from one thing to the next. That you can never build a solid routine.
Now of it’s a new experience in an existing context and a fixed mindset, then it can be anxiety-inducing or stressful or not wanting to do it.
New-existing-growth mindset is creativity, flow, learning, failure.
But if there’s too much growth-mindset here, it can turn again into an addiction with novelty without growing across contexts or reinforcing that learning.
With existing experiences in new context and a fixed-mindset, you feel like you’re growing but you’re really not. Creating novelty for novelty’s sake rather than actually learning from it. It’s the human trap that all the systems have built.
But they can also be stressful or anxiety-inducing. So again very similar to the inverse quadrant.
If existing-new-growth, then the same adjectives of creativity, flow, learning, failure, etc. If it’s too much growth though...wait actually. It’s what I said above here for this categorization. Of “With existing experiences in new context and a fixed-mindset, you feel like you’re growing but you’re really not. Creating novelty for novelty’s sake rather than actually learning from it. It’s the human trap that all the systems have built.”
Now finally if new-new-fixed, then it’s total avoidance, fear, closing off.
If new-new-growth, then excitement and adventure.
But if it’s too much growth, then it’s not just novelty addiction, but immature risk-taking, callow naïveté.
[10 min research and ideation]
Ok got it. I incorporate the concept of the Learning Zone Model. It’s a circle with Comfort Zone in the middle, Learning Zone outside that, and Danger Zone outside that. Then when I layer that on, the circles and the quadrant combine so that the bottom right quarter of the circle is encompassed by the quadrant, like this.
[see picture]
But this is still 2D. Let’s bring in the fixed vs growth mindset. But really rename this fixed-balanced growth-aimless growth mindset. Since I believe that I need to have the right balance between the two ends of the spectrum, it’s going to create a third dimension. And it’ll become a sphere. Like so.
[see picture]
So here you get the most volume of the sphere when you have a balanced growth mindset compared to leaning one way or the other too much.
LOL I forgot that this was even within the context of my career. But to combine this revelation with the Career Life Domain, it’s because I can apply my balanced growth mindset to my career in whatever I do.
Even this itself is a Learning Zone experience. I combined a new experience of this topic in existing contexts of a 2x2 quadrant and 3D shape. Very meta!
A perfect way to end this Free-Form Journal. On to the next question and to the next journal! With hopefully even more balanced growth.
Comments