Thursday, June 16, 2016
So, about that depression thing...and the motivation thing, and the Frustration thing, and the sorts of things that pet the damn black dog on the head...(that neatly brings in all the blogs written so far if you've not been following...). This is my effort to bring any new readers up to date and to draw the various threads I've been laying down into a whole(ish). I've left so many threads in place that I'll probably not succeed perfectly, but for the most part the earlier stuff comes together here...I'll wait here for anyone who hasn't read the previous 6 to catch up...or to notice how much reading that is and figure you'll just use this as a summary and join the ride from here...whatev, but you'll miss a bunch of amusing reads and some of the (now insider) jokes below...
For me, the biggest hurdle to overcome is the initial motivation to get out of bed thing and start interacting with folks. With my various health problems, I've got that sort of covered by the whole pain thing forcing me to do SOMETHING all the time, and work is sort of the default distraction. Over the last, $30 buck oil bit, I've been holding back on some of the work thing to allow colleagues with families and dearer financial needs to do more. For those not in Alberta, it turns out even cleaning up the messes left behind is a tough go when the prospective clients have less cash.
That leaves me without a default distraction that isn't focused on me. And the depression thing makes doing stuff for me kinda "eh". I manage to do some of the stuff through recognizing it's the damn dog that's making me put it off and getting pissed off at the mutt, but that's "tiring" (or sort of like tiring with more of a soul sucking connotation...wearing??...hard work, anyway - sucks up some Focus) so I find myself relying on non-productive distractions (movies, computer games) more than I'd like...and you only notice you're doing something more than you'd like if you're being reflective, and if you have too much time on your hands and are spending it being reflective, you're kinda calling "here doggy, come on boy" to that damn black beast. (and for anybody starting from here, yes all 5 previous ones are like this).
So here we're going to start shooting for an equation encompassing everything so far, working towards a mathematical mental health quotient, with a big fudge factor term that I'll continue to work at for the many variables not considered yet. And I will get around to the mental health part, at least in a self-motivational context, so if that’s why your reading, stick with it.
To bring everybody to the same page on previously worked out terms, and clarify some of them a bit as the result of further thinking, I’ll define lots of stuff below - Note: a "team" may only consist of yourself - this all still holds and is a key to the mental health part.
We'll start with a quick summary of my fairly specific definition of Hassle. All people have a set amount of Focus, sort of a reservoir of mental energy. All people have a number of interests - sports, movies, family, pokemon, ironman, cosplay, politics, cosplay in politics, whatev - that they want to be spending Focus on. Any Focus diverted from Interests, or even from a higher ranked interest to a lesser interest, is a Hassle. We rationalise away and avoid Hassle whenever we can. Almost all tasks involve some degree of Hassle somewhere in the doing. Hassle is reinforced by actual Dislike of the task.
For the equations below, the terms are...
E - encouragement term -
The positive, feel good, sunny days are ahead kind of persuasion. All perception based on what the team "hears". Note that many situations have inherent positives built in (ex. surface water sampling on a wicked awesome beach in good weather).
T - threat term -
The "do this or else" kind of persuasion - guilt and intimidation, power imbalance kind of stuff - may be bullying, but at least as often is more misunderstanding and was intended to be E. Again all perception, and many situations have inherent negatives built in (ex. surface water sampling in bear country during salmon season, regardless of how awesome the beach is).
P - persuasion term -
A measure of the total persuasion applied in a given situation = E + T - in a motivational framework, this is entirely quantified by the teams perception, the leader's read on it is totally irrelevant. Yes, even if it's all one person, maybe especially when it’s all one person. The reality of a faulty perception may lead to a team getting consumed by bears, but they were successfully motivated to go out and try!!
Rp - Motivation term -
Required persuasion to accomplish a task with certain team. Totally reality, results based value...pre-implementation estimations are notoriously difficult, heck the post-implementation estimate suck, outside of the enough/not-enough dichotomy.
H - Hassle term -
Quantifies how much that team wishes to be spending their Focus on something/anything else. Reality based - individuals aren't even that good at estimating this for themselves. Note this is in both the exponent and root terms, so can dominate any valuation.
I - Interest term -
Quantifies the team's "give a sh*t" with respect to that task. If the task has a cool biological systemic process investigation, the young up and comer with a masters in fungi will be all over it. Totally Reality, again, individuals aren't that good at self-estimation here. Most tasks include a number of sub-tasks, so this is a sum of the combined sub-tasks team members wants to do that they are assigned to. Expert team building involves a selection of team members such that no sub-task is left stranded with no one wanting to do it...it's important, that those people have some competence at the task they want to do, and are actually assigned the tasks they want to do, of course, if you want the task to come to an effective conclusion. It's way "bad" to watch someone else hating the doing of a task you want to do and not being able to take the task over.
X - Competing/lack of Interest term -
Quantifies the team's desire to be doing something else as well as their lack of interest in doing whatever actions the task requires. If the task has a cool biological systemic process investigation, the young up and comer with a masters in metamorphic rock transformations is likely to want to be doing LOTS of other things. Note it doesn't always mean the investigation isn't cool, it may just be that that individual has cooler things they could be doing. If their favorite sports team is playing a GRAND FINAL that day, this term is YUGE - for that day - even for stuff they really like doing...All Reality and dominated by having team members doing tasks they have no Interest in.
D - Dislike term -
Quantifies the sum of team members actual dislike of particular sub-tasks - note this is in addition to not being interested in the sub-tasks. The team member may even have in interest in that task but dislike completing the task in a particular way. Say they have an interest in moving rocks from top of a cliff to the bottom, but like to do it in a more energetic "dropping" fashion than the carrying them down a tortuous path they have been restricted to. This Dislike term tends to greatly increase Anger associated with the task and has all sorts of "bad" associated with it outside of the motivational question, and is a really good thing to defuse or avoid in general...unless the tasks goals are thought to benefit from having a really grumpy, angry person doing it, say Customs Agent.
IR - the interest ratio (I/X) -
The barrier to motivation in a perfect world - one without Frustration or Dislikes!!
F - Focus term -
how much ability to engage the "cognitive brain" on stuff a team has. This is the "not coasting" brain, higher function stuff. Reality matters here and perception is often flawed in both the team member and the team leader - especially if the team leader IS the team member
F(u) - Available Focus term -
The presently un-allocated measure of focus that team member has. Note that a hugely overachieving workaholic may have lots more focus than, say a medically lazy part timer, but not have as much available, cus their youngest started dating "the wrong" person at the same time their oldest accidentally spent two months income on a cellphone scam and they're going to miss their mortgage payment, and...
In - Information -
The "why bother" term - a quantification of why is this task worthy of the teams effort. The perception is everything in this context – reality is irrelevant.
A - Agency -
The "do it my way" term - How much the team feels they have control over how the goal is being achieved or even defining if it should be a goal - the perception is everything in this context as well.
FQ - frustration quotient -
a measure of "ownership" and "engagement" and a bunch of other HR-ish terms = H/(In*A). Note that with sufficient information and agency the exponent approaches zero and the Rp approaches unity regardless of H. Often this means the increasing of agency and information, or more specifically, the appearance of agency and information, is the most effective route to motivating teams. Note the easiest way of increasing the appearance of A and In is to actually increase A and In.
So
P = Ea +Ta
Rp = (H*D)^FQ = (IR*D/F(u))^(H*D/(In*A)) = ((I/X)*D)/(F(u)))^(((I/X)*D)/(F(u))/InA) = (I*D/(X*F(u)))^(I*D/(X*F(u))/(In*A)
when
P > Rp
SUCCESS!!! - the task gets done!! Whether the job is getting out of bed, or hitting a deadline on a billion dollar deal. Whether the task gets done correctly or optimally is a totally different problem with piles of additional variables!!
When Rp is >> P, the work gets done enthusiastically or panickedly, depending on the balance of encouragement and threat in P. Note that enthusiastic work is usually (but not always) completed more satisfactorily than panicked work.
So let’s look at a practical example. I want a piece of Cake. The team in this case is me(T). The leader is me(L).
The leader, me(L), has decided the Cake is important.
The team, me(T), is sorta full and is almost ready to level in the computer game I'm playing.
me(L) points out that it is Sunday, which is the only day I let myself have Cake (outside of an evolving list of exceptions).
me(T) responds that the chair is really comfortable and I'm just about to level in the computer game I’m playing.
me(L) points out that the Cake place closes at 9 and it's 7:30/8/8:15 and I'm getting just a teeny bit hungry - or at least less full...
me(T) starts with "do it tomorrow" and eventually caves in and goes "alright already".
Now it turns out the Cake place closes at 8 and the:
me(L) got all gloaty and "see, you should have just listened and..."
me(T) totally tuned out me(L) and thought to himself "we're just waiting to tomorrow anyway, should just stayed put..."
So if we break it down, and please note that rigorous, defined empirical valuations for the variables is not required...relative sizes are enough.
I (interest) is dominated by Cake + hunger as a function of sweet tooth, and me(L) at least acknowledges that even the short walk required is still a walk and would be good to keep function in my legs.
X (competing interests) is dominated by fullness and enjoyment of sitting comfortably and me(T), at least, has a D (dislike) of the marginal pain added by standing up
F(u) (unused Focus) is fairly large (for me at the moment at least) and easily sufficient to absorb the effort of going to buy cake - even if it involves crossing at the dreaded "crosswalk from heck"
In (information) is perceived (incorrectly) to be high by both me(T) and me(L), as I really thought it was open till 9.
A (agency) is perceived (correctly) to be high by both me(T) and me(L), as I have a lot of control over my own actions, and am the only person involved.
So the me(L) wants to only spend as much focus as he needs to in driving motivation, cus he's frugal like that, and me(T) wants to spend as little focus on the task itself as possible, cus everybody is pretty frugal with Focus.
The me(L) looks at the situation and figures "cheesecake, like me(T)'s not going to jump at that idea, I don't even have to try!!" and phones in a "let’s eat Cake" to the me(T).
me(T) is unexpectedly resistant and good with his present state of moderate bliss and doesn't see a whole lot of upside with the whole pain and more food thing when he's good with a full-ish belly and a successful distraction he's playing at.
me(L) does a "seriously??" double take, and looks at the situation more fully. He realizes he didn't take the whole full stomach and comfort thing into account and just figured "Cake" would be enough, so he might actually have to spend some Focus here after all. It's pretty hard to present more encouragement than cake, so he's going to have to go after the threat side. So he tacks on a "if you don't go now the opportunity will go away for a whole day!"
me(T) does his own double take with a "he's not going to let this go, is he" and counters with a threat of his own. "You know that's going to hurt, right? and we can always go tomorrow, I'm full-ish"
me(L) goes into nagging mode and figures that if the applied reason behind the first two awesome attempts doesn't work, me(T) will agree just to shut him up.
m(T) holds his ground for a bit, until the combined irritation of me(L) updating him on the time, every couple of minutes, outweighed his diminishing fullness and pain avoidance, and it is Cake, and so he caved in.
The results of this incident are no Cake...bummer...and that both sides are going to have less trust in the other in follow up interactions...failure sucks even when it's not Cake. The root cause here is false information in that both me's believed they had until 9. An unfortunate outcome of the failure is that both sides resent the other for the mistake cus "ME didn't screw up" is the default position for most of us. Some folks accept it was them that mistaked (and that should be a word), but usually only after some discussion with both the self and others - or if it's so blooming obvious that there is no point in denying it...
The equations, for review while working through the above...
Rp = H^FQ = (IR/F(u))^(H/InA) = I/(F(u)X)^((I/(F(u)X)/InA) *^+- (FEAR!)
P = Ea +Ta
It's a really big deal here that me(T)'s perception gets to define both Rp and Ea + Ta, while me(L) is working solely from estimates. Primary responsibility for the result is with me(L) as he's the leader and it's his job is to get stuff done. It may be that me(T) is proving to be a more difficult resource to utilize than me(L) is comfortable with, which bodes ill for me(T)'s career development, but it's me(L)'s responsibility it's gone wrong and his initial under valuation of required motivation resulted in tragedy...and no Cake. If you want the leadership roles, it’s your job to motivate your resources enough. It's why lots of people prefer to work with inanimate resources, but that's never an option with one's self, and rarely with the actual project work we do.
I have added the previously unmentioned Fear term that is generated by us people things in both irrational and rational ways and that fits all through the aspects here. It makes the whole equation even more unwieldy so has been conveniently assumed away so I could get anywhere near this far. I may tackle it one day, but it's hard work. A bit of it appears in the Threat term, but it dances though lots of factors not least the Dislike and Interests terms. It's also exponential or geometric with some team members and situations and merely additive with others and even factorial in various ways, factorials don't get enough respect...
Now this example shows, perhaps in a bit of a stylized, personalized version, the kind of stuff that's going on in a head for any decision. The particular style may be somewhat specific to me, but there is a pretty similar thing going through your head whether you want to admit it or not. And while most decisions don't have as big a consequence as missed Cake, they can still be pretty important.
And with that sneaky segue, we're back into mental health!! Disagreements between me(L) and me(T) cause all sorts of tensions, and firing or quitting isn't a very workable option. If me(L) gets let down by me(T) and me(T) is under-served by me(L) too often, bad feelings and resentment build and build.
The only way's out are for me(L) to be more honest about the motivation levels needed to get me(T) going, and/or me(T) to expect me(L) to routinely underestimate the urgency or importance of tasks...or suicide, I suppose that works too, but that is hard to recover from - and then you don't get to find out how the gazillion stories you are a part of get to end...and there is so much totally cool stuff happening in the world these days, you've got to want to see how it turns out!!
That and engaging in your interests whatever they are, and avoiding hassles can make life more...interesting. Ignore what society thinks you should value and look at what you do value, then do more of that!! Ya, easier to say than do, but if it was easy it would be boring!! And if your interests involve anything icky or illegal, remember there is fear of consequences term in there that needs to be considered...
This all gets to be one of "lots" of useful frameworks for thinking through both internal and external stressors. Thinking through "fails" in my life and trying to grok why I failed to motivate myself to achieve more is helped by trying to put at least relative values in the equation boxes. It gives me insight into how much I value certain behaviors - not often are these insights complimentary, but the reality of outcomes is a firm, if harsh, marker for things. Self awareness is a dangerous thing, and nobody does well with too much. Actual perspective was a way to drive people nuts in the Hitchhiker Universe if I remember right, so calibrate accordingly.
If you feel you(L) should have achieved something you(T) were unsuccessful at, what else was going on that was more valued by the you(T) than you(L) counted on? It may just be that something outside your control smashed your legs to bits (it was months before I got to eat that pizza, and the pizza guys were kind enough to bake a fresh one for me) or it may be that there is something you need to account for in you(T)'s behaviors that you(L) is under appreciating and need to come to terms with if there is any hope to achieve inner peace and universal blissfulness and stuff.
If it doesn't work for you in your own head, then nevermind...there are other frames of thought out there - go find one that resonates with you. But at least think through how it works outside of your head when motivating other person teams, whether you are a designated (L) or not.
Man, this one's long, even for me, so I'll stop here without adding the factorial term on simultaneous hassles (like multiple procedural changes) I was thinking through. If the Team member is dealing with a bunch of simultaneous Hassles, adding one more hits way harder than it would in isolation...and I'm not touching the fear thing anymore than I have to for at least a while...it's scary