the tricky part of course is knowing what we are good at… or more to the point, who we really are. some people have a natural ability to know _exactly_ what they are, what kind of effect certain things will have on them.. what they will enjoy and what they will hate.. which limits they can push, which limits are better off left alone. Others need a more experimental approach.

i’d even go on a limb and say feminine approach v/s masculine approach. (not necessarily women and men.. some women have masculine tendencies and vice versa)

self improvement requires us to move out of our comfort zone for sure.. but that’s not quite what the first dilemma is about.

…

the second dilemma needs the first dilemma to be clear. cuz it spans from a simple “would u do a job that’s incompatible with your principles” to “would you be in a career that doesn’t hold hands with ‘who you are’”…

More to the point: I think that everyone can benefit from developing good communication skills, regardless of their field, because all fields require some degree of communication skill. Even sheep herders have to go to the market, once in a while.

Second Dilemma: Ok, let’s kick this one around… I think I know what you’re asking, but could you elaborate on the question a bit?

…

external focus.

as you hinted at, i think “external focus” is just some fancy business culture word for empathy. it is empathy devoid of its emotional component.

in the traditional definition, talking is one sided, communicating is two sided. When communicating, it’s the communicator’s responsibility to ensure the receiver is comprehending the message. This involves repetition and using appropriate vocabulary. This task involves empathy, because unfortunately, the receivers don’t quite take responsibility for understanding. They don’t give feedback.. and more often than not they give wrong feedback (“yes i understand”).

Gladwell talks about connectors, mavens, and convincers.. but he oversimplifies. aside from there being quite a bit of overlap in those groups, another group, communicators, should be there also. they’re a bit of connectors and convincers together. communicators are able to pass ideas across people without necessarily convincing them. they have this innate ease of (1) understanding an idea in its basic form, then (2) deliver it to the others in a way it can apply to them. the communicator understands people. understands how people think, how people feel. they get to know a lot of people because they can connect with more of the people they meet than anyone else.

but i digress…

throughout my entire previous comment, i had a dilemma: should people who are not naturally good at doing a job, do that job that they’re naturally not good at doing? this puts us on that dystopic path where some psych evaluation printout decides what your career will be… but is it that bad of an idea?

in other words, if you have to work on your communication skills, maybe you shouldn’t be in a communicating field. or is this wrong? (haven’t decided yet)

…

be a nice person.

if you are dealing with people, if you work with people, if you spend most of your day with people: be a nice person. this is different than “be a doormat”. this is different than “do what everyone wants you to do”. lead by example (oh leadership.. save that one for another post!), follow the golden rule. i don’t think survival is incompatible with this. Survival is only incompatible with doormats.

second dilemma: at what point do we draw the line of business success v/s personal failure?