Human Behavior Would Be Easier if It Was Rocket Science

0
19890

Human behavior isn’t rocket science. Rocket science is a lot easier!

When one embarks on an entrepreneurial journey, they are largely unaware of all the hats they will eventually have to wear.  Especially in the early years of a company’s growth, while budgets are tight and hiring employees just isn’t in the cards. An entrepreneur serves as an accountant, salesman, public relations specialist, contract negotiator, HR manager.  The list is long, and the effort is complicated. One of the most difficult hats to wear successfully is Behavioral Scientist.

The Behavioral Scientist hat is worn when working to understand and predict employee behavior, what motivates them and causes them to succeed or stumble.  How does one develop a system of rewards that not only compensates but motivates employees? How are the values of the entrepreneur instilled in a workforce?  Let me just say that treating people properly with respect – “taking care of people” – which is the way I like to refer to it, is first and foremost in this effort.

I always say, “It’s not rocket science”.  It seems managing human behavior would be a natural thing that we should be able to do.  The reality is, if it were just rocket science, it would be a lot easier! Rocket science is math, physics, and laws that work the same way, every time.  But working with people is behavioral science, and it works differently every day, even given the same situation with the same person. Human interaction varies because we human beings are amazingly complex.  We must respect and apply that understanding as a foundation of how we interact with one another.

Human behavior tension exists in all companies to some degree, but a value-driven approach will minimize negative consequences.  Employees feel valued when their companies provide adequate training and tools to achieve objectives. They feel respected when their career aspirations are understood, and developmental investments are made in them.  They feel part of the company when there is transparent communication (good or bad) and their input is sought and considered.

The successful leader can elevate employees.  They establish early a value-driven foundation for treating their people and consistently apply that standard to policy decisions. They choose before anyone is hired the kind of company they are building, what its values will be, and how they want people to feel about their employment with the company.  They design their philosophy and culture to value employees for their inputs and not as just merely a part of the productive machinery. This difference alone will go far to becoming a preferred employer.

Established early, or adjusted moving forward, values that reflect respect, fairness, caring, and open communication among others will reduce human behavior complexity.  When respected, employees connect with the company with hearts and minds, not just their hands. I hope you will take an enlightened approach valuing each person as the amazing individual that they are.  Companies that recognize employees’ individual worth will reduce stress and conflict, energize employee discretionary effort, and stimulate their loyalty, ingenuity, and innovation.

n October 30, a gathering of reciting attendants assembled outside a confinement office in San Diego and attempted to convey influenza antibody packs to the Outskirt Watch officials. They were dismissed, true to form. The Division of Country Security had chosen not to immunize the vagrant families it was holding hostage. In any event six confined kids had as of now kicked the bucket. Legislators contended about whether it was reasonable for allude to detainment focuses as “inhumane imprisonments.

That was occurring in reality. Then, in the tragic not so distant future envisioned by the makers of the BBC-HBO arrangement A long time, a populist agitator U.K. head administrator, played by Emma Thompson, clarifies that “inhumane imprisonments” are okay. “We should take a gander at the words,” she says. “The word fixation basically implies a grouping of anything. You can fill a camp brimming with oranges.” She reviews that Field Marshal Kitchener created inhumane imprisonments in the Boer War and the English found an effective method to purge them, as well: “They basically let nature follow all the way through.” Back, all things considered, the genuine U.K. head administrator, a mop-haired rabble rouser played by Boris Johnson, talked at the Unified Countries and cautioned of “pink-looked at Eliminators sent again from the future to separate mankind.”

Reality has become harsh to our makers of tragic fiction. It’s beating them to the punch. The sci-fi author envisions a dim future, at that point looks on with dismay as the world rushes into a much darker one. As William Gibson put it to me, “The Zeitgeist from which I fundamentally cut my doodles has gone all utterly unyielding.” Trump’s political decision upset Gibson’s arrangement for a spin-off of his 2014 not so distant future oppressed world, The Fringe. How was he to consolidate “this remarkably nauseous crossroads in American history”? In the anticipated Office, our real president hides just as a shadow; the book includes an option history course of events in which the champ of that political decision is a lady, equipped, with “a completely working State Division,” and all things considered, obliteration looms.

The end of the world of twentieth century science fiction was constantly unexpected and dangerous: atomic obliteration, space rock strike, worldwide pandemic. Presently the end of the world goes ahead little feline feet and uncovers itself gradually. Rather than World War III, nativist developments and strict fundamentalists, secretly filled by oligarchs and kleptocrats, join to undermine liberal popular governments. The awful destabilization of life on Earth — the flames and floods, suffocated urban communities and dislodged displaced people — shows up piece by piece, step by step, constantly somewhat more terrible. We appear to watch our self-demolition on the news.

They attempted to caution us, obviously. Margaret Atwood started her first tragic fiction, fittingly, in 1984. The reason of The Handmaid’s Story, American popular government offering approach to religious autocracy, “appeared — even to me — genuinely preposterous,” she composed right off the bat in the Trump administration. She had trusted it was “an enemy of forecast.” Her spin-off this fall, The Confirmations, peers somewhat further into its envisioned future, however Atwood, when she talks about these books, continues advising us that it’s not our future she’s composition. Her oppressed world, similar to each other, attracts on history to recount to an anecdote about the present. “The ideal result of The Handmaid’s Story would have been that it would blur into indefinite quality as a period piece, with the goal that my desperate alerts would not demonstrate to be right,” she told the New York Times. “That is not the turn that history has taken.”

No. In Pennsylvania this fall — our Pennsylvania, not Atwood’s Gilead — Republicans pushed a bill to order the custom entombment of fetal stays, even a prepared egg lost to unnatural birth cycle. What’s left for visionary craftsmen when our unpredictable present is overwhelming its own deceptive future? Nobody needs to begin stuffing rough Trump-like considers along with their fiction. “The Trump Dull Age isn’t generally tragic, however it may have been on the off chance that it were all the more keenly envisioned,” says Joyce Ditty Oates. “I’ll state it once more,” tweets Scratch Harkaway in London, “tragic authors are NOT excited at finding the world is out-shittying our books.” His last book, Gnomon, took the reconnaissance state to an unnerving extraordinary; presently, maybe abnormally, he and others see a move in the direction of positive thinking. “My new book has been difficult to compose on the grounds that it’s about expectation,” he says. “I’m attempting to expound on somebody finding, nearly unintentionally, the green shoots in the rubble.” Possibly science fiction scholars are ending up at ground zero, to dream again of blushing prospects regardless of everything. They’re using up all available time simply like all of us.








LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here