Paradigm, System, Skills and Knowledge
In the coaching session I've recently attended my coach told me to conduct the so-called PSSK self-assessment. While I am not familiar with the very definition of this self-assessment, hearing its concept it seems to me that I could do it by myself without knowing the details. It is a kind of self-evaluation or rating in focusing on four areas called Paradigm, System, Skills and Knowledge. At the range from 1 to 10 what I have to do is to rate my own current "score" considering 1 is the lowest: 10 could be the highest. It looks like what I used to do for the Spiral Dynamics assessment. Perhaps this is why I felt I could do it without knowing the details Thus, what I did was:
1. Created my own definitions of all 10 levels for each area.
2. Scored my current level considering such definitions.
Creating totally 40 definitions (10 levels x 4 areas) was not an easy task. But somehow I was able to enjoy it. This is perhaps because doing this task alone could be part of my thought process of questioning "where am I now?" Anyway, this was supposed to be the email content to my coach; I would like to post it here.
Paradigm (1 to 10):
I think my score is 6. Considering a word, "paradigm", perhaps this area would be the most difficult part to understand what it is supposed to signify. In my understanding (based on my Philosophical background), "paradigm" is a kind of collective entity to describe the socio-cultural values shared among the group of people in a specific era or generation. For example, the change from agrarian age to industrial to information can be called a "paradigm shift". This is more significantly used in the area of history of science.
In the specific context of corporate world, "paradigm" could be considered as a kind of mindset shared among the specific group of organizational layer. For example, if you are newly-hired, you must be in a specific paradigm. And if you are already in the managerial level, then you must have experienced several paradigm shifts. The so-called worldview or perspective one sees must be "paradigmatically" different between newly hired employees and experienced executives. That is my understanding.
In considering such definition of "paradigm" I can say that my "paradigm score" is still 6. What are the remaining 3 levels? And what are the 6 levels I am supposed to achieve? I've tried to describe the definition of each level as follow:
1) Those who do not have any sense of employment and work.
2) Those who think that employment and work are just for a temporary mean to get money.
3) Those who have a long term perspective to work or be employed for years, though not necessary for their livelihood.
4) Those who think that employment and work are the mean for their livelihood, but not really connected to their life-work.
5) Those who see the interconnection between work for living and work for life.
6) Those who are constantly reflecting on how to connect their life-work with the current work situation.
7) Those who have an ideal alignment between work for living and work for life. Work is no longer just for living, but the ideal life condition for their growth and self-actualization.
8) Work is not only for their self-actualization, but also for the much bigger purpose that could be collectively shared among many people.
9) Those who can strongly feel that they are sent to this world to achieve something special in the world-centric perspective.
10) The "paradigm" that those "great teachers" of humankind have commonly shared.
The reason why I put myself at 6 is exactly what the definition says. I think I am still constantly reflecting on how to connect my own life-work with the current work situation, while I am working hard since there are a lot of things I can learn from the current work situation.
System (1 to 10):
While "paradigm" is the realm of how one collectively and inter-subjectively perceives the world, it seems to me that "system" is more objective interaction in which how one can put oneself. And in the context of corporate culture I think this could signify various human relations in the organization. If so, I would like to score myself as 6 again. Below is my definition of each level.
1) You are still very new to the organization and do not know anyone.
2) You know the names of your teammates, but still do not know the details of their roles.
3) You know your teammates very well including their roles and responsibilities.
4) You can see how you and your team can be related to other teams and to the whole organization.
5) You can correctly evaluate the contribution of others from the perspective of (4).
6) You can manage your team in relation to other teams and to the whole organization.
7) You can know how to improve your team and team members in providing the clear mission and vision in the context of (6).
8) You can always see the direction of the whole organization and how your team and other teams should be headed for in considering the current market landscape.
9) You can see how your organization is related to other organizations and to the current global scene.
10) You can see what your organization should do in the next 10 years.
It sounds like the higher the level could be the higher your position should be. But this is not my point. What I want to emphasize here is the higher your level may be the bigger picture you can see in your organization. But again, we should not be confused this with the mediocre media criticism that anyone can easily criticize the organizational leaders from his/her comfort zone. In my opinion, becoming higher score in the level of "System" means that you can effectively manage and lead people in the organization in both macro and micro perspectives. Considering this, I would like to say my level is still 6 as described above.
Skills (1 to 10):
While describing the levels of Paradigm and System, the question naturally popped up is of course "how can we upgrade such levels?" In this question what we should focus on are skills. Any improvement can be described as the conceptual definition of each level. But the real achievement of each level can be only seen in the demonstration of the skill-set that is required to master in the said level. Also by converting each level into the respective skill-set requirements we can also show the more practical approach on how to achieve the next level. There must be the various skills involved for the human growth in general, especially from the point of view of developmental psychology. Again I’ve tried to describe the definition of each level. And considering such description, I think I can score myself as 5 or 6.
1) Skills for basic communication. As long as you can talk, listen, read and write using your operational language in a given society. You can say you have such skills.
2) Skills that the basic education can grant. Aside from the basic communication skills anyone can possess, there must be the skills that the educational system can provide. With these skills, a certain vocational level of communication becomes possible.
3) Skills that the higher education can grant. In this level, the skills for communication have to be divided into more specialized disciplinary areas. If you finished college degrees or higher, then you are supposed to have such skills for the specialized communications.
4) Skills for the articulated communication. Including the skills for (2) and (3), in this level you are supposed to have the skills to conduct the intellectual but general communication. This communication skill sets look similar to (1) since it is not highly specialized. But the difference is that (4) is the general communication supported by various sets of insights, while (1) is the mere general communication, more primitive.
5) Skills for the matured communication. This is the set of skills that the mature members of the society are supposed to have. And to possess these skills, several kinds of transformative experiences may be required such socio-cultural initiations and trials.
6) Skills for the insightful communication. These are the set of skills that those people who are in the position of leading groups and being responsible and accountable for them. To possess these skills, another set of transformative experiences may be required.
7) Skills for the wisdom-based communication. If you possess this level of skill-set, you are already highly respected and compassionate. You deeply understand your skill-sets should be used for the much bigger purpose of the society (or even for the world) not only for your own or the group of your influence.
8) Skills for internalizing all your skills. In this level, there is no longer specific set of skill you are supposed to possess. Rather, you are required to "possess" a kind of skill that makes all your skills (1 to 7) part of your existence. Thus, you can execute your skills spontaneously without any self-conscious efforts avoiding any self-inflation cased by what you do.
9) Skills for unlearning all your skills. In this level, there is even no such sense that all your skills (1 to 7) are part of your existence (this is level 8). In a sense you can unlearn all your skills. For, in this level such sense that you possess your skill or that skills are part of yourself, may disturb the very execution of your skills. You really need the "skills" to unlearn all your skills.
10) Skills for forgetting all your skills. Dogen said: "To know the Truth, you have to know the Self. And to know the Self, you have to forget the Self." Just like this Zen Master stated, in this level you are at the state of the so-called perfect spontaneity. Everything in you is naturally and skillfully flowing. And yet, there are no such things as so-called skills-required. You are already just like a new-born baby (but paradoxically with full of wisdom).
These skills are more on the communication related soft-skills. So-called hard-skills on the work-related knowledge are confined to the level 4 and 5. Perhaps I should elaborate more details on such hard-skills to identify what skills are still missing in me for my current work-related role.
Knowledge (1 to 10):
One philosophical explanation of "knowledge" could be a series of information that has been articulated in the specific context. Hence, "data" and "information" can exist without any interference of actors; but "knowledge" is always something perceived and utilized with the specific intention of actors. In this regard, the level of "knowledge" should be described as a series of knowledge that I'm supposed to utilize in certain specific contexts and purposes.
For example, as a Ph.D. holder, I must possess the sufficient system of knowledge in a given field. But then, this does not mean that I can be "knowledgeable" in any given fields such as corporate fields and IT industries, etc. As a specific skill, perhaps I could trace the way I was able to master the system of knowledge in the field where I hold Ph.D. But again, such "traceability" does not necessarily guarantee that I can do it again in another given field.
Thus, considering my current role and responsibility, what kind of knowledge (or systems of knowledge) is supposed to be required? I think the following fields are primarily required, while these are probably overlapped one another to some extent.
1. Knowledge for the Specific Industry (IT / Security/ Marketing)
2. Knowledge for Management (like MBA things)
3. Knowledge for Soft-skills (Leadership / Communication, etc.)
And my knowledge level for each field could be varied one way or another because of my current position. As a manager I do not need the very specialized knowledge of IT / Security that, for example, some advanced engineers may need. However, the knowledge for management and soft-skills should be more important for my current position. Thus, as the knowledge level per se, the following 10 levels could be recommended.
Knowledge level:
1) Outsider: You know a bit of knowledge but you have never involved with any activity that the given knowledge requires.
2) Entrance: You had a chance to check it but still you have never involved with any activity that the given knowledge requires.
3) Basic: You had a chance to check it but still you have indirectly involved with any activity that the given knowledge requires.
4) Intermediate: You had researched it since you need this knowledge for your work.
5) Insider: You have to be fully involved with this knowledge because of your work requirements.
6) Advanced: You are fully involved with this knowledge and can contribute to the specific project where this knowledge is used.
7) Expert: You are already an expert of this knowledge and can constantly contribute any ideas to the given field of knowledge.
8) Specialized: You can teach this knowledge to others; at the same time, you can provide some innovative contributions to the given field of knowledge.
9) Authority: Many experts and specialized people are willing to listen to your advices and insights since you are considered the authority of the given field of knowledge.
10) Game-changer: You can create other new fields since your idea and contributions are already beyond the given filed of knowledge.
And if I apply these knowledge levels for the said three fields above, my knowledge levels could be scored as follows.
1. Knowledge for the Specific Industry (IT / Security/ Marketing) -- 5
2. Knowledge for Management -- 4
3. Knowledge for Soft-skills (Leadership / Communication, etc.) -- 5
1. Created my own definitions of all 10 levels for each area.
2. Scored my current level considering such definitions.
Creating totally 40 definitions (10 levels x 4 areas) was not an easy task. But somehow I was able to enjoy it. This is perhaps because doing this task alone could be part of my thought process of questioning "where am I now?" Anyway, this was supposed to be the email content to my coach; I would like to post it here.
Paradigm (1 to 10):
I think my score is 6. Considering a word, "paradigm", perhaps this area would be the most difficult part to understand what it is supposed to signify. In my understanding (based on my Philosophical background), "paradigm" is a kind of collective entity to describe the socio-cultural values shared among the group of people in a specific era or generation. For example, the change from agrarian age to industrial to information can be called a "paradigm shift". This is more significantly used in the area of history of science.
In the specific context of corporate world, "paradigm" could be considered as a kind of mindset shared among the specific group of organizational layer. For example, if you are newly-hired, you must be in a specific paradigm. And if you are already in the managerial level, then you must have experienced several paradigm shifts. The so-called worldview or perspective one sees must be "paradigmatically" different between newly hired employees and experienced executives. That is my understanding.
In considering such definition of "paradigm" I can say that my "paradigm score" is still 6. What are the remaining 3 levels? And what are the 6 levels I am supposed to achieve? I've tried to describe the definition of each level as follow:
1) Those who do not have any sense of employment and work.
2) Those who think that employment and work are just for a temporary mean to get money.
3) Those who have a long term perspective to work or be employed for years, though not necessary for their livelihood.
4) Those who think that employment and work are the mean for their livelihood, but not really connected to their life-work.
5) Those who see the interconnection between work for living and work for life.
6) Those who are constantly reflecting on how to connect their life-work with the current work situation.
7) Those who have an ideal alignment between work for living and work for life. Work is no longer just for living, but the ideal life condition for their growth and self-actualization.
8) Work is not only for their self-actualization, but also for the much bigger purpose that could be collectively shared among many people.
9) Those who can strongly feel that they are sent to this world to achieve something special in the world-centric perspective.
10) The "paradigm" that those "great teachers" of humankind have commonly shared.
The reason why I put myself at 6 is exactly what the definition says. I think I am still constantly reflecting on how to connect my own life-work with the current work situation, while I am working hard since there are a lot of things I can learn from the current work situation.
System (1 to 10):
While "paradigm" is the realm of how one collectively and inter-subjectively perceives the world, it seems to me that "system" is more objective interaction in which how one can put oneself. And in the context of corporate culture I think this could signify various human relations in the organization. If so, I would like to score myself as 6 again. Below is my definition of each level.
1) You are still very new to the organization and do not know anyone.
2) You know the names of your teammates, but still do not know the details of their roles.
3) You know your teammates very well including their roles and responsibilities.
4) You can see how you and your team can be related to other teams and to the whole organization.
5) You can correctly evaluate the contribution of others from the perspective of (4).
6) You can manage your team in relation to other teams and to the whole organization.
7) You can know how to improve your team and team members in providing the clear mission and vision in the context of (6).
8) You can always see the direction of the whole organization and how your team and other teams should be headed for in considering the current market landscape.
9) You can see how your organization is related to other organizations and to the current global scene.
10) You can see what your organization should do in the next 10 years.
It sounds like the higher the level could be the higher your position should be. But this is not my point. What I want to emphasize here is the higher your level may be the bigger picture you can see in your organization. But again, we should not be confused this with the mediocre media criticism that anyone can easily criticize the organizational leaders from his/her comfort zone. In my opinion, becoming higher score in the level of "System" means that you can effectively manage and lead people in the organization in both macro and micro perspectives. Considering this, I would like to say my level is still 6 as described above.
Skills (1 to 10):
While describing the levels of Paradigm and System, the question naturally popped up is of course "how can we upgrade such levels?" In this question what we should focus on are skills. Any improvement can be described as the conceptual definition of each level. But the real achievement of each level can be only seen in the demonstration of the skill-set that is required to master in the said level. Also by converting each level into the respective skill-set requirements we can also show the more practical approach on how to achieve the next level. There must be the various skills involved for the human growth in general, especially from the point of view of developmental psychology. Again I’ve tried to describe the definition of each level. And considering such description, I think I can score myself as 5 or 6.
1) Skills for basic communication. As long as you can talk, listen, read and write using your operational language in a given society. You can say you have such skills.
2) Skills that the basic education can grant. Aside from the basic communication skills anyone can possess, there must be the skills that the educational system can provide. With these skills, a certain vocational level of communication becomes possible.
3) Skills that the higher education can grant. In this level, the skills for communication have to be divided into more specialized disciplinary areas. If you finished college degrees or higher, then you are supposed to have such skills for the specialized communications.
4) Skills for the articulated communication. Including the skills for (2) and (3), in this level you are supposed to have the skills to conduct the intellectual but general communication. This communication skill sets look similar to (1) since it is not highly specialized. But the difference is that (4) is the general communication supported by various sets of insights, while (1) is the mere general communication, more primitive.
5) Skills for the matured communication. This is the set of skills that the mature members of the society are supposed to have. And to possess these skills, several kinds of transformative experiences may be required such socio-cultural initiations and trials.
6) Skills for the insightful communication. These are the set of skills that those people who are in the position of leading groups and being responsible and accountable for them. To possess these skills, another set of transformative experiences may be required.
7) Skills for the wisdom-based communication. If you possess this level of skill-set, you are already highly respected and compassionate. You deeply understand your skill-sets should be used for the much bigger purpose of the society (or even for the world) not only for your own or the group of your influence.
8) Skills for internalizing all your skills. In this level, there is no longer specific set of skill you are supposed to possess. Rather, you are required to "possess" a kind of skill that makes all your skills (1 to 7) part of your existence. Thus, you can execute your skills spontaneously without any self-conscious efforts avoiding any self-inflation cased by what you do.
9) Skills for unlearning all your skills. In this level, there is even no such sense that all your skills (1 to 7) are part of your existence (this is level 8). In a sense you can unlearn all your skills. For, in this level such sense that you possess your skill or that skills are part of yourself, may disturb the very execution of your skills. You really need the "skills" to unlearn all your skills.
10) Skills for forgetting all your skills. Dogen said: "To know the Truth, you have to know the Self. And to know the Self, you have to forget the Self." Just like this Zen Master stated, in this level you are at the state of the so-called perfect spontaneity. Everything in you is naturally and skillfully flowing. And yet, there are no such things as so-called skills-required. You are already just like a new-born baby (but paradoxically with full of wisdom).
These skills are more on the communication related soft-skills. So-called hard-skills on the work-related knowledge are confined to the level 4 and 5. Perhaps I should elaborate more details on such hard-skills to identify what skills are still missing in me for my current work-related role.
Knowledge (1 to 10):
One philosophical explanation of "knowledge" could be a series of information that has been articulated in the specific context. Hence, "data" and "information" can exist without any interference of actors; but "knowledge" is always something perceived and utilized with the specific intention of actors. In this regard, the level of "knowledge" should be described as a series of knowledge that I'm supposed to utilize in certain specific contexts and purposes.
For example, as a Ph.D. holder, I must possess the sufficient system of knowledge in a given field. But then, this does not mean that I can be "knowledgeable" in any given fields such as corporate fields and IT industries, etc. As a specific skill, perhaps I could trace the way I was able to master the system of knowledge in the field where I hold Ph.D. But again, such "traceability" does not necessarily guarantee that I can do it again in another given field.
Thus, considering my current role and responsibility, what kind of knowledge (or systems of knowledge) is supposed to be required? I think the following fields are primarily required, while these are probably overlapped one another to some extent.
1. Knowledge for the Specific Industry (IT / Security/ Marketing)
2. Knowledge for Management (like MBA things)
3. Knowledge for Soft-skills (Leadership / Communication, etc.)
And my knowledge level for each field could be varied one way or another because of my current position. As a manager I do not need the very specialized knowledge of IT / Security that, for example, some advanced engineers may need. However, the knowledge for management and soft-skills should be more important for my current position. Thus, as the knowledge level per se, the following 10 levels could be recommended.
Knowledge level:
1) Outsider: You know a bit of knowledge but you have never involved with any activity that the given knowledge requires.
2) Entrance: You had a chance to check it but still you have never involved with any activity that the given knowledge requires.
3) Basic: You had a chance to check it but still you have indirectly involved with any activity that the given knowledge requires.
4) Intermediate: You had researched it since you need this knowledge for your work.
5) Insider: You have to be fully involved with this knowledge because of your work requirements.
6) Advanced: You are fully involved with this knowledge and can contribute to the specific project where this knowledge is used.
7) Expert: You are already an expert of this knowledge and can constantly contribute any ideas to the given field of knowledge.
8) Specialized: You can teach this knowledge to others; at the same time, you can provide some innovative contributions to the given field of knowledge.
9) Authority: Many experts and specialized people are willing to listen to your advices and insights since you are considered the authority of the given field of knowledge.
10) Game-changer: You can create other new fields since your idea and contributions are already beyond the given filed of knowledge.
And if I apply these knowledge levels for the said three fields above, my knowledge levels could be scored as follows.
1. Knowledge for the Specific Industry (IT / Security/ Marketing) -- 5
2. Knowledge for Management -- 4
3. Knowledge for Soft-skills (Leadership / Communication, etc.) -- 5
Comments