background preloader

Formula for Change

Formula for Change
The formula for change was created by David Gleicher while he was working at Arthur D. Little in the early 1960s,[1] and refined by Kathie Dannemiller in the 1980s.[2] This formula provides a model to assess the relative strengths affecting the likely success of organisational change programs. Dannemiller version: D x V x F > R[edit] Three factors must be present for meaningful organizational change to take place. These factors are: D = Dissatisfaction with how things are now; V = Vision of what is possible; F = First, concrete steps that can be taken towards the vision; If the product of these three factors is greater than R = Resistance then change is possible. To ensure a successful change it is necessary to use influence and strategic thinking in order to create vision and identify those crucial, early steps towards it. Attribution Confusion[edit] Gleicher (original) Version: C = (ABD) > X[edit] The original formula, as created by Gleicher and published by Beckhard,[5] is: References[edit]

Dunning–Kruger effect Cognitive bias about one's own skill The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. Some researchers also include the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills. In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence instead of specific overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task. The Dunning–Kruger effect is usually measured by comparing self-assessment with objective performance. For example, participants may take a quiz and estimate their performance afterward, which is then compared to their actual results. There are disagreements about what causes the Dunning–Kruger effect. There are disagreements about the Dunning–Kruger effect's magnitude and practical consequences. Definition[edit] David Dunning Measurement, analysis, and investigated tasks[edit] [edit]

Brief diversions vastly improve focus, researchers find A new study in the journal Cognition overturns a decades-old theory about the nature of attention and demonstrates that even brief diversions from a task can dramatically improve one's ability to focus on that task for prolonged periods. The study zeroes in on a phenomenon known to anyone who's ever had trouble doing the same task for a long time: After a while, you begin to lose your focus and your performance on the task declines. Some researchers believe that this "vigilance decrement," as they describe it, is the result of a drop in one's "attentional resources," said University of Illinois psychology professor Alejandro Lleras, who led the new study. "For 40 or 50 years, most papers published on the vigilance decrement treated attention as a limited resource that would get used up over time, and I believe that to be wrong. "Constant stimulation is registered by our brains as unimportant, to the point that the brain erases it from our awareness," Lleras said.

Expectations speed up conscious perception The human brain works incredibly fast. However, visual impressions are so complex that their processing takes several hundred milliseconds before they enter our consciousness. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research in Frankfurt am Main have now shown that this delay may vary in length. On their way from the eye, visual stimuli are analysed in manifold ways by different processing stages in the brain. To investigate this, the scientists showed the participants images with a background of randomly distributed dots on a monitor. Whereas the participants took relatively long to recognise the symbol in the first sequence of images with increasing visibility, the threshold of awareness in the second, reverse presentation of images was much lower. Moreover, the measurements of EEG activity produced astonishing results. The scientists might thus have found a conclusive explanation for the contradictory results of other neuroscientific research groups.

HighQ Sidis Archives Homepage The HighQ Community "The height of cleverness is to be able to conceal it." - Francois de la Rochefoucauld "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt Go to Mensa International Go to Mega Go to Noesis (the newsletter of Mega) on line Click here to link to Uncommonly Difficult IQ Tests Over 60% of gifted people are introverted compared with 30% of the general population. (Researchers using PET scans examined 18 healthy individuals. Other sources generally cite IQ scores and their labels something like: 85-99 Lower normal 100-114 Upper normal 115-129 Bright 130-144 Gifted 145-159 Highly gifted 160-above Profoundly gifted Common Problems of the Gifted 1) Since so much comes easily to them, they may never acquire the self-discipline necessary to use their gifts to the fullest. 3) Gifted people have trouble learning to suffer fools gladly, or at all. 4) Gifted people tend to become isolated from the rest of humanity. Free

Related: