“I think the old definition of designer-as-problem-solver is a bit limited: here’s a problem over here; there’s the solution. The problem isn’t static. It’s moving. It’s a living organism. To think you can simply ‘solve’ it is ridiculous. Rather, you need to negotiate it.”
– Allan Chochinov, Designing the Future (Metropolis Magazine)
“On the other hand,” said Randa, “my uncle used to say, ‘All knowledge is one,’ and he may be right. You may learn something from meteorology that will help you with your psychohistory. Isn’t that possible?” Seldon smiled weakly. “A great many things are possible.” And to himself he added: But not practical.
– Prelude to Foundation, Isaac Asimov
One of the concepts that I’ve explored over the past several years is something called a development, or advancement model. The purpose of such a model is to determine where you are in terms of an “ideal” state, and what changes you may have to employ in order to reach that state.
Since several of my recent posts have focused on digital illustration, it only makes sense to show an advancement model in this area. On the left side of this model is a “starting” state while the right side shows an ideal “end” state – in this case a digital matter painter (who would be employed doing matte paintings for movies, for example).
(As you can see, I am pretty far from this particular end-state!)
This is a good start, but it’s not particularly useful other than showing where one is within the advancement “spectrum”. For example, it doesn’t really tell us what we need to do to get to this ideal end-state. Here is a potential improvement:
This version highlights at least five levels of advancement one needs to achieve in order to become a professional “digital matte painter”. But this model is also rather limited in that it assumes an ideal growth path is linear – which, in many cases, it is not. In fact, sometimes the best advancement path is anything but linear! (although it can take longer to get that ideal state)
Here is an advancement model that is more dynamic and perhaps more reflective of “real-world” development:
As you can see, we’re still intent on building the skills and aptitude necessary to become a “digital matte painter” but the path is less structured and more dynamic – potentially allowing one to become an even more advanced (rounded) matte painter at the end of this “journey”. Some paths, as you can see in this visual, diverge completely from the originally defined end state.
Needless to say, this model is created partially in hindsight as one may not know all of the paths that she/he can take on this development journey. Which begs the question: if the creation of this model is partially in hindsight, what is the relevance?
The relevance of this type of advancement model is that it forces one to look at the pathway they are on to assess whether their current direction will ultimately converge towards the end state. If not, is this a temporary deviation or a permanent one? Has the goal changed? Does it make sense to reverse course and try another path?
As one gains greater knowledge about the “ideal” end state, they will have a greater ability to introduce new and alternative pathways that may help broaden their experience and understanding. Having multiple pathways is a good thing as it can provide new advancement channels to explore. The key is not to get “lost” in this “web” and ensure that the paths one follows is done with a true sense of purpose.
Advancement models are useful constructs for helping one improve in a given area, and can also help expand one’s understanding of the experiential and educational landscape associated with the core subject. Start with your career – what does your advancement model look like? What does the “ideal state” look like for you? How will you get there?
In November of 2006, I decided to climb Mt.Rainier.
Given that I have never climbed a mountain, my first and only concern was ensuring that I was physically strong enough to reach the summit. Thus, over the subsequent six months I practiced climbing stairs in local arenas, walked for miles in the darkness of winter, and eventually walked thirteen miles with a loaded backpack with forty pounds of weight. In May of 2007, feeling confident in my physical ability, I packed my gear and headed to Seattle, Washington where I was to meet up with other climbers at the Alpine Ascents office.
I arrived fairly early to the planning session, and given the few climbers who were already there, the relative “intimacy” of the environment helped boost my confidence and comfort level. Interestingly enough, this level of comfort remained fairly static until three new team members arrived fairly late in the session. In retrospect, the combination of their collective personality along with the seeming “collapse” of the team dynamic led to a rather abrupt decline in self-confidence.
During the van ride to the mountain, I also noticed that I was becoming somewhat withdrawn from the group. Being consciously aware of this, I took steps to “return” to my original self and was able to gradually interact with other team members without any problems. However, it was at the first camp (Camp Muir – elevation 10,188 feet) where things started to become much more challenging for me. Granted, the physical undertaking to climb ten-thousand feet was both physically and mentally draining, but the real struggle involved not my legs or body, but my mind. Even though I was with approximately ten other climbers, I felt extremely isolated and alone.
It was only after the climb where I reflected why my primary barrier to reaching the summit on Rainier was not physical, but mental.
A person’s mental state is influenced by a wide range of factors – energy level, family history, personal experiences, etc. – but at it’s core is one’s personality. Everyone knows fundamentally who they are, but exploring the underlying facets through a formal personality test can further expand one’s awareness of their modes of operation and what they can do to bridge connections with others. A common and fairly reliable test is known as Myers Briggs, or as it is more commonly known – the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
When I first took the MBTI back in 2000, I was amazed with the results – the correlation to my true personality was striking. At the time, the test told me that I was of personality type “ISTJ“, which can be explained via the following descriptions:
Over the Thanksgiving holiday, I decided to take the MBTI a second time. This time my results were actually much different – I was now of personality type “INFP” (Introversion, Intuition, Feeling, Perceiving). Interestingly enough, this change in type felt right.
While there is a free test available online, the benefit of taking the official test is that you are provided with an eighteen-page report that provides in-depth analysis of the key facets of your personality as well as tangible suggestions on how to improve your communication style, ability to manage change and conflict, and ability to make decisions.
Not surprisingly, the introversion element of my personality was a key determinant in my discomfort on Rainier. Fortunately, I can interact with strangers without any difficulty and engage them in decent conversation, but if I don’t have the ability to (eventually) form any true connections with the people I am with, I am going to start to withdraw. The fact that I was unable to step away from the group on Rainier to replenish my sense of “self” made it all that much more challenging.
I used to think that my inability to rapidly “connect” with strangers was a deficiency that needed to be overcome. After much self-reflection and research, I no longer believe this. To be sure, if I felt this was a genuine barrier that needed to be overcome, then I would take immediate steps to expand my personality “container” to better adapt in these types of situations. However, it’s important to recognize that all personalities are created equal and trying to “fix” a personality trait because it doesn’t “fit” isn’t necessarily the right thing to do. A personality isn’t something that needs to be “fixed”.
What is the lesson here? When faced with new challenges, having inventory of your values, strengths and weaknesses are useful tools, but the true foundation of understanding is a keen awareness of your own personality. If you take steps to explore your personality through formal or freely available personality tests, explore related literature about your personality type, and integrate the suggestions and information into your mode of operation, you will find that your sense of self will be that much greater and you’ll have an enhanced ability to deal with conflict, make important decisions, and communicate with others who have personality types different from your own.