So often thought does not sync with action as if the
influence hoped for is null and void. I find my level of self-leadership is
low, and has been for a long time, but I may now have a hold on it. This is
because an old insight, which I ignored for years, has now come to the fore in
a new light
.
I became reacquainted with this insight via notes taken over
twenty years ago when working with a therapist. She pointed out that my main
problem was repression of true self ideas as a result of being disrespected and
intimidated by my mother in the early years which caused me to lose confidence. I initiatially didn’t give much credence to
this idea until recent times when I witness so often my failure to follow what
my inner guide (aka my conscience) puts forward as right and good.
I have, without my knowing, become inured to consistently following
my own thoughts and directives and substitute endless speculation and
hypothesizing instead. I have not been
taking my self-directed assertions seriously but rather letting them slide by
the board. Fantasy, hope, plans need to be converted into action. Magical
thinking seems the culprit.
What is striking is that this experience highlights the need
for will and motive to drive action. One can hold a motivating thought, but
unless it harnessed by understanding to a mobilized agency nothing
happens.
From the archives, I have collected several insights that
bear on the thought to action dynamic:
·
Cf. review of Isaiah Berlin in New York Review of Books (April 10,
2013): “His instincts told him that you
learn more about an idea, as an idea, when you know something about its genesis
and understand why certain people found it compelling and were spurred to
action by it. Then the real thinking begins.”
·
A clear trend
emerging from this program of research is that
forming implementation intentions decreases
the probability of people forgetting to
initiate their goal-relatedbehavior at critical moments (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006; Sheeran & Orbell, 1999; Current Psychology; Sep 2009,
Vol. 28 Issue 3, p181-186,
·
According to Gollwitzer (1993) and Heckhausen (1991), motivation
is just the starting point for behavioral performance. They propose a model of
action phases
which suggests that adopting a behavior has
two distinct stages. The first is a motivational or deliberative phase during
which the individual weighs up the costs and benefits of performing the behavior.
The second posits a volitional phase during which the individual develops strategies
and plans to ensure that their intentions will be enacted. European Journal
of Social Psychology; Mar1999, Vol. 29 Issue 2/3, p349-369, 21p
Self-concordance has been defined as the extent to which people perceive goal-directed behaviors to be within their system of personal interests and values versus Self-determination theory proposes that often people do not adhere to a behavior because they perceive that it is not concordant with the self (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Self-concordance has been defined as the extent to which people perceive goal-directed behaviors to be within their system of personal interests and values versus something one feels compelled to do by interpersonal and/or intra-personal forces One conclusion that emerges from contemporary research on self-determination theory is that individuals reporting self-discordant reasons for performing a behavior are likely to actively contemplate pros and cons of performing the behavior and make no commitment to change because self-discordant goals generate intra-personal conflict
British Journal of Psychology; Nov2010, Vol. 101 Issue 4, p705-718, 14p,
No comments:
Post a Comment