- Mindful & Peaceful Interventions
About Holly Niemela
Channels contributed to:Digitalisation
Regarding the question, balance between hard skills and soft skills, and the five point summary for soft skills in the article (adaptability, cultural competency, empathy, intellectual curiosity, 360° thinking), a functional neurology and cognitive neuroscience approach to the problem/opportunity is opportune. The acquisition of skills, hard or soft, falls under the neuroscience of learning (great 1 hour video summary on Linked In...); and the five soft skills are all functions of various areas and networks in the brain. Behavioural Economics researchers have been awarded 4 of the last 11 Nobel prizes for Economics, so it time to transfer the neuroscience and the economics to the shop and office floor.
The most cost-effective and brain targetting neuro-hack is exercise integrated into the working week and advice to workers on brain and body health: health and safety in the home, nutrition (start with the vending machine), sleep ergonomics and dynamics for example. What is the point of an expensive office chair if the worker slumps on a 20 year old sofa for 4 hours a night at home eating crisps?
Once brain and body health are being addressed in this way a number of smartphone Apps exist to benchmark progress. The Apps and questionnaires can be used to test workers at the outset of a wellness promotion programme and Highmark EQ in particular can be used to train workers and they can spot dips in brain function and seek help before work becomes a problem or symptoms manifest.
Exercise, nutrition, sleep, home ergonomics, the use of brain training apps can make brains more adaptable by promoting neuroplasticity, and empathy and intellectual curiosity and holistic/whole brain thinking all benefit. Cultural competency is more a cultural competency.
extremely interesting, thank you for your insight
With regard to the very wording of "What Unites Us", I believe there must be some better ways to express the very idea------because a singular form is used here instead of a plural one. I believe the significance is not only limited to the linguistic expression. I have the following three reasons.
First, the influence of OECD is widely spread, not just confined to its member countries. English is not my mother tongue, and not the official language for some OECD member countries as well. The very wording gives the impression that only one dominant force is out there dominating the landscape and dictating the course of direction and it is supposed to be our job now to figure out the ONE, describe the ONE and eventually get together around the ONE. (To this part, the credit should go to late Professor Edward W. Said, his sense of "Us" versus "the Other", inclusive versus exclusive.)
Second, the notion of diversity is important and can never be overemphasized. Even though structurally the U.S. is seating on the very top of the pyramid economically, financially, militarily, and so on, yet its promulgated policies are the outcome of a balanced approach presumably having brought under consideration all the relevant factors and elements (under the catch-all term of diversity), such as the rivaling EU, rising China and confronting Russia. After all, In Varietate Concordia. So, diversity matters.
Third, it should be the natural continuation of last year's theme, Bridging Divides. Since there are many forces that divided us, as in 2017, there must be more than one force to unite us in 2018, a sort of synergy of a united front. A wall is made up with bricks, and in order to tear down the wall, we need do it brick by brick, eventually all the bricks, with collective efforts against an accumulation of stuffs------a game of to do and undo. I believe that is the reason why we are here to discuss the process and figure out how.
I appreciate what you wrote and feel you put your finger on the fact that there are many ways we can be united, not just one. Thank you for that insight.