There are many sound reasons why I should not return to graduate school at this point in my life.
First, I have little time to commit to the enterprise. My first priority - my family - keeps me busy. My wife is starting a new job and needs my support. My five-year-old is entering kindergarten, throwing another element into the family schedule. My two-year-old is asserting her will in the world, often taxing my deepest reserves of energy and patience. When I add a full-time job, wellness commitments and folding laundry into the schedule, my most creative calculation leaves exactly one hour per day - from 6:00am to 7:00am - for graduate study.
Second, I already have a master’s degree and, related, a great job.
Third, I am an emotional train wreck at the moment. A month ago, we lost my mother to depression. Her untimely death, compounded by its traumatic circumstances, has been absolutely crushing and disorienting. I struggle to sleep, to focus, and to motivate. Most days, it takes a Herculean effort just to show up.
Facing these countervailing circumstances, I nevertheless chose - with a great deal of intention and clarity - to start the Master of Business Administration in Leadership and Change at The College of St. Scholastica. The question is: Why?
Generating a Composite Explanation
A wide diversity of theoretical lenses addresses my professional development choices. A survey of different theories leads to a two-part analysis. First, how does a particular theoretical lens explain my professional development choices? Second, how does a particular theoretical explanation resonate with my lived experience and self-understanding?
To begin, hierarchy of needs theory posits that the psychological drive to satisfy pre-potent basic needs energizes and sustains human behavior. Maslow (1943) outlined the five basic human needs as physiological, safety, love, esteem and self-actualization. McGregor (1957) took Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and applied it to the organizational context. Further developing the theoretical lens, Alderfer (1969) recategorized the basic needs as existence, relatedness and growth. As pre-potent, the lower-level needs monopolize consciousness until they are satiated. However, the hierarchy of needs is not completely rigid and fixed. For example, Maslow (1943) described needs satisfaction as a percentage and Alderfer (1969) stated that the specific objectives of each need are unique to the individual.
Within the hierarchy of needs framework, the notion of pre-potency highlights that I am currently healthy, secure, connected and confident; therefore, my lower-level needs are sufficiently met and I am able to turn my energy toward the higher-level needs of self-actualization, self-realization and growth. Of note, Alderfer (1969) wrote, “Satisfaction of growth needs depends on a person’s being able to find ways to utilize his [or her] capabilities to utilize his [or her] talents and to develop new talents” (127). Looking at my lived experience this way, my return to graduate school is a way to harness my potential and find new challenges. The current satisfaction of my physiological, safety, social and esteem needs engenders this opportunity.
Also, the notion of non-rigidity illuminates the continuous shift of my needs satisfaction along a spectrum. While my lower-level needs are generally satisfied, inevitably “life happens” occasionally, and my lower-level needs plummet. Yet, I possess sufficient resiliency to maintain motivation in the face of momentary stressors until my needs satisfaction returns to a sufficient level. For example, when I experience the physiological strain of a hectic schedule or the social strain of loss, I am able to weather these storms and persevere in my drive toward growth.
To continue, vocational choice theory posits that individuals seek congruence between their personality and their work environment. Holland (1997) stated that individuals pursue career opportunities that permit them to “exercise their skills and abilities, express their attitudes and values, and take on agreeable problems and roles” (p. 4). Accordingly, Holland (1997) proposed six vocational types in his RIASEC model. Expanding on the concept of vocational choice, the theory of strengths-based development states that individuals are most satisfied and fulfilled in work environments that build and employ their greatest talents. Clifton, Anderson and Schreiner (2006) defined talent as a naturally-recurring pattern of thoughts, feelings and behaviors that empower an individual to do something very well. A talent developed with knowledge and skill becomes a strength. Clifton, Anderson and Schreiner (2006) outlined 34 CliftonStrengths Themes. Related to vocational choice theory, the Big Five Personality Model proposes five basic dimensions of personality that predict how individuals behave within a work environment (Robbins and Judge, 2017).
A brief analysis of my assessment results across these three personality models yields further insight into my professional development choices. Notably, my RIASEC categorization is investigative-artistic; my top three CliftonStrengths Themes are learner, ideation and intellection; and openness to experience is my strongest predictor of workplace behavior, according to the Big Five Model. While I am extremely reluctant to reduce my personality to a one-dimensional analysis of these results, a common thread between these “top areas” highlights a relevant aspect of my professional development choices. That is, a cross-model sampling of my “top areas” describes my personality as: inquisitive, abstract, complex, wide-ranging, unconventional, non-conforming, imaginative, continually learning, musing, pondering, pattern-seeking, integrating of disparate phenomena, free-thinking, creative, adventurous, and self-expressive in unusual ways (Holland, 1997; Clifton, Anderson & Schreiner, 2006; Robbins & Judge, 2017). Thereby, enrolling in another wide-scope interdisciplinary master’s degree program (as opposed to another option: the deep, narrow and much-respected doctorate degree) represents a congruence between my wide-ranging, free-thinking, non-conforming personality and my professional development choices.
Next, self-determination theory asserts that self-agency increases intrinsic motivation and guides human behavior. According to Ryan and Deci (2000), intrinsic motivation enlivens human potential to seek challenges, exercise capacities, explore and learn. They identified three interdependent psychological needs - competency, autonomy and relatedness - as essential for intrinsic motivation to thrive. As an outgrowth of self-determination theory, self-concordance theory examines the degree of integration between an individual’s sense of self, behavior, interests and core values (Sheldon and Elliot, 1999; Robbins and Judge, 2018). Proactive and self-generated goals that concord with an integrated self lead to intrinsic motivation and meaningful work (Bono and Judge, 2003). As another extension of self-determination theory, self-authorship theory states that inner wisdom cultivated through self-awareness and lived experience strengthens internal commitments to act (Magolda, 2008). As trust in an inner voice grows, an individual becomes increasingly open to reconstructing their inner foundation through the dynamic process of living a self-authored life.
Within the self-determination framework, the notion of internally-directed goals aligned with an integrated self speaks to my utilitarian treatment of norms and conventions around professional development. If a professional development opportunity resonates with me, I will pursue it. If not, I will move on. My current program of graduate study provides me creative space to strengthen and expand my professional capacities in meaningful ways as I see fit. Therefore, I am enrolled.
In addition, the notion of trusting my inner voice highlights how increased self-awareness and lived experience propels me toward my leading edge of growth. While I neither require another graduate degree to maintain the great job I already have nor do I possess an interest in “moving up the ladder” anytime soon, my inner voice beckons me to further expand into my professional mission. While I cannot discern exactly where this professional development path leads, I nevertheless trust my inner wisdom to take me where I need to go. It is important to note that I am a committed and long-time rationalist; to follow my intuition in such a way is to lean into discomfort. Nevertheless, as Magolda (2008) described, I am becoming increasingly open to deconstruction and rebirth as I self-author my unfolding life.
Although it exceeds the scope of this essay, I would be disingenuous if I failed to briefly mention contemplative practice in this analysis. Ultimately, contemplative practice clarifies my motivation and activates my behavior around important life choices. According to Stone (2011), “Unity or Yoga is not a metaphysical principle but attunement to the flow of life through us, as us” (p. 16). Through yoga, I generate courage to trust myself fearlessly (see Mishler, 2017). Through meditation, I tune into the energetics of manifestation, choosing what to let go and what to gravitate toward (see Gandelman, 2019). Unsurprisingly, after early morning practice, in a fit of inspired focus, I sat down, finalized my decision and hammered out my entire graduate school application. Beginning to end, this took two hours.
In sum, different theoretical explanations of my professional development choices resonate with different aspects of my lived experience and self-understanding. The situational, multifaceted and evolving nature of my own motivation belies the effectiveness of an analysis that integrates a diversity of theoretical lenses into a more robust composite explanation. In short, such an analysis reveals that I gravitate toward growth-oriented, idea-generating and self-determined professional development choices. While internal and external countervailing forces may exist, opportunities with these qualities enliven a powerful intrinsic motivation to engage. Contemplative practice lights the fire.
Maintaining Motivation to Persist and Energy to Thrive
A composite understanding of my diverse sources of motivation provides context for moving forward with my professional development choices in an intentional, self-aligned way. Three specific strategies authentically engage my propensities and capacities, thereby enlivening my human potential.
Attend to body, mind and spirit every single day. Self-actualization requires my full attention to holistic well-being. In my self-understanding and lived experience, basic needs are not pre-potent; basic needs are integral. I must tend to the full vibrancy of my integrated body, mind and spirit in order to achieve my growth potential. That is, every single day I must eat a healthy diet, drink plenty of water, get adequate sleep, exercise, meditate and spend quality time with loved ones. This is a challenging ideal to meet, but it must be a priority if I am to persist and thrive in my professional development choices.
Uninhibit the energy flow of ideas. Deep saturation in diverse insights and perspectives - both my own and other’s - charges my wide-ranging, free-thinking, and non-conforming capacity to generate ideas. Like a river swelling with spring rains, my energy flow of ideas builds and builds in strength, at its most powerful becoming an unbounded, roiling, and creative torrent. Therefore, I must avoid artificial parameters that “box me in” to set ways of thinking or doing. I must follow a free-ranging spirit of inquiry that leads me to new ways of seeing, uninhibited by deadened rules, conventions, templates and thought patterns.
Craft and trust my own authentic journey. A part of me wants to “rein it in” and not follow where the energy flows because the energy often flows toward action that is non-conforming, emergent, untested and risky. That is too far out there, a part of me says. But that part of me is the fearful, doubting self. In contrast, a different part of me says, trust yourself fearlessly. This is the enlightened, inspired self. I must trust the light inside of me and let it shine; I must listen to the unbounded, roiling and creative torrent. As Parker Palmer (2009) proclaimed, “Let your life speak” (p. 2).
References
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 554–571.
Clifton, D. O., Anderson, E., & Schreiner, L. A. (2006). StrengthsQuest: Discover and develop your strengths in academics, career, and beyond. New York: Gallup Press.
Gandelman, D. (2019). The energetics of success and manifestation. Podcast retrieved from https://insighttimer.com/meditation-courses/course_the-energetics-of-success-and-manifestation
Holland, J. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press.
Magolda, M. B. B. (2008). Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 269–284.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. In Natemeyer, W. E., & Hersey, P. (Eds.) (2011). Classics of organizational behavior (4th ed., pp. 76-93). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
McGregor. D. (1957). The human side of enterprise. In Natemeyer, W. E., & Hersey, P. (Eds.) (2011). Classics of organizational behavior (4th ed., pp. 63-72). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Mishler, A. (2017, January 14). Revolution - day 15 - fearless practice - Yoga With Adriene [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtWUYGfbwtM
Palmer, P. (2009). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2018). Essentials of organizational behavior (14th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Stone, M. (2011). Awake in the world: Teachings from Yoga and Buddhism for living an engaged life. Shambhala: London.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliott, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–497.
No comments:
Post a Comment