I was listening to James Knight yesterday. He was giving a brief talk on colour styles - an entertaining variation on personality types - and he mentioned comfort zones. That is a familiar concept, but how well does it represent what is going on?
The idea is that where we are now is comfortable; where we want to move to involves effort; so we tend to stay where we are, rather than go through that struggle. Effort = distress.
Well, that's not right.
If we have habits we enjoy, that's great. If we have habits we barely notice, they are not a problem. But if we have habits we actively want to change - that's your discomfort zone (DZ). At that point the habit you wish to acquire represents your new comfort zone (CZ). And the hurdle of effort between where you are and where you want to be is your effort zone (EZ).
To represent the desired state as somehow scary seems wide of the mark. That is where we want to be, for goodness sake!
Moreover, telling someone they are in their "comfort zone" with a habit they are struggling to break will certainly detract from the effort needed to move away from it. The old "comfort zone" concept is no help at all! Little wonder that those fed such a disabling mental diet are often sabotaged by the very ideas that are supposed to help them.
Even the suggestion that effort equals distress is not a universal truth. Some folks enjoy the process of change - like the person that soaks up knowledge like a sponge on their journey to academic excellence, or in the process of acquiring a particular skill.
For some people in some situations effort is distress. They stay in their Discomfort Zone when the distress in making the effort exceeds the discomfort of staying where they are - the dog laying on a nail syndrome. They reach their Comfort Zone when the distress of the Effort Zone is less than the discomfort of staying where they are.
Thanks James, your talk got me thinking.
So, shall we tip the old notion of comfort zones on its head? Or shall we preserve some of our current income stream and leave our clients struggling to make the changes they want?
The idea is that where we are now is comfortable; where we want to move to involves effort; so we tend to stay where we are, rather than go through that struggle. Effort = distress.
Well, that's not right.
If we have habits we enjoy, that's great. If we have habits we barely notice, they are not a problem. But if we have habits we actively want to change - that's your discomfort zone (DZ). At that point the habit you wish to acquire represents your new comfort zone (CZ). And the hurdle of effort between where you are and where you want to be is your effort zone (EZ).
To represent the desired state as somehow scary seems wide of the mark. That is where we want to be, for goodness sake!
Moreover, telling someone they are in their "comfort zone" with a habit they are struggling to break will certainly detract from the effort needed to move away from it. The old "comfort zone" concept is no help at all! Little wonder that those fed such a disabling mental diet are often sabotaged by the very ideas that are supposed to help them.
Even the suggestion that effort equals distress is not a universal truth. Some folks enjoy the process of change - like the person that soaks up knowledge like a sponge on their journey to academic excellence, or in the process of acquiring a particular skill.
For some people in some situations effort is distress. They stay in their Discomfort Zone when the distress in making the effort exceeds the discomfort of staying where they are - the dog laying on a nail syndrome. They reach their Comfort Zone when the distress of the Effort Zone is less than the discomfort of staying where they are.
Thanks James, your talk got me thinking.
So, shall we tip the old notion of comfort zones on its head? Or shall we preserve some of our current income stream and leave our clients struggling to make the changes they want?
No comments:
Post a Comment