February 27, 2017

Archives for January 29, 2016

The Anti-Motivation Strategy (Part 1): All This Motivation is Killing You

Employee-Motivation

It’s the end of January and the resolutions are long gone. Not for lack of motivation, but because of it.

Google “motivation.” What comes up? Lots of hits about leadership, management, team building, best hiring practices, sales training. Everything you need to get other people to do what you want — your team, employees, salesmen, managers, students, children…

ziglar_quote

And lots more hits on how to get yourself to do what you want, be a success at work and life.

Plus enough posters and sayings and quotes to paper a conference room. The one at the left has name recognition appeal, and shows up a lot. All these will help us, right?

Nope. Not going to work. Instead, it’s going to hurt you in the long run, not to mention sabotaging your success.

Yes, you read that right. You might get short-term results, but the reality is that…

A lot of what passes for motivation is not just self-defeating, it’s harmful to your health.

The reason why is ironically evident in in that famous Zig Ziglar quote.

The Science Of Motivation

We Googled motivation, and now we’re… um, motivated… to dig deeper. We tap Wikipedia first, to get a quick look at the lay of the land. We’re greeted with this:

Motivation is a theoretical construct used to explain behavior. It represents the reasons for people’s actions, desires, and needs. Motivation can also be defined as one’s direction to behavior, or what causes a person to want to repeat a behavior and vice versa. A motive is what prompts the person to act in a certain way, or at least develop an inclination for specific behavior. For example, when someone eats food to satisfy their hunger, or when a student does his/her work in school because he/she wants a good grade. Both show a similar connection between what we do and why we do it. “

Almost lost us at “theoretical construct,” but food and good grades? Now we’re tracking — at least until we get to the laundry list of Incentive Theories: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation, Operant Conditioning, Push and Pull, Self-control, Drives, Incentive Theory, Drive-Reduction Theory, Cognitive Dissonance Theory, Content Theories, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs… Maslow! Finally some familiar ground! We had that in Psych 101!

While we’re greeting Maslow like an old friend, the list goes on, at a low rumble. There’s a lot to Motivation Science, apparently — mostly psychology. How about we try Behavioral Neuroscience instead:

Concepts of motivation are vital to progress in behavioral neuroscience. Motivational concepts help us to understand what limbic brain systems are chiefly evolved to do, i.e., to mediate psychological processes that guide real behavior. This article evaluates some major motivation concepts that have historic importance or have influenced the interpretation of behavioral neuroscience research. These concepts include homeostasis, setpoints and settling points, intervening variables, hydraulic drives, drive reduction, appetitive and consummatory behavior, opponent processes, hedonic reactions, incentive motivation, drive centers, dedicated drive neurons (and drive neuropeptides and receptors), neural hierarchies, and new concepts from affective neuroscience such as allostasis, cognitive incentives, and reward ‘liking’ versus ‘wanting.’

Okay then. We had homeostasis in Biology 101, and everybody knows about “setpoints,” but settling points, intervening variables, hydraulic drives (Huh?! In our brains?!), drive neuropeptides… Maybe not so much.

All this psych and neuroscience feels pretty thick. Let’s try something visual… hey, here’s a PowerPoint! Hmmm, a lot of the same stuff. All good science, no doubt, but what about us real folks?

Can’t We Just Get Positive?

Doesn’t having a positive attitude keep us motivated? Can’t we just do that?

We’ll explore that idea next time.

Rhodes_4This second collection of Kevin’s blog posts focuses on the future and culture of law, including insights on technology, innovation, neuro-culture, and entrepreneurship. Extensively researched, visionary, and written in a crisp, conversational style by a man on a mission to bring wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law.

 

 

 

Tenth Circuit: Agency Decision Presumed to Apply Prospectively Only

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in De Niz Robles v. Lynch on Tuesday, October 20, 2015.

Alfonzo De Niz Robles filed a petition for adjustment of status in 2007, relying on the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales (Padilla Caldera I), 426 F.3d 1294, 1300-01 (10th Cir. 2005), amended and superseded on reh’g, 453 F.3d 1237, 1244 (10th Cir. 2006), which held that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255(i)(2)(A) allowed the Attorney General discretion in affording relief from removability under § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). After De Niz Robles filed his petition, the BIA issued In re Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), which overturned the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Padilla Caldera I. In 2013, the BIA ruled that De Niz Robles was categorically ineligible for relief due to its Briones decision, which it applied retroactively. De Niz Robles appealed to the Tenth Circuit.

Applying the Chevron test and guided by the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services (Brand X), 545 U.S. 967 (2005), the Tenth Circuit determined it was required to decide whether Briones could reasonably apply retroactively, thereby overruling Tenth Circuit precedent. The Tenth Circuit analyzed the separation of powers doctrine, noting that judicial decisions are presumed to apply retroactively due to the impartial nature of the judiciary, whereas Congressional rule-making is presumably prospective only unless otherwise specifically stated. Because administrative rulemaking is a delegation of Congressional power, the Tenth Circuit found that administrative rules are presumptively prospective in application. However, when confronted with a situation where an administrative agency acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, such as the BIA did in Briones, the Tenth Circuit examined whether the administrative action is more akin to judicial function or legislative function.

The Tenth Circuit determined that, in applying its rules pursuant to a Congressional delegation of power, the BIA was acting in a quasi-legislative capacity. Examining due process and equal protection concerns, the Tenth Circuit determined it would contravene Supreme Court precedent and constitutional safeguards to allow the BIA’s decision to be applied retroactively. The Tenth Circuit therefore overturned the BIA’s refusal to consider De Niz Robles’ petition. The Tenth Circuit noted that at the time De Niz Robles filed his petition, Padilla Caldera I was the existing circuit precedent, and he was justified in his reliance on that precedent. The BIA argued that De Niz Robles should have understood that there was a conflict between § 1255 and § 1182, and that there was a chance the conflict would be resolved against De Niz Robles’ position. The Tenth Circuit found that approach illogical, noting that a litigant is justified in relying on the law at the time a petition is filed.

The Tenth Circuit remanded to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 1/28/2016

On Thursday, January 28, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and three unpublished opinions.

Nyanjom v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp.

Dornon v. Jurgens

United States v. Serrato

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.