Dr Flavius Akerele III's The E Team Education blog

  Navigating High Achievers in the Workplace When I was younger, I was sometimes accused of being arrogant at work. Maybe occasionally I was. Age and experience have taught me enough humility to acknowledge that possibility. But I also know that sometimes what was perceived as arrogance was simply confidence. I was educated, prepared, good at what I did, and comfortable expressing what I knew. That distinction matters. Because managers routinely encounter employees who are highly capable, highly confident, or both. And if we mistake confidence for arrogance, or arrogance for competence, we can make poor leadership decisions in either direction. So how do we tell the difference? Arrogance, Confidence, and Competence They can look remarkably similar from a distance. A confident employee trusts their abilities. They can usually explain what they know without needing everyone else to know less. They can accept correction; they acknowledge limitations and learn from som...

  What does professional networking mean to you? Is it reaching out when you need a job? Asking someone for an introduction? Connecting because someone has information that might benefit you? Or is networking supposed to be something more? I've been thinking lately about how many ways we now have to connect with one another. LinkedIn, professional associations, conferences, email, social media, alumni networks, the opportunities are almost endless. Yet I wonder whether we're actually networking more or simply contacting more people. There is a difference. Real networking, at least as I understand it, should involve the genuine exchange of ideas, information, opportunities, and sometimes assistance, with no guarantee that anything comes back to us. Sometimes you make an introduction simply because two people should know each other. Sometimes you send someone an article because you think they'll find it useful. Sometimes you tell someone about an opportunity eve...

  Every generation seems to believe the next new technology is going to change everything. Sometimes it does. More often, it changes how we work rather than why we work. I was reminded of that recently after updating my LinkedIn profile with a professionally styled headshot. The photo was created with the help of AI, and I made no attempt to hide that fact. Most people liked it. A few playfully teased me. Others dismissed it with a single word: "AI." That reaction made me smile. Because we've had this conversation before. When calculators first appeared in classrooms, many educators worried they would destroy students' ability to think. I know, I was one of them. Then we realized something important. A calculator couldn't solve the problem if the student didn't understand the formula. As we used to tell students: "Garbage in, garbage out". The tool wasn't the problem. The thinking behind it was. Then came word processors. People worrie...

  Winning an Argument Isn't the Same as Making One.   In my previous article, Whatever Happened to the Art of Disagreement? , I suggested that we've become less capable of having thoughtful conversations with people who see the world differently. That led me to another question: when did logical fallacies become acceptable debate strategies?   When I was a student, logical fallacies were something we were taught to avoid. If you relied on one in a paper or debate, your instructor pointed it out because it weakened your argument. Today, many of those same fallacies are celebrated. Delivered with enough confidence, they can sound persuasive, even when they rely on faulty reasoning instead of evidence. To be fair, every one of us, including me, is susceptible to logical fallacies. The goal isn't to become better at winning arguments. It's to become better thinkers.   Here are a few examples we encounter every day:   Ad Hominem   Instead...

  This subject could become much larger than I intend, so I am going to focus on my own experiences. I was born in the United States, but I was raised in different countries and immersed in different cultures. It was not until I began spending significant amounts of time in the U.S. that I even started to understand the way the word race is used here. Even today, I struggle with the concept. Not because I do not understand that race has shaped many people's experiences, but because the way we often use it assumes entire groups of people think alike, behave alike, or share the same culture. My life has taught me otherwise. Years ago, my wife made a Facebook post about an interaction we had experienced. Someone commented that people probably found me "intimidating." Before I could respond, my wife, who is all of 5'5" and about 115 pounds, asked a simple question: "Why would you think that?" It stopped me in my tracks. Why would someone t...

  Have you had a real debate lately? I'm not talking about politics. That's an entirely different conversation. I mean a genuine discussion with someone who sees the world differently than you do. There was a time when this was normal, people disagreed, they challenged one another, sometimes they even changed their minds, and then they went and had lunch together. Today, disagreement often feels like the opening round of a fight, not a debate, not a discussion; a fight. Somewhere along the way, we've confused disagreement with disrespect. I believe electronic communication has played a role in that change. Emails, text messages, comment sections, and social media have stripped away many of the things that help us communicate effectively: facial expressions, tone of voice, pauses, humor, and empathy. Intent is easily misunderstood. A sincere question can sound sarcastic. Curiosity can be mistaken for criticism. But technology isn't the entire problem. The other p...