Intro
I like to see it this way: ‘intent’ and ‘intensity’ operate as pivotal yet elusive forces in our professional journeys. Their influence is often intuitively felt, yet they remain abstract concepts that merit a more analytical dissection. In this context, ‘intent’ reflects our underlying objectives—the ‘why,’ while ‘intensity’ encapsulates the zeal of our actions—the ‘how.’ By extrapolating these elements into a 3×3 matrix, we aim to concretize their sway across domains like leadership, management, strategy, design, and technology, bringing abstract principles into tangible relief through real-world examples.
Examples
Leadership – Defining and Communicating Vision (Intent and Intensity)
| Intent \ Intensity | Low Intensity | Medium Intensity | High Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low Intent | Indifference: No attempts to establish a vision. (Neglect: Leader doesn’t even attempt to formulate or discuss organizational vision.) | Vagueness: Frequent changes to the vision, causing confusion. (Indecision: Regular team meetings with constantly changing vision statements and priorities.) | Chaos: Urgent, passionate meetings without clear focus. (Misdirection: Sudden team gatherings with enthusiastic but unclear and varying messages.) |
| Medium Intent | Hesitation: Drafting visions but not sharing them. (Hesitation: Vision statements are drafted but remain in the leader’s drawer, unseen by the team.) | Refinement: Slow, iterative communication of the vision. (Delay: Quarterly meetings to slowly refine and communicate the evolving vision.) | Inconsistency: Overloading the team with vision details. (Overwhelm: Frequent, passionate meetings where the vision gets lost in excessive details and tangential ideas.) |
| High Intent | Understatement: Clear vision, passive delivery. (Undercommunication: The vision is clear in the leader’s mind and is written down but only shared via an impersonal channel like email.) | Consistency: Regular workshops to discuss the vision. (Methodical: Monthly workshops are held to ensure everyone understands and aligns with the vision.) | Evangelism: Holding a vision-centric retreat or conference. (Inspirational: A company-wide retreat where leaders energetically and persuasively impart the vision, rallying enthusiasm and commitment.) |
Management – Project Monitoring and Management (Intent and Intensity)
| Intent \ Intensity | Low Intensity | Medium Intensity | High Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low Intent | Neglect: Little to no oversight. (Absence: Manager rarely checks in or reviews project status.) | Randomness: Sporadic, unfocused check-ins. (Distraction: Infrequent, erratic meetings with no clear agenda.) | Chaos: Haphazard involvement without understanding. (Firefighting: Manager only intervenes in crises, often without full context.) |
| Medium Intent | Reservation: Minimal, but consistent oversight. (Routine: Manager conducts regular, but superficial project reviews.) | Engagement: Active involvement, yet lacks full commitment. (Involvement: Manager holds regular meetings, reviews progress, but lacks proactive planning.) | Overdrive: Intense focus, but direction may vary. (Whiplash: Manager is highly engaged, but priorities and directions change frequently.) |
| High Intent | Undermanagement: Clear goals, passive oversight. (Autonomy: Manager sets clear goals but largely trusts the team to self-manage.) | Balanced: Regular, focused interaction. (Synchronization: Manager conducts thorough reviews, offers guidance, and keeps the team aligned.) | Micromanagement: Constant, detailed oversight. (Control: Manager is involved in every small decision, often slowing down the process.) |
Strategy – Market Expansion Opportunities and Tactics (Intent and Intensity)
| Intent \ Intensity | Low Intensity | Medium Intensity | High Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low Intent | Stagnation: No real plan for growth. (Inertia: Business continues with its usual operations, ignoring market expansion.) | Speculation: Random, unfocused attempts. (Gamble: Occasional, unstructured attempts at tapping new markets without research or strategy.) | Haphazard Sprint: Rushed, chaotic efforts. (Scattergun: Launching products/services in new markets without proper analysis or strategic planning.) |
| Medium Intent | Cautious Exploration: Slow, tentative steps. (Wait-and-See: Gradual entry into new markets following extensive observation.) | Calculated Moves: Informed, yet restrained actions. (Balanced Risk: Expansion efforts based on data, but still limited in scope or investment.) | Aggressive Trial: Bold but inconsistent initiatives. (Hit-or-Miss: Energetic market pushes without sustaining consistency in approach or investment.) |
| High Intent | Underplayed Strategy: Defined plan, passive execution. (Soft Launch: Clear market expansion strategy exists but is pursued without much aggression or fanfare.) | Systematic Expansion: Regular, well-planned actions. (Blueprint Execution: Following a detailed market expansion plan with regular assessments and methodical execution.) | All-In Blitz: Constant, high-energy activities. (Full Throttle: Rapid and intensive campaigns, product launches, and/or acquisitions to capture new market segments.) |
Design – Translating Requirements into Functional and Elegant User Interactions and Interfaces (Intent and Intensity)
| Intent \ Intensity | Low Intensity | Medium Intensity | High Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low Intent | Neglect: Minimal focus on user needs. (Oversight: Designs are created with little to no regard for actual user requirements or usability.) | Superficiality: Aesthetic focus, functionality ignored. (Cosmetics: Design efforts are sporadic, focusing more on visual appeal than on functional coherence or user needs.) | Disorder: Frequent redesigns without strategy. (Confusion: Regular overhaul of interfaces without understanding user needs, leading to inconsistent user experience.) |
| Medium Intent | Underdevelopment: Basic functionality, lack of finesse. (Bare-Bones: Designs meet fundamental requirements but lack sophistication and aesthetic value.) | Standardization: Balanced function and form, but not user-centric. (Template: Use of standard design templates that accommodate most user needs without personalized interactions.) | Overcomplication: Feature-rich, yet overwhelming interfaces. (Clutter: Designs are feature-heavy, potentially confusing users with complexity and excessive options.) |
| High Intent | Underrealization: User-focused, yet underwhelming execution. (Unrealized Potential: Designs are user-oriented but fail to be fully actualized, missing depth or engagement.) | Harmony: Well-crafted balance of style and functionality. (Symbiosis: Designs are iteratively refined to provide an intuitive and pleasing user experience, aligning closely with user feedback.) | Innovation Overload: Cutting-edge, possibly ahead of user adaptability. (Futurism: Designs are highly innovative, potentially alienating some users unaccustomed to advanced interfaces or interactions.) |
Technology – Defining and Articulating Architecture (Intent and Intensity)
| Intent \ Intensity | Low Intensity | Medium Intensity | High Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low Intent | Neglect: No clear architectural strategy. (Ad Hoc: Development occurs without any defined system architecture, leading to potential scalability and maintenance issues.) | Fragmentation: Some thought, no uniformity. (Patchwork: Occasional considerations for architecture are made, but without consistency, leading to a fragmented system.) | Chaos: Frequent changes, no solid foundation. (Quick-Fix: Constant architectural changes are made without a strategic foundation, causing instability and confusion.) |
| Medium Intent | Underspecification: Basic structure, minimal guidance. (Skeleton: A basic architectural framework exists but lacks depth and foresight for future needs.) | Evolution: Incremental improvement, lack of bold innovation. (Iteration: Architecture is regularly updated, but changes are incremental and don’t drastically alter the core structure.) | Overengineering: Complex systems, potentially unnecessary. (Redundancy: Architectural decisions lead to overly complex systems, which may exceed current and future requirements.) |
| High Intent | Underutilization: Clear vision, passive implementation. (Blueprints Unbuilt: A well-defined architecture is planned but not fully or aggressively implemented.) | Precision: Detailed and thorough articulation. (Craftsmanship: Careful planning and execution of architecture, with attention to detail and scalability.) | Futurism: High focus on cutting-edge features. (Next-Gen Ready: Intense emphasis on integrating the latest technologies, potentially at the cost of current performance or budget.) |
Contrarian Views
Contrarian perspectives challenge the conventional belief that ‘Intent’ and ‘Intensity’ solely dictate success, asserting that adaptability, timing, and other contextual factors often exert equal or greater influence in professional achievements.
- Contextual Influence: Success can hinge on factors beyond intent and intensity, such as adaptability and external circumstances.
- Timing Matters: The right timing often plays a pivotal role in determining success outcomes.
- Adaptability is Vital: Being flexible and able to adapt to changing conditions can be as critical as intent and intensity.
- Diverse Factors: Success is a multifaceted outcome, influenced by various elements, including networking, innovation, resilience, and luck, which may take precedence over intent and intensity in specific situations.
MidJourney Prompt with inputs from ChatGPT
Create an image that visually represents the interplay between ‘intent’ and ‘intensity’ in a professional context. Showcase these abstract forces as dynamic, intertwining elements shaping the path to success. Incorporate visual cues that symbolize objectives (‘intent’) and the energy of actions (‘intensity’), while also hinting at the diverse professional domains where these forces come into play. –ar 16:9
(overlaid some additional text on the image that came with some junk text)
Listening and Patterns 