There have been times in my professional career that emotional energy has come out and caused uncomfortable and unproductive space to be created. Part of the reason stemmed from a few things:
1. Negative critiques of my work was taken personally instead of seen as a sign a need was unmet.
2. Uneasy feelings were allowed to fester insted of following internal instincts to create open conversation and describe what is happening.
3. I engaged in "clique" conversations and treated others badly.
Depending on the project and the amount of time invested #1 can be difficult. My own need stemmed from a high expectation of self. Not having anything to do with external persons hearing "This isn't what I want" was received quite negatively because that means my bar was set too low. It creates a cycle because I think "Isn't my expectation level high enough already?"
Many persons in the advocacy, nonprofit world have a "pleaser" personality. They don't want anyone to be angry or create conflict - ever. This is a large misnomer, however, because a certain amount of conflict is constructive and, frankly, necessary for a team to get things done. It's actually inherent in our system of democracy where one group always seems at odds with another. Supposedly, as we have "discussions" about dialogue-points we arrive at the best "middle-ground" solution. Sometimes, that doesn't always translate so well into reality.
#3 can be very difficult to get over, especially if in the political world where dreams are attached in groups. If one is unwilling to play "the game" there are limited opportunities. At least, that is the initial perception when in reality, many are thirsty for ethic and value-driven success. Remaining true to a worldview and a humanitarian principle is foremost for all public servants who should always have the constituency in mind. It is not a self-calculated, best-case scenario which one sculpts, espectially because if it conflicts with the interests of the constituency it is contrarian to the role.
Hearing all of these on an ongoing basis has been quite helpful. It's not about one person, but achieving a higher potential for the public. Material or status gain should never be placed before the needs of so many who feel alone and unheard.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Intentional spaces for conversation among organizers
There is a strong need for additional checks on the capital-driven policy decisions made on the domestic front. Many of our inherent lacks (healthcare, financial deficits, military complex escalation) have gone without rational responses from leadership for a long period of time. In addition, media outlets are finance - not objective data - driven and measure success based on audience size, not inherent "newsworthiness."
As such, there is a huge potential for organizers to come together and create points of access for ongoing dialogue. It just came as a reminder that this practice is largely different from activism or mobilization. Both of these include activities that are either unorganized for an end-goal or "wind-down" once a particular policy point has been reached.
We have seen in recent Executive decision-making that those programs which have become a traditional component of our society - Social Security - may not always be free of "market forces." This is also played out in the current conversation concerning the Medicare program (flawed because at the time of it's creation most seniors died before age 70). Once health advocates have reached the goal of a basic government-funded plan there is a need for an ongoing community to ensure the benefits are not scaled back. This has been true of other successful campaigns including suffrage, child labor and ending racial discrimination.
The spaces for conversation must be; deliberate, open, lacking egoism,
time managed and set to achieve measurable goals.
As such, there is a huge potential for organizers to come together and create points of access for ongoing dialogue. It just came as a reminder that this practice is largely different from activism or mobilization. Both of these include activities that are either unorganized for an end-goal or "wind-down" once a particular policy point has been reached.
We have seen in recent Executive decision-making that those programs which have become a traditional component of our society - Social Security - may not always be free of "market forces." This is also played out in the current conversation concerning the Medicare program (flawed because at the time of it's creation most seniors died before age 70). Once health advocates have reached the goal of a basic government-funded plan there is a need for an ongoing community to ensure the benefits are not scaled back. This has been true of other successful campaigns including suffrage, child labor and ending racial discrimination.
The spaces for conversation must be; deliberate, open, lacking egoism,
time managed and set to achieve measurable goals.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Setting work boundaries - and surviving
In a neo-industrial age our source of employment can easily trickle into all the pools of our lives. Whether we need to manage relationships with friends, families or other business ventures it may become necessary to say "No."
Especially during a recession, there is a divergent attitude between effectiveness and loyalty. Just because an employee agrees to do everything that is forwareded to them does not adjudicate him or her as effective. In fact, a leader is often interested in focusing on the larger vision and delegating the routine tasks to others. It is actually this sign that may point out which employee has room to develop into an executive.
Regardless of the obligations which one has to an office the sole relationship is productivity and profit. In fact, this is most evident when there are layoffs or a round of terminations. It is mind boggling how quickly all of those "tight" relationships formed over conference calls and coffee disappear.
Even more distressing, most of the benefits (health insurance included)evaporate in the blink of an eye.
We live in an age where salaried employment can creat many conflicts. Routinely, there are conversations within offices of employees trying to reschedule childrens christenings, reunions and doctors appointments because the office is simply "too busy." Fascinating, then, that when we are trying to schedule vacation time (removing one of the pegs from the office for a period of time) all of the urgent tasks still manage to get done.
An effective employee will focus on those items, each day, which present themselves as most urgent or are opportunities for relationship building that may not present themselves again.
Especially during a recession, there is a divergent attitude between effectiveness and loyalty. Just because an employee agrees to do everything that is forwareded to them does not adjudicate him or her as effective. In fact, a leader is often interested in focusing on the larger vision and delegating the routine tasks to others. It is actually this sign that may point out which employee has room to develop into an executive.
Regardless of the obligations which one has to an office the sole relationship is productivity and profit. In fact, this is most evident when there are layoffs or a round of terminations. It is mind boggling how quickly all of those "tight" relationships formed over conference calls and coffee disappear.
Even more distressing, most of the benefits (health insurance included)evaporate in the blink of an eye.
We live in an age where salaried employment can creat many conflicts. Routinely, there are conversations within offices of employees trying to reschedule childrens christenings, reunions and doctors appointments because the office is simply "too busy." Fascinating, then, that when we are trying to schedule vacation time (removing one of the pegs from the office for a period of time) all of the urgent tasks still manage to get done.
An effective employee will focus on those items, each day, which present themselves as most urgent or are opportunities for relationship building that may not present themselves again.
Respecting group sentiment with email "CC's"
Email is certainly a form of communication without which most can't imagine being functional. There are tons of messages sent "to" and "from" us for our friends, family and business contacts. It can be quite time effective to turn around quick responses when it is needed, especially with business.
There are cases, however, when pressing the "send" button ignores a few rules.
When a part of a larger group, let's say 10 people, there is a type of trust with those (who are essentially strangers) on the list. The unstated rules are:
1. You will be respectful in any and all sent messages
2. If I make a request, you will oblige
3. My contact will not be given out to others without permission
4. No email will be cc'd to another person if it's uneccessary
Most of these don't need to be stated - they appear to be common sense. Even rule #3 can be a bit loose, especially when the other option is to give out phone contact information. Email is seen as a bit more neutral, especially for first contacts. Personally, there is a strong need to develop a relationship with those with whom I am speaking and so phone is preferred.
It is when we arrive at the fourth rule that there is really a lot of wiggle room and misunderstanding. No more is this evident than any groups one is a part where discussions are the main order of business. Everyone has an opionon and a strong need to share.
There are, however, limits.
When there are a larger number of folks on an email list back and forth conversations, limited to a few people, can be received quite negatively. When there is a target of any message, it is a good idea to limit the email to their inbox. We already receive a ton of emails, some unsolicited, any additional which are unhelpful or not needed will be met with aplomb.
Moreover, any negative messages or disagreements with a member of the group may not translate well over a digital medium. In such cases, the traditional phone (smart as it may be) might serve as a more effective means to reach out. Delivering negative messages and cc'ing anyone else should never be considered appropriate.
There are cases, however, when pressing the "send" button ignores a few rules.
When a part of a larger group, let's say 10 people, there is a type of trust with those (who are essentially strangers) on the list. The unstated rules are:
1. You will be respectful in any and all sent messages
2. If I make a request, you will oblige
3. My contact will not be given out to others without permission
4. No email will be cc'd to another person if it's uneccessary
Most of these don't need to be stated - they appear to be common sense. Even rule #3 can be a bit loose, especially when the other option is to give out phone contact information. Email is seen as a bit more neutral, especially for first contacts. Personally, there is a strong need to develop a relationship with those with whom I am speaking and so phone is preferred.
It is when we arrive at the fourth rule that there is really a lot of wiggle room and misunderstanding. No more is this evident than any groups one is a part where discussions are the main order of business. Everyone has an opionon and a strong need to share.
There are, however, limits.
When there are a larger number of folks on an email list back and forth conversations, limited to a few people, can be received quite negatively. When there is a target of any message, it is a good idea to limit the email to their inbox. We already receive a ton of emails, some unsolicited, any additional which are unhelpful or not needed will be met with aplomb.
Moreover, any negative messages or disagreements with a member of the group may not translate well over a digital medium. In such cases, the traditional phone (smart as it may be) might serve as a more effective means to reach out. Delivering negative messages and cc'ing anyone else should never be considered appropriate.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Retaining relationships with former bosses & Managing Up - Part 1
Depending on the nature of a relationship separation the value of a former boss can be perceived as minimal. This is true in situations where someone is terminated without cause - it does happen. It has always been my policy that relationships are not severed because one never knows the social capital, or network, that is being incinerated.
Interacting with the greatest number of working styles - and under varying pressures - develops a solid character. It is those with whom one has the most problemmatic relationship that the most can be learned. My own relationships with those initially seen as the most distinct from my own pesonality proves my initial assumption to be in error.
Being uncomfortable can be productive. There are exceptions. If anyone has violated the rights of an employee or caused them extreme anxiety through inappropriate sexual advances. I have never experienced either and common sense would dictate these shouldn't be continued.
Many times, the finger rests squarely on my own actions or transmission of anger or passive aggressive behavior onto others. There is a large amount of personal responsibility and inertia that plays into the ability of anyone else to distract from projects or throw "off balance." The main reason many of the personal stories I've heard played out in a certain manner is due to one rule of "sheeple" mentality:
Regardless of the distraction caused by an employers rude or unprofessional behavior employees are unwilling to respond with positive bridges and "manage up" when necessary
More in the upcoming post regarding managing a boss by staying on a project-driven bridge.
Interacting with the greatest number of working styles - and under varying pressures - develops a solid character. It is those with whom one has the most problemmatic relationship that the most can be learned. My own relationships with those initially seen as the most distinct from my own pesonality proves my initial assumption to be in error.
Being uncomfortable can be productive. There are exceptions. If anyone has violated the rights of an employee or caused them extreme anxiety through inappropriate sexual advances. I have never experienced either and common sense would dictate these shouldn't be continued.
Many times, the finger rests squarely on my own actions or transmission of anger or passive aggressive behavior onto others. There is a large amount of personal responsibility and inertia that plays into the ability of anyone else to distract from projects or throw "off balance." The main reason many of the personal stories I've heard played out in a certain manner is due to one rule of "sheeple" mentality:
Regardless of the distraction caused by an employers rude or unprofessional behavior employees are unwilling to respond with positive bridges and "manage up" when necessary
More in the upcoming post regarding managing a boss by staying on a project-driven bridge.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Text and Donate
In a world that has seen the staple campaign of many nonprofits, via mail, take a dive an innovation has been born - txt 2 donate. This is all the flutter with the horrific incidents in Haiti which have left many in a quandry with how to help.
Through sites such as mGive The NYTimes recently reported that over $2 million has been given to disaster relief. Contributions are just tagged onto the regular monthly phone bill. This provides a rich interface for the donor experience and could replace shopping for a site via web.
It is, however, very important that everyone do research before giving. There will be many charities claiming to send aid - some have much higher overhead expenses than others. At the end of the day, if one wishes to make a higher donation it may be further personalized by a visit to the site. This is certainly the case when one wants to give in memorium and etc. Txt 2 donate is another function of our "ever-smarter"phones. The human element, however, cannot be replicated.
Through sites such as mGive The NYTimes recently reported that over $2 million has been given to disaster relief. Contributions are just tagged onto the regular monthly phone bill. This provides a rich interface for the donor experience and could replace shopping for a site via web.
It is, however, very important that everyone do research before giving. There will be many charities claiming to send aid - some have much higher overhead expenses than others. At the end of the day, if one wishes to make a higher donation it may be further personalized by a visit to the site. This is certainly the case when one wants to give in memorium and etc. Txt 2 donate is another function of our "ever-smarter"phones. The human element, however, cannot be replicated.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Clear Expectations
I have found that in working with clients there are conflicing motivations - relationship building and quick turn around on invesment. Relationship - building is inherently more complex and requires an audience-directed focus.
One of my clients is experiencing the need for quick volume based activity. In an effort to get there an opportunity exists for foreign based data work. Such an activity is not necessarily tied in with a cultivation campaign. Conversations speaking about "productivity" can be held from each of these perspectives. The employer may mention that it is important to increase brand exposure. Meanwhile, there may be additional comments about culvitation citing lengthy development cycles.
One can have an agenda with each, but the balance is extremely important.
If a salary package has already been negotiated comments which espouse the value of this contract should be taken seriously. When there are low funds and in a bad economy such conversations are likely to occur. It's an opportunity to prove the value of the work.
One of my clients is experiencing the need for quick volume based activity. In an effort to get there an opportunity exists for foreign based data work. Such an activity is not necessarily tied in with a cultivation campaign. Conversations speaking about "productivity" can be held from each of these perspectives. The employer may mention that it is important to increase brand exposure. Meanwhile, there may be additional comments about culvitation citing lengthy development cycles.
One can have an agenda with each, but the balance is extremely important.
If a salary package has already been negotiated comments which espouse the value of this contract should be taken seriously. When there are low funds and in a bad economy such conversations are likely to occur. It's an opportunity to prove the value of the work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)