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.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
iPhone can't myTouch this...
I was once an iPhone fan. Oh yes, I had the device for a while and loved the simplicity. From the amazing design to the apps at a fingertip. There is something more than just the device, it seems as though one is part of an exclusive community of users. The UI via iTunes can be a bit annoying but using a telephone has never been more amazing.
That is, until the first monthly bill arrived. At less than 700 daytime minutes, texting and data the $115 per month really got on my nerves. This is especially because of what's been reported of late - AT&T service is horrid. Of course, part of the penalty, er bill, came in part due to New York municipal taxes. Still, over the course of a lifetime this will be an incredibly expensive means of communication. That's right, once you step forward into the civilized light of smartphones going back is nearly unheard of.
I know because after my iPhone was stolen I gritted my teeth and "saved money" using Boost service for over 3 months. (Cringes) Let's just say some text messages didn't arrive for 72 hours.
Currently, the myTouch is my phone of choice. Frankly, the cost of unlimited everything is less than the limited voice package with AT&T. I don't mind paying for the phone over 20 months because I still pay less than the unlimited packages at Verizon or AT&T. The Droid interface is extremely personable and the app number is almost at 20,000. T-mobile has introduced remote mobile backup, a must-have, and the thing actually takes video footage. On the horizon is the Google Nexus which will reduce to a paltry sum the number of people ordering that hideous device known as the Shmoid, er, Droid.
If Google releases the Nexus not tied to a carrier that will be not just an iPhone, but carrier, killer.
That is, until the first monthly bill arrived. At less than 700 daytime minutes, texting and data the $115 per month really got on my nerves. This is especially because of what's been reported of late - AT&T service is horrid. Of course, part of the penalty, er bill, came in part due to New York municipal taxes. Still, over the course of a lifetime this will be an incredibly expensive means of communication. That's right, once you step forward into the civilized light of smartphones going back is nearly unheard of.
I know because after my iPhone was stolen I gritted my teeth and "saved money" using Boost service for over 3 months. (Cringes) Let's just say some text messages didn't arrive for 72 hours.
Currently, the myTouch is my phone of choice. Frankly, the cost of unlimited everything is less than the limited voice package with AT&T. I don't mind paying for the phone over 20 months because I still pay less than the unlimited packages at Verizon or AT&T. The Droid interface is extremely personable and the app number is almost at 20,000. T-mobile has introduced remote mobile backup, a must-have, and the thing actually takes video footage. On the horizon is the Google Nexus which will reduce to a paltry sum the number of people ordering that hideous device known as the Shmoid, er, Droid.
If Google releases the Nexus not tied to a carrier that will be not just an iPhone, but carrier, killer.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Clarity for projects when priorities shift often
In the business world, new opportunities often come with a tangled web of tasks. One document is sent with a list of where energies should focus. Minutes later, this has been altered due to a review. How does a freelance employee work through this mess to develop an orderly sense of priorities?
One of the first lines of fire is an immediate superior. When there are diverging interests does one ask or assume that silence is approval? I have recently learned the hard way, again, because a project requiring email, phone and other contacts has been through several revisions. I thought a comment was made about outsourcing the creation of a contact list. Without being sure, a file was opened (about two weeks old) containging a "To Do" list with this activity in the number one position.
Sadly, instead of communicating with the CEO first, collation of the materials was started only to find out I was right. There is a fine line at which there is too much communication and the door is opened to begging for micromanagement. I have a strong need to avoid this at all costs. Sometimes, however, ensuring the vision of the overseer matches my own is quite productive.
One of the first lines of fire is an immediate superior. When there are diverging interests does one ask or assume that silence is approval? I have recently learned the hard way, again, because a project requiring email, phone and other contacts has been through several revisions. I thought a comment was made about outsourcing the creation of a contact list. Without being sure, a file was opened (about two weeks old) containging a "To Do" list with this activity in the number one position.
Sadly, instead of communicating with the CEO first, collation of the materials was started only to find out I was right. There is a fine line at which there is too much communication and the door is opened to begging for micromanagement. I have a strong need to avoid this at all costs. Sometimes, however, ensuring the vision of the overseer matches my own is quite productive.
Focusing on projects regardless of outside distractions
With all of the never ending interruptions from outside events, focusing on projects can be very difficult. The same is quite true when operating inside of an office environment. There are conversations which take place that are not essential to business, political games to play and endless rounds of communication.
Prioritizing what needs to be finished is an essential skill. However, this alone will not get the job done (pun definitely intended). It is also important that outside noise can be muted. Multitasking does have its place, but turnaround can be aided by sticking to a singular task. In our current labor force, many employers cite the need for multitasking but the skill of focus must not be forgotten.
For those who are in the freelancing or consulting business this noise can come from family. Ironically, those who we know the most tend to exert the most pressure on our behavior and saying "No" becomes quite difficult. This was true last night when a request was put in for me to help someone with their resume. I didn't have the time because I needed to focus on a task with a deadline. Instead of just listening to my need for work my family member became quite irate. My development in the business, and overall disposition, allows a disconnection from such irrational speak.
In all things, boosting someone elses credentials while hurting your own is a delicate game.
Prioritizing what needs to be finished is an essential skill. However, this alone will not get the job done (pun definitely intended). It is also important that outside noise can be muted. Multitasking does have its place, but turnaround can be aided by sticking to a singular task. In our current labor force, many employers cite the need for multitasking but the skill of focus must not be forgotten.
For those who are in the freelancing or consulting business this noise can come from family. Ironically, those who we know the most tend to exert the most pressure on our behavior and saying "No" becomes quite difficult. This was true last night when a request was put in for me to help someone with their resume. I didn't have the time because I needed to focus on a task with a deadline. Instead of just listening to my need for work my family member became quite irate. My development in the business, and overall disposition, allows a disconnection from such irrational speak.
In all things, boosting someone elses credentials while hurting your own is a delicate game.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Keeping former business contacts alive - Yes or No?
I have a strong social sense of self that can outweigh my own internal drives at times. Call it compassion, a unique perception or just an unknown which is genetic - the branding isn't that important. What I have noticed is that this goes against what is considered "acceptable" within some business models.
Sever all ties with former co-workers upon moving from one job to the next. Especially true if in the context of political turmoil or termination.
My own inclination is to do nothing of the sort. Even though there are certainly emotional ties to a workplace and the "daily grind" which sorts out our weekly schedules relationships are hard to find. That's not just said in the sense of those which are romantic but those with any person that serves as a conduit for learning. Through whichever mechanism, there are only a limited amount of people which one can encounter in a lifetime. Removing any person, unless an act is incredibly malicious, dilutes the potential for success.
In many cases, negativity can be turned towards a more productive cause. For example, when laid off from an employer one former coworker has remained, until presently, a solid friend. One friend met through the position is now forming his own nonprofit and I'm helping frame messaging for that enterprise. Most importantly, I learned to deal internally and engage in a positive attitude regardless of what others may choose as their path. This was necessary because HR was deceitful, misleading and management ousted me even as we spoke of rectifying a technological mishap. Just because others perceive dishonesty as "appropriate" workplace behavior this says nothing of my reaction. I was nearly as proud of my work for the employer as the calm demeanor with which I communicated directly after being removed.
We can learn the most from those who inititally rub us the wrong way. If someone is an ineffective manager remaining a friend, genuinely, can offer clues as to internal drives to better understand a personality trait that may be encountered again. Unclear, indecisive action can be met with development of leadership skills that faciliate upstream management.
Bottom line: There's always something to learn from everyone. Remaining focused on my needs to be humanistic and engage in clear, ethical business practices is more important than any pleasure gained short term through reactive behavior.
Sever all ties with former co-workers upon moving from one job to the next. Especially true if in the context of political turmoil or termination.
My own inclination is to do nothing of the sort. Even though there are certainly emotional ties to a workplace and the "daily grind" which sorts out our weekly schedules relationships are hard to find. That's not just said in the sense of those which are romantic but those with any person that serves as a conduit for learning. Through whichever mechanism, there are only a limited amount of people which one can encounter in a lifetime. Removing any person, unless an act is incredibly malicious, dilutes the potential for success.
In many cases, negativity can be turned towards a more productive cause. For example, when laid off from an employer one former coworker has remained, until presently, a solid friend. One friend met through the position is now forming his own nonprofit and I'm helping frame messaging for that enterprise. Most importantly, I learned to deal internally and engage in a positive attitude regardless of what others may choose as their path. This was necessary because HR was deceitful, misleading and management ousted me even as we spoke of rectifying a technological mishap. Just because others perceive dishonesty as "appropriate" workplace behavior this says nothing of my reaction. I was nearly as proud of my work for the employer as the calm demeanor with which I communicated directly after being removed.
We can learn the most from those who inititally rub us the wrong way. If someone is an ineffective manager remaining a friend, genuinely, can offer clues as to internal drives to better understand a personality trait that may be encountered again. Unclear, indecisive action can be met with development of leadership skills that faciliate upstream management.
Bottom line: There's always something to learn from everyone. Remaining focused on my needs to be humanistic and engage in clear, ethical business practices is more important than any pleasure gained short term through reactive behavior.
The need to understand capacity for communication tools
We have arrived at an age where the need for self-exposure is nearly unprecedented in human history. People routinely film their entire lives, publish the daily activities of their families and otherwise make themselves entirely too available. It is along these lines that we are ushered into using social media and other tools to remain even more "connected."
What is important at any onset of use is to understand whether this new "thing" will be sustainable. I myself have just opened a page at a video site where a channel can be set up to record clear presentations for a website. In addition, there is a podcast which requires updates. Even though the podcasts are generally short, less than 15 minutes, this still requires a concerted effort in terms of time management. At this point there isn't even a large audience - I am strictly in the developmental stages with the new media.
At the point when there are comments which need responses and business proposals which need to be fielded the time issue will become constraining. There is a perception that an instant turnaround time will occur because of smartphone usage and other technology.
At the end of the day I am interested in plugging in to learn and connect with potential colleagues in both business and advocacy. However, I am squarely uninterested in becoming burned out.
What is important at any onset of use is to understand whether this new "thing" will be sustainable. I myself have just opened a page at a video site where a channel can be set up to record clear presentations for a website. In addition, there is a podcast which requires updates. Even though the podcasts are generally short, less than 15 minutes, this still requires a concerted effort in terms of time management. At this point there isn't even a large audience - I am strictly in the developmental stages with the new media.
At the point when there are comments which need responses and business proposals which need to be fielded the time issue will become constraining. There is a perception that an instant turnaround time will occur because of smartphone usage and other technology.
At the end of the day I am interested in plugging in to learn and connect with potential colleagues in both business and advocacy. However, I am squarely uninterested in becoming burned out.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Due dilligence when meeting new contacts
As a result of a conference earlier in the week many new relationships are forming. It is both a huge positive and a time management exercise. With each conversation and presentation of materials there is a need to read. I've been doing a lot of research on new messaging models, organizations and events that are taking place soon.
The same is true when meeting individuals who are activists in the community. It's important for me to do a brief skim of the internet and discover their past involvement. Some have co founded their own organizations or participated in much larger activists meetings such as the Social Forum. This is important to know because information, such as from the People's Movement Assembly, will inform strategy to move messaging to a broad audience.
At the end of the day, it all boils down to a question of capacity. The function of networking and meeting new contacts is to create the ability to move an idea forward or put an idea into practice. Without the proper information on how an individual may be able to help this may be futile. Also, there is a flash point when meeting "too many" individuals does a disservice. There are phone calls, meetings and readings to be done. In addition, the most beneficial is when these networks form their own connections that qualify relationships.
Example:
One advocate I met who is an advocate in D.C. happens to be the boyfriend of a woman whose father co founded two major movements with whom I now have a relationship. (The father was introduced in a manner totally unrelated to the first contact).
The same is true when meeting individuals who are activists in the community. It's important for me to do a brief skim of the internet and discover their past involvement. Some have co founded their own organizations or participated in much larger activists meetings such as the Social Forum. This is important to know because information, such as from the People's Movement Assembly, will inform strategy to move messaging to a broad audience.
At the end of the day, it all boils down to a question of capacity. The function of networking and meeting new contacts is to create the ability to move an idea forward or put an idea into practice. Without the proper information on how an individual may be able to help this may be futile. Also, there is a flash point when meeting "too many" individuals does a disservice. There are phone calls, meetings and readings to be done. In addition, the most beneficial is when these networks form their own connections that qualify relationships.
Example:
One advocate I met who is an advocate in D.C. happens to be the boyfriend of a woman whose father co founded two major movements with whom I now have a relationship. (The father was introduced in a manner totally unrelated to the first contact).
National Strategic Conference in St. Louis
There was an amazing group of advocates in St Louis this week for a conference. We shared so many similar goals and values. I felt an incredible sense of responsibility looking out into the audience of mostly older advocates. My experiences are carrying forward our combined desire to make healthcare more equitable.
The trip to St Louis definitely proved a ground for learning about forming coalitions of organizations. I was able to give a panel presentation on reframing this issue around the family. This was done with help from many parties, including a professor Communications. The presentation was received extremely well and signals that the morale is still there and ready to move around an updated message.
If there's anything to be learned from the 2008 Presidential campaign it's that an effective vision, and related symbols, connect in a very powerful manner.
We met together with a new, ad hoc Messaging committee and the level of experience of these advocates is amazing. Some have co founded their own organizations and others are involved in efforts across multiple organizations. One of those indidivuals is certainly a dynamic character. He's involved in local D.C. politics, organizing and also creates and distributes his own music. Such new relationships are very inspirational and energize me to continue working forward to push through the idea held for nearly a century.
The trip to St Louis definitely proved a ground for learning about forming coalitions of organizations. I was able to give a panel presentation on reframing this issue around the family. This was done with help from many parties, including a professor Communications. The presentation was received extremely well and signals that the morale is still there and ready to move around an updated message.
If there's anything to be learned from the 2008 Presidential campaign it's that an effective vision, and related symbols, connect in a very powerful manner.
We met together with a new, ad hoc Messaging committee and the level of experience of these advocates is amazing. Some have co founded their own organizations and others are involved in efforts across multiple organizations. One of those indidivuals is certainly a dynamic character. He's involved in local D.C. politics, organizing and also creates and distributes his own music. Such new relationships are very inspirational and energize me to continue working forward to push through the idea held for nearly a century.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Listening to a Strong Party in a Relationship
Because of the traveling and life changes that have been taking place I don't now stop very often. Stop to review how I engage with others and what expectations exist for their behavior. It's of no suprise that there tend to be themes which emerge in relationships and they tend to be projected into infinity.
Recently, I've experienced a stronger party in our relationship requiring my listening and care. This can be challenging, and even outright awkward, because this isn't the role to which they've been assigned.
When I am speaking to those whom I've known for a signficant amount of time topics ususally are understood in advance. The balance of the relationship hasn't generally changed in years and the "needy" person tends to be me. That's not said in a negative manner. Just understanding that because either of socialization, worldview or the like there are issues that require discussion and input others may not need. It means no more, no less.
Life changes, death and mounting unhappiness, can quickly alter what has been a pretty comfortable role. I am aware of any prejudgments that are made of any person with whom there is a long lasting relationship and their current requests. The present is based on the historical in my expectation. However, when it is clearly voiced that someone needs attention in a different way my style must be malleable. These need not be overly profound in nature.
As an exampole, when my brother told me he was playing the piano my first response was to laugh. Why? He is the uber masculine athlete within our relationship. Perhaps that means I don't view him as overly creative or "production" oriented in terms of his culture. That's, to say the least, very reductionist and unfair but the honest truth about my point of reference when we speak. Just as it becomes annoying when my entire existence is reduced to dating, or free time, preferences the very same applies in his case. Not being willing to allow freedom of movement is stifling, even if it's not intended to do harm.
Recently, I've experienced a stronger party in our relationship requiring my listening and care. This can be challenging, and even outright awkward, because this isn't the role to which they've been assigned.
When I am speaking to those whom I've known for a signficant amount of time topics ususally are understood in advance. The balance of the relationship hasn't generally changed in years and the "needy" person tends to be me. That's not said in a negative manner. Just understanding that because either of socialization, worldview or the like there are issues that require discussion and input others may not need. It means no more, no less.
Life changes, death and mounting unhappiness, can quickly alter what has been a pretty comfortable role. I am aware of any prejudgments that are made of any person with whom there is a long lasting relationship and their current requests. The present is based on the historical in my expectation. However, when it is clearly voiced that someone needs attention in a different way my style must be malleable. These need not be overly profound in nature.
As an exampole, when my brother told me he was playing the piano my first response was to laugh. Why? He is the uber masculine athlete within our relationship. Perhaps that means I don't view him as overly creative or "production" oriented in terms of his culture. That's, to say the least, very reductionist and unfair but the honest truth about my point of reference when we speak. Just as it becomes annoying when my entire existence is reduced to dating, or free time, preferences the very same applies in his case. Not being willing to allow freedom of movement is stifling, even if it's not intended to do harm.
Toxic (and unauthentic) Work Relationships
There are, unfortunately, instances when we must work with toxic individuals. This can be defined as either a personality or action related orientation. Sometimes, those with whom we work can change due to vertical movement in a company and perceptions of “leadership.” Often times, with a little communication even these individuals can be managed and the damage they cause mitigated.
Perhaps the first step is to acknowledge that someone with whom we must work is toxic. This can vary from person to person but generally it is someone who; reduces all ideas to negated parcels, brings only “cannot” notions to the table or is incompetent to assess a working environment in the present. Notice, the word bad or good was never used. These tend to cast an unrealistic shadow on individuals. Speak of them as good and nearly all they do is golden. If they are deemed bad there are no tasks for which their particular personality is suited, which just isn’t true.
Beyond this step this is an exercise in listening more than speaking. Take the time to hear what causes them concern and what the reason may be. It is quite surprising, even at this point, to find out that the main cause for heartache is a root feeling of fear. Fear of being outranked, maneuvered or asked to do something out of the ordinary. We typically don’t listen to individuals in a work environment. Whenever someone says “Hello, how are you?” the response is automatic, “I’m doing ok, how about you?”
Conversations and communication in general, doesn’t tend to be authentic. Take the time to listen for cues about fear or personal preferences to which you haven’t been exposed. The individual who may have scared you by wielding their “influence” as a superior may, at root, doubt their own fear. You cannot change anyone else (stated poignantly in the book “Toxic People) but only how reactions to their behavior are channeled. Manage these individuals quickly and learn to diffuse any negative relationships with a working ability before they turn into political factions in the office.
Perhaps the first step is to acknowledge that someone with whom we must work is toxic. This can vary from person to person but generally it is someone who; reduces all ideas to negated parcels, brings only “cannot” notions to the table or is incompetent to assess a working environment in the present. Notice, the word bad or good was never used. These tend to cast an unrealistic shadow on individuals. Speak of them as good and nearly all they do is golden. If they are deemed bad there are no tasks for which their particular personality is suited, which just isn’t true.
Beyond this step this is an exercise in listening more than speaking. Take the time to hear what causes them concern and what the reason may be. It is quite surprising, even at this point, to find out that the main cause for heartache is a root feeling of fear. Fear of being outranked, maneuvered or asked to do something out of the ordinary. We typically don’t listen to individuals in a work environment. Whenever someone says “Hello, how are you?” the response is automatic, “I’m doing ok, how about you?”
Conversations and communication in general, doesn’t tend to be authentic. Take the time to listen for cues about fear or personal preferences to which you haven’t been exposed. The individual who may have scared you by wielding their “influence” as a superior may, at root, doubt their own fear. You cannot change anyone else (stated poignantly in the book “Toxic People) but only how reactions to their behavior are channeled. Manage these individuals quickly and learn to diffuse any negative relationships with a working ability before they turn into political factions in the office.
Intra-family Nonviolent Communication - New Approaches
As I sit in a coffee shop on the Upper West Side in New York City much has occurred so a few postings are necessary. While visiting William in Washington, D.C. as a means to develop my oratorical skills with the healthcare issue I met with a Communications professor. He was incredibly helpful in addressing the need to reframe the issue. Even more so, a key figure in reframing conversations, based at UCLA was posited as a potential resource. I am about to read this information as well as a few books on the matter. To synthesize the research which has already been done on this policy issue, a ten page white paper on the “language of care” is being developed.
He and I were supposed to have a phone call yesterday but that didn’t pan out. I left a voicemail and hope to reconnect in advance of the conference next weekend to properly frame my position. That’s one key peg of my approach, non-judgment grounded in principled humanism. As an example, instead of denouncing an opinion posited by the opposition, it’s requested that they prove their “free market” ideal has ever existed.
He and I were supposed to have a phone call yesterday but that didn’t pan out. I left a voicemail and hope to reconnect in advance of the conference next weekend to properly frame my position. That’s one key peg of my approach, non-judgment grounded in principled humanism. As an example, instead of denouncing an opinion posited by the opposition, it’s requested that they prove their “free market” ideal has ever existed.
Communications Expert Meeting - Refocus My Approach
As I sit in a coffee shop on the Upper West Side in New York City much has occurred so a few postings are necessary. While visiting William in Washington, D.C. as a means to develop my oratorical skills with the healthcare issue I met with a Communications professor. He was incredibly helpful in addressing the need to reframe the issue. Even more so, a key figure in reframing conversations, based at UCLA was posited as a potential resource. I am about to read this information as well as a few books on the matter. To synthesize the research which has already been done on this policy issue, a ten page white paper on the “language of care” is being developed.
He and I were supposed to have a phone call yesterday but that didn’t pan out. I left a voicemail and hope to reconnect in advance of the conference next weekend to properly frame my position. That’s one key peg of my approach, non-judgment grounded in principled humanism. As an example, instead of denouncing an opinion posited by the opposition, it’s requested that they prove their “free market” ideal has ever existed.
He and I were supposed to have a phone call yesterday but that didn’t pan out. I left a voicemail and hope to reconnect in advance of the conference next weekend to properly frame my position. That’s one key peg of my approach, non-judgment grounded in principled humanism. As an example, instead of denouncing an opinion posited by the opposition, it’s requested that they prove their “free market” ideal has ever existed.
Second Toastmasters Speech - Healthcare
I am working hard on the issue of transforming the structure of our healthcare system. This cause is not new, for it has been discussed in the public ear for nearly 100 years. There are many tireless advocates who are working to advance the cause but our message needs a refocused approach. In reading about this issue it is clear that there is a world of data which can be applied to public education. The question of the hour: which pieces are least likely to reek of failed historical attempts?
Even in viewing the debates which took place concerning Medicare the proponents and opposition seemed to use the same emotional bases for their arguments. Fear tends to be the greatest defeater of social change and it was also true of the Medicare legislation that finally passed. Though it was a step in the right direction there were also several large concessions – i.e. directed towards acute hospital care versus addressing issues long term and two separate “parts.”
It is a fervent hope that during the upcoming conference in St. Louis Healthcare Now advocates will be receptive to the communications approach I am framing. The approach is based on the humanitarian principle that the lives of our brethren shouldn’t be grounds for piecemeal ownership and capitalization.
Even in viewing the debates which took place concerning Medicare the proponents and opposition seemed to use the same emotional bases for their arguments. Fear tends to be the greatest defeater of social change and it was also true of the Medicare legislation that finally passed. Though it was a step in the right direction there were also several large concessions – i.e. directed towards acute hospital care versus addressing issues long term and two separate “parts.”
It is a fervent hope that during the upcoming conference in St. Louis Healthcare Now advocates will be receptive to the communications approach I am framing. The approach is based on the humanitarian principle that the lives of our brethren shouldn’t be grounds for piecemeal ownership and capitalization.
Reframing an Issue
I am working hard on the issue of transforming the structure of our healthcare system. This cause is not new, for it has been discussed in the public ear for nearly 100 years. There are many tireless advocates who are working to advance the cause but our message needs a refocused approach. In reading about this issue it is clear that there is a world of data which can be applied to public education. The question of the hour: which pieces are least likely to reek of failed historical attempts?
Even in viewing the debates which took place concerning Medicare the proponents and opposition seemed to use the same emotional bases for their arguments. Fear tends to be the greatest defeater of social change and it was also true of the Medicare legislation that finally passed. Though it was a step in the right direction there were also several large concessions – i.e. directed towards acute hospital care versus addressing issues long term and two separate “parts.”
It is a fervent hope that during the upcoming conference in St. Louis Healthcare Now advocates will be receptive to the communications approach I am framing. The approach is based on the humanitarian principle that the lives of our brethren shouldn’t be grounds for piecemeal ownership and capitalization.
Even in viewing the debates which took place concerning Medicare the proponents and opposition seemed to use the same emotional bases for their arguments. Fear tends to be the greatest defeater of social change and it was also true of the Medicare legislation that finally passed. Though it was a step in the right direction there were also several large concessions – i.e. directed towards acute hospital care versus addressing issues long term and two separate “parts.”
It is a fervent hope that during the upcoming conference in St. Louis Healthcare Now advocates will be receptive to the communications approach I am framing. The approach is based on the humanitarian principle that the lives of our brethren shouldn’t be grounds for piecemeal ownership and capitalization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)