Nonviolence in action - Hearing Needs

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.

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.

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.

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.