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.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
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)