liralen: Finch Painting (Default)
[personal profile] liralen
So our CEO gave everyone this book called, Difficult Conversations last week and there have been all kinds of jokes about the book going on around the office. No one likes being told what to read or what can help them, I guess.

But everyone got a copy in their mail, and I, wordaholic that I am, started reading it just 'cause it was in front of me.

It was hard to read.

Mostly because the examples they had in the book probably reflected every difficult, argumentative and hard conversation I've had in my life. It was oddly a relief to know that everyone has these kinds of conversations and has them blow up so completely, and also oddly stressful and terrifying, in some ways, to read these things because of all the hooks they had into old conversations that I never felt that good about. The first third of the book was incredibly hard for me to read.

Until I hit the 'know your tendency' bit about some folks tend to blame others and other folks tend to soak up blame. I suddenly tied in the fact that I really, truly soak up blame partially because I believe that if I know that I was at fault then I can do something about it in the future. But I realize, now, that I nearly always go too far in that, especially when I'm talking with someone who really tends to want to blame others. I knew it in vague ways before it was stated so plainly, but now it's pretty damned clear.

It was odd to realize that and realize that a lot of my discomfort in reading this stuff was because I was going back to all those old conversations and thinking, "Damn... I fucked that up..." and at the same time I was also thinking, "Why do *I* have to do all the work all the time?" add to that all the old emotions of "But I can't care so much when I get hurt so badly." With the additional information, it was clear that while I have made mistakes, it isn't up to me to fix them *all* and I can't go back in time and I can do better with the people that really do care to listen to me and that lifted the worst of the reaction. Whew.

I've always thought arguments were pointless, and I've realized in the past that on the most part, whenever I've been in a strenuous argument with anyone all it does is harden each person in their position. I always thought it was just human nature and always felt kind of sick and guilty about fighting, but never really figured out *why*. This book finally gave me the key as to *why*. There are far more important and interesting things to figure out in a conversation with someone than who is 'right' or 'wrong' or 'to blame'... and it was really cool to get a concrete feeling as to why and exactly what those more useful, constructive things are and why there are so many people I really enjoy talking with. Whew.

I also realized why I actually have no problems even talking about sometimes delicate stuff with most people, but there have been three or four people that have made me feel like it was all my fault that we couldn't seem to talk about anything without a fight. While I did do stuff to escalate what was happening, it isn't just me, and it was especially important to me to figure out to really look at the fact that there are many other people that I am comfortable talking with and whom are very, very comfortable talking with me about stuff they never could talk about with anyone else. Balancing the reality of my relationships and interactions against how a few people decide to see me. But now I can see why they decided some of that, too. That was very cool to learn.

So I'd recommend this book to anyone that is terrified of talking to *someone* about something they don't want to hear.

Date: 2002-04-30 10:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] liralen.livejournal.com
Sounds like you make simple choices and I'm glad you find it easy.

For me, the question boils down to 'Can you get things done?' And are the things you're doing correct for killing the opposition?

Getting things done requires people who are willing and want to work and nearly all of them want to do the best they can. Without marketing, I can't get information on the target. Without SVG, I can't tell if things really are done. Without upper management support, I have no business direction. Burning personal bridges with every other department is not any way to get anything done.

I like it where it all works together. We've reduced our nearest competitor to less than a third of their old earnings and we're now earning more than all our competition combined. This after we were number two four years ago. We get things done and make more than a billion in revenues a year.

And it doesn't get done by pointing fingers and saying, "You're right. You're wrong." and no one listening to figure out a better solution than the one originally assumed.

Date: 2002-04-30 04:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zamiel.livejournal.com
Well, no, it gets done by having people in place who can actually accomplish their objectives more than 50% of the time and who are willing to be wrong the other half, but don't stigmatize being so, but gracefully re-task for more efficient methodologies when they are. Its the latter part that is the hardest to find competent people to do, unless they're doing what they do for the love of it. And even then, there's so much hung-up on ego that they don't want to accept they could possibly be wrong. That kind of thinking gets in the way of getting the work done, and getting the work done is why you're in business, its what earns the checks.

See, you've pointed out two seperate issues, and one is vastly more important than the other. If no one points fingers and says "You're right, you're wrong," then how will they know? Where's the internal challenge to beliefs and the shake-up necessary for the process of improvement to occur? Where's the Reaper's Hand, as it were? Its the second issue that's more often missing, people willing to say, "OK, here's why I believe I'm right, if I'm wrong, OK, where do we go from here?" Its the listening and evolving missing from the loop. If the first, the naming of Right and Wrong is missing, sure, everyone may feel really good about themselves but business doesn't get done because you never get challenged to retarget.

I guarantee, if you dwarf your competition in two years, there's an Alex-equivalent Challenger in the management hierarchy somewhere. He's the guy every one of you thinks is an obstructionist asshole, who asks the really hard questions in the meetings that no one wants to deal with, that pushes for processes to change when they're broken (but comfortable) and to stay the same when the new idea has no backing from below. He's the guy most likely closest to burn-out and who secretly carries around the gut feeling he's totally wasting his life and wishes he could be a happy little "yes man," but can't quite shake the desire to be competent and let go of caring about what happens, for all that he or she attempts disaffected disinterest in the verities.

(No, I have no particular insight here, uh-uh.)

The older and more entrenched a company gets, the more Challengers that a company needs, and the fewer they actually have as they get forced out by those who play nicer with others for less pay-off. At Compaq, you can just imagine what enormous fun a Challenger has ... not. This is the company that announced publically a policy to cut raises and "merit-based promotions" for the next year, and bothered looking surprised when morale dropped. Lack of Chalengers up the management hierarchy to say, "Hey, dumbass, doesn't that seem kind of stupid to you?" and demand a solid answer led to that kind of thinking.

What, no, me bitter?

March 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
910 1112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 17th, 2025 02:13 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios