I think what Marcia Blenko touched upon with the idea of employee engagement makes a lot of sense, and frankly it seems to be one of those things that matches up with human nature. I wouldn't expect the average person in any circumstance to put their fullest effort into something they don't have at least some interest in. In the state of nature there is the overriding interest of survival that always ups the interest in effective decisions, but in the contemporary working environment there's a lot more potential for slack. For instance, I can say from personal observation that someone who isn't especially interested in client relations will make especially good decisions in how they interact, and someone who isn't all that interested in the movement of desks and equipment likely won't ask all the probing questions about timing, dates, and impacts that senior leadership might want to dig for. A lack of interest means that much more conscious effort being required for maximized performance or decision making.
Beyond that, Blenko made some additional notes on what could impeded effective decision making. Among these there are issues such as the complexity of contemporary organizations, which I imagine can complicate the picture of who's in charge and who needs to be kept in the loop or otherwise. There can also be some negative leadership behaviors at play that complicate matters, such as a lack of discussion or the receipt of inputs before making a decision and executing (the Air Force might categorize these types of scenarios as "Ready, Fire, Aim" situations). Blenko also noted a lack of clarity in communications, which in most any organizational environment will spell at best minor frustration, and at worst major failure.
Overall, I think Blenko had a fairly thorough list of good decision making elements in considering quality, speed, yield, and effort. These certainly cover the bare minimums towards making a decision and getting it off the ground. For decision making in my organization, we're often tasked to present Courses of Action (COAs) to the commander, where we have to list our assumptions, list our COAs with full pros and cons of each one, and we might add in any limiting factors that span across all the COAs. We might even throw in a table that weighs important factors (such as cost and effect) and provide a weighted score. So for us, Blenko's elements would cover some of the considerations, but by itself it likely wouldn't satisfy my boss as he'll likely still want to know more about additional considerations and expected impacts. Quality considerations though would likely be very welcome.
Having viewed this video, it provides yet another lens with which to examine problems that come down from my bosses or through my e-mail box. Certainly, while we want to make the best decision we can within the confines of our deadlines, but I don't think we necessarily always think about how far out we want to take our decisions other than second or third order effects, and we tend to have our effort switches stuck at maximum output unless we thoroughly prioritized taskings. Something I might try and do with myself at least is to pause and at the very least ask if the decision I'm about to make is a knee jerk reaction based on trying to get something out of my way, perhaps sticking to doctrine, or if I really did in fact make a "good" decision. The only issue I could see is that measuring the quality of a decision would require identifying measurable, objective factors and a set of standards. I'm almost inclined to say it's one thing to Monday Morning Quarterback, but it would require some practice to quickly and efficiently establish measurable factors at the outset of every decision.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Sunday, February 3, 2013
A630.3.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Southwest Airlines implementation of a specific "Culture Committee" is an interesting way for a company to manifest the implementation of its corporate culture and looking out for the morale and welfare of their employees. I suppose one might consider it, in some ways, a scaled up version of an organizational Booster Club or Sunshine Fund. It's difficult to quantify exactly where and how the Culture Committee comes into play in the establishment of cultural norms, but it certainly seems to make an effective impression. While it was attested that employees don't always know about things like Hokey Day, the Culture Committee does make a positive impression upon the surprised flight attendants and reinforces the company's well known culture of fun. It also seems to help establish the idea of the company as one unified team where each member is there for the other.
The purpose of the Culture Committee seems to be to act as something of a sub-organization within the company responsible for the morale and welfare of the employees. It also exists to reinforce Southwest's organizational values by acting upon them and setting the example through taking care of their teammates with a very pleasant and easy demeanor. With the fact that the committee is formed from a group of peers, I would think this serves to enhance the unifying aspect, and imparts a sense of "these are my friends and co-workers, and they've got my back." To draw more directly from the video he Hokey Day, as noted by one member, is about "employees taking care of employees", and fits well with the committee's stated mission of "...making Southwest Airlines a fun, exciting, and wonderful way to work. I took interest as well in that the Culture Committee wore their values as they worked, donning t-shirts that emphasized "Warrior Spirit," "Servant's Heart," and "Fun-Loving Attitude," right under the prominent wording of "Whatever It Takes."
In my own place of work, this type of committee would be there to look out for the morale and welfare needs of our unit and also act as part of a full spectrum solution towards monitoring the overall health of our unit, ensuring a relatively good level of happiness and productivity. Our own Booster Club accomplishes some of these functions and use similar methods by providing opportunities for fun and camaraderie, with the aim of promoting teamwork and our core values. This typically gets accomplished via the planning and execution of events such as burger burns, holiday themed parties, the annual picnic, and more recently a "Wingman Day" that held sports competitions in conjunction with talks on personal resiliency and safety. In short, the mission of our own Culture Committee would be much the same as Southwest's: take care of our personnel and make sure that within the midst of the controlled chaos of military life there is still some fun, excitement, and care from superiors and peers.
From considering Southwest's efforts, I might take some time to re-examine the ways in which we take care of our people, and give some greater consideration to the ways in which it ties into our organizational culture. It seems to be one of the most oft spoken adages is "mission first, people always," and only having been in service for a few years I'm conscious of the issue but haven't yet had opportunity to really see this idea be put to the test. As one of my friends at the office is current heading up our Booster Club and I'm sitting on a base council that represents the interests and development of junior officers, I might have to find opportunities for ad hoc "case studies" to see where and how these organizations touch the lives of the people they serve. In addition, I might give pause to consider the ways in which these small groups support and establish the Air Force's core values and cultural norms.
The purpose of the Culture Committee seems to be to act as something of a sub-organization within the company responsible for the morale and welfare of the employees. It also exists to reinforce Southwest's organizational values by acting upon them and setting the example through taking care of their teammates with a very pleasant and easy demeanor. With the fact that the committee is formed from a group of peers, I would think this serves to enhance the unifying aspect, and imparts a sense of "these are my friends and co-workers, and they've got my back." To draw more directly from the video he Hokey Day, as noted by one member, is about "employees taking care of employees", and fits well with the committee's stated mission of "...making Southwest Airlines a fun, exciting, and wonderful way to work. I took interest as well in that the Culture Committee wore their values as they worked, donning t-shirts that emphasized "Warrior Spirit," "Servant's Heart," and "Fun-Loving Attitude," right under the prominent wording of "Whatever It Takes."
In my own place of work, this type of committee would be there to look out for the morale and welfare needs of our unit and also act as part of a full spectrum solution towards monitoring the overall health of our unit, ensuring a relatively good level of happiness and productivity. Our own Booster Club accomplishes some of these functions and use similar methods by providing opportunities for fun and camaraderie, with the aim of promoting teamwork and our core values. This typically gets accomplished via the planning and execution of events such as burger burns, holiday themed parties, the annual picnic, and more recently a "Wingman Day" that held sports competitions in conjunction with talks on personal resiliency and safety. In short, the mission of our own Culture Committee would be much the same as Southwest's: take care of our personnel and make sure that within the midst of the controlled chaos of military life there is still some fun, excitement, and care from superiors and peers.
From considering Southwest's efforts, I might take some time to re-examine the ways in which we take care of our people, and give some greater consideration to the ways in which it ties into our organizational culture. It seems to be one of the most oft spoken adages is "mission first, people always," and only having been in service for a few years I'm conscious of the issue but haven't yet had opportunity to really see this idea be put to the test. As one of my friends at the office is current heading up our Booster Club and I'm sitting on a base council that represents the interests and development of junior officers, I might have to find opportunities for ad hoc "case studies" to see where and how these organizations touch the lives of the people they serve. In addition, I might give pause to consider the ways in which these small groups support and establish the Air Force's core values and cultural norms.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
A630.2.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Matthew Taylor's video on the idea of 21st Century Enlightenment is certainly one of the more substantive videos I've watched over the course of the MSLD program, and certainly one that's taken quite a bit of thought to chew over. Admittedly, I still have a 100% grasp on what makes 21st Century Enlightenment what it is, but it may well warrant further thinking and an examination of the last major Enlightenment.
As best as I can gather from Taylor's talk, what makes the idea, and hence the title, of 21st Century Enlightenment is taking the principals of the Great Enlightenment of delving into what shaped modern peoples values, norms, and principals, and reassessing what we have now based on the circumstances of an increasingly diverse and globalized 21st Century. It's been quite some time since our last Enlightenment, and I think Taylor is getting at the idea of our society as a whole taking some time to look around and reassess our direction as a society. He says in relation to this that "to live differently, you have to think differently," by which I think he means we have to see to see the word and ourselves in a new perspective, and exercise critical thinking processes.
Taylor made an interesting point in stating that people need to try and "...resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange." It brings to mind the argumentative fallacy of appealing to tradition, or perhaps even confirmation bias. To paraphrase what I thought he was taking from Robert Kegan, people would do well to be conscious of this tendency to accept the familiar and reject the unfamiliar. Within my office, I can see traditional communication types in cases rejecting the sense of urgency with their work as the idea of communications being critical for the military is still fairly new. In contrast, our clients don't always understand that we can't make absolute guarantees for fixing things by a certain time, or track with the idea that there are some things beyond our control either physically or administratively. In the span of greater society, take any national level debate on controversial issues such as gun control or foreign policy, and you're nearly guaranteed to see this concept at work. For the gun issue, there might be those unwilling to entertain any limitations on their magazines or otherwise, and there might be those that refuse to see a gun as anything but a great danger to society.
Taylor went on to discuss the idea of eschewing the elements of pop culture that degrade people, and encouraging the development of empathetic citizens. I think to some measure, this has already started. Pop culture fairly regularly makes fun of pop culture, and the rapid increase in global connectivity via the spread of web access services and the rise of social networks enables people the world over to be connect to the experiences of others across the globe. I think people are already taking major steps to putting themselves into other people's shoes. However, I still think that for the most part, society tends to hit a major logjam anytime there's a divisive argument, with many not putting into practice the idea of maintaining healthy disagreement, and with people often falling into the old habit of resisting ideas contrary to what they know. Any major shift towards this idea would likely require a massive paradigm shift across all of society.
I couldn't draw out an exact answer on the prompt about atomizing people from collaborative environments, but I can certainly understand how removing people from that can be detrimental. When individuals are broken off from a collaborative group, they lose the benefit of additional perspectives and the "force multiplier" effect of having additional minds considering an issue. If this becomes the case for organizational change efforts, it's likely that an organization might simply stagnate under the single perspective being worked with at the top, or that they will simply fail to innovate and possible become a non-competitor. There are some instances where sole individuals can be of more effect than a collaborative group, but more often than not collaboration brings rapid idea development and great power.
If nothing else, the notion that people are thinking about change at the societal level is somewhat heartening. My organization is currently undergoing multiple shifts in how they view the world and their role, and it seems a much more manageable task than all of society. Additionally, Taylor brought to bear a number of interesting points to bear in mind as I go through the working day, especially in his highlight of the "tendency of familiarity," and by sounding a call for conscientious thought.
As best as I can gather from Taylor's talk, what makes the idea, and hence the title, of 21st Century Enlightenment is taking the principals of the Great Enlightenment of delving into what shaped modern peoples values, norms, and principals, and reassessing what we have now based on the circumstances of an increasingly diverse and globalized 21st Century. It's been quite some time since our last Enlightenment, and I think Taylor is getting at the idea of our society as a whole taking some time to look around and reassess our direction as a society. He says in relation to this that "to live differently, you have to think differently," by which I think he means we have to see to see the word and ourselves in a new perspective, and exercise critical thinking processes.
Taylor made an interesting point in stating that people need to try and "...resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange." It brings to mind the argumentative fallacy of appealing to tradition, or perhaps even confirmation bias. To paraphrase what I thought he was taking from Robert Kegan, people would do well to be conscious of this tendency to accept the familiar and reject the unfamiliar. Within my office, I can see traditional communication types in cases rejecting the sense of urgency with their work as the idea of communications being critical for the military is still fairly new. In contrast, our clients don't always understand that we can't make absolute guarantees for fixing things by a certain time, or track with the idea that there are some things beyond our control either physically or administratively. In the span of greater society, take any national level debate on controversial issues such as gun control or foreign policy, and you're nearly guaranteed to see this concept at work. For the gun issue, there might be those unwilling to entertain any limitations on their magazines or otherwise, and there might be those that refuse to see a gun as anything but a great danger to society.
Taylor went on to discuss the idea of eschewing the elements of pop culture that degrade people, and encouraging the development of empathetic citizens. I think to some measure, this has already started. Pop culture fairly regularly makes fun of pop culture, and the rapid increase in global connectivity via the spread of web access services and the rise of social networks enables people the world over to be connect to the experiences of others across the globe. I think people are already taking major steps to putting themselves into other people's shoes. However, I still think that for the most part, society tends to hit a major logjam anytime there's a divisive argument, with many not putting into practice the idea of maintaining healthy disagreement, and with people often falling into the old habit of resisting ideas contrary to what they know. Any major shift towards this idea would likely require a massive paradigm shift across all of society.
I couldn't draw out an exact answer on the prompt about atomizing people from collaborative environments, but I can certainly understand how removing people from that can be detrimental. When individuals are broken off from a collaborative group, they lose the benefit of additional perspectives and the "force multiplier" effect of having additional minds considering an issue. If this becomes the case for organizational change efforts, it's likely that an organization might simply stagnate under the single perspective being worked with at the top, or that they will simply fail to innovate and possible become a non-competitor. There are some instances where sole individuals can be of more effect than a collaborative group, but more often than not collaboration brings rapid idea development and great power.
If nothing else, the notion that people are thinking about change at the societal level is somewhat heartening. My organization is currently undergoing multiple shifts in how they view the world and their role, and it seems a much more manageable task than all of society. Additionally, Taylor brought to bear a number of interesting points to bear in mind as I go through the working day, especially in his highlight of the "tendency of familiarity," and by sounding a call for conscientious thought.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
A630.1.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
I'm hard pressed to think of any given situation in my office that had all of the video's elements present, but I can certainly get some thoughts going on how these different organizational agents come into play in a healthy organization.
The crowd is something I would consider both in a ways inevitable yet very necessary. Although the attitude of the crowd can be extremely fickle, because it is representative of the greater organizational population (and thus the primary source of manpower to drive most of anything), it is an agent that needs to be won over by the would be promoter of change. Without at the very least taking the crowd into consideration, or winning their all important buy-in for the envisioned change, making the change happen becomes very difficult if not impossible. The crowd is in a sense a constant of the organizational environment, but it must be won over and channeled.
The pessimist might be easily dismissed as an unnecessary drag upon the organization, but I argue they might serve their own purpose. If allowed to disseminate their view with nothing to compare it with, the pessimist's view may eventually become the view of the crowd, rendering the environment unwelcome to change. However, the pessimist shouldn't be completely silenced, for they may well see some major issues with the change or at least can act as a measure of what to prepare for with regards to the worst possible crowd reaction.
Along the same lines is the pragmatist. Although they'll at least look at the change or the obstacle, they're still (at least by the video's assertion) likely to maintain the status quo. But again, while they shouldn't be allowed to have complete run of the place they should also be given some heed as they may well have some reasonably level headed concerns that need to be considered or resolved before pressing forward with change.
Covering the other end of the dichotomy are the power players and the visionaries.The visionaries play an especially important role in that while they may not necessarily execute the change themselves or carry it across the finish line, they're the ones that can identify the way things are now and how they could be. They can look over the hill and see where they want the organization to go, perhaps even see the path to get there. The visionaries are the ones that will likely formulate the objective for any change or large scale effort for their organization.
But the visionary alone cannot reach out to the entire crowd, let alone the pragmatists and pessimists. This is where the power players fulfill their role. Arguably, for organizational health it might be one of the most important links as they'll go between the visionaries and everyone else. They don't carry the initial vision or stand among the crowd, but they have the power to carry the message and rally the masses through the influences they wield. One might even say they can act as a backbone for the organization.
The crowd is something I would consider both in a ways inevitable yet very necessary. Although the attitude of the crowd can be extremely fickle, because it is representative of the greater organizational population (and thus the primary source of manpower to drive most of anything), it is an agent that needs to be won over by the would be promoter of change. Without at the very least taking the crowd into consideration, or winning their all important buy-in for the envisioned change, making the change happen becomes very difficult if not impossible. The crowd is in a sense a constant of the organizational environment, but it must be won over and channeled.
The pessimist might be easily dismissed as an unnecessary drag upon the organization, but I argue they might serve their own purpose. If allowed to disseminate their view with nothing to compare it with, the pessimist's view may eventually become the view of the crowd, rendering the environment unwelcome to change. However, the pessimist shouldn't be completely silenced, for they may well see some major issues with the change or at least can act as a measure of what to prepare for with regards to the worst possible crowd reaction.
Along the same lines is the pragmatist. Although they'll at least look at the change or the obstacle, they're still (at least by the video's assertion) likely to maintain the status quo. But again, while they shouldn't be allowed to have complete run of the place they should also be given some heed as they may well have some reasonably level headed concerns that need to be considered or resolved before pressing forward with change.
Covering the other end of the dichotomy are the power players and the visionaries.The visionaries play an especially important role in that while they may not necessarily execute the change themselves or carry it across the finish line, they're the ones that can identify the way things are now and how they could be. They can look over the hill and see where they want the organization to go, perhaps even see the path to get there. The visionaries are the ones that will likely formulate the objective for any change or large scale effort for their organization.
But the visionary alone cannot reach out to the entire crowd, let alone the pragmatists and pessimists. This is where the power players fulfill their role. Arguably, for organizational health it might be one of the most important links as they'll go between the visionaries and everyone else. They don't carry the initial vision or stand among the crowd, but they have the power to carry the message and rally the masses through the influences they wield. One might even say they can act as a backbone for the organization.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
A521.9.4.GA_SienkiewiczRaymond
In Chapter 12 of his text The Leader's Guide to Storytelling, Stephen Denning describes "a different kind of leader," specifically, one who practices an "interactive mode of leadership." Basically, they get involved and have an understanding of how everything around them relates to each other.
Denning describes a number of dimensions involved in interactive leadership, several of which are quite similar to several I've heard in the past from other texts on leadership and have been attempting to integrate in my own leadership style. Certainly, the dimension of working with the world evokes a strong image of collaboration on overcoming challenges in a team effort or, as Denning suggests, channeling the energies of others towards a particular end. Collaboration I'm familiar with, but this idea of channeling energy is something I hadn't thought of in the leadership context, and one I may well experiment with.
The idea of adding and subtracting elements from the leadership palette gives, in a certain sense, another means of expressing the ways in which one emulates positive leadership techniques while rejecting the negative. An interactive leader will add to the general formula of management by adding the other dimensions, and will dismissed manipulation or otherwise. Knowing this gives me some flexibility in not necessarily sticking to a set formula and setting my out to develop my own style of leadership.
Active interest in promoting integrity and authenticity seems to have become more of a norm for leadership lately, and certainly one that can have an impact. For my leadership, integrity will remain a standing rule, but I think being more explicit with what I stand for and represent could lend well to being more of a distinct personality rather than just a name with a rank. Other dimensions that might tie well to this are those on not depending on hierarchical authority and understanding different narrative patterns. Being flexible with how the organization is directed and where the next big idea comes from, as well as being able to see different patterns, seems to me best suited to someone that practices authentic leadership and has subtracted negative elements from their leadership palette. The ability to lead without the formalized authority and with the ability to recognize patterns would, I believe, lend the greatest opportunity for fresh ideas and methods with the broadest range of execution patterns.
Regarding how Denning's dimensions manifests itself in my present leadership style, I'd say that the dimensions of working with the world, adding and subtracting from the leadership palette, and not depending on a hierarchical structure. Much of this comes through the nature of my working environment and from the benefit of past study. I learned early in my communications degree about the idea of horizontal communication and giving members a say when it was feasible, and it's something that gets practiced around my office. Every so often there's a project for the unit that solicits thoughts and ideas from the unit as a whole, and hardly a meeting goes by where there isn't an "around the room" to allow anyone present to get in their two cents.
On the note of palettes, young officers are reinforced on the basics regularly but are also just as often given anecdotes (or first hand experience) in leaders adding in positive (and on occasion less than positive) twists to leadership. I make an effort to add in what I can of being available for my subordinates and getting their needs taken care of, and being very conscious not to play any rank games if I can help it.
Finally, although I work in an organization with a very well defined hierarchy, I'm in a stage of my career where there's a great deal of crossover between myself as a junior leader and my most senior subordinates. There is a very strong expectation that senior enlisted members help teach new officers what it means to lead, and we're often told to learn well about what we work with from our experienced enlisted members. This creates an environment where although there is a formalized chain, one might say there's leadership happening at the top and bottom halves in parallel, and as funny as it may seem from the outside it's a system I make strong efforts to heed (particularly since they're the technical experts!)
Denning describes a number of dimensions involved in interactive leadership, several of which are quite similar to several I've heard in the past from other texts on leadership and have been attempting to integrate in my own leadership style. Certainly, the dimension of working with the world evokes a strong image of collaboration on overcoming challenges in a team effort or, as Denning suggests, channeling the energies of others towards a particular end. Collaboration I'm familiar with, but this idea of channeling energy is something I hadn't thought of in the leadership context, and one I may well experiment with.
The idea of adding and subtracting elements from the leadership palette gives, in a certain sense, another means of expressing the ways in which one emulates positive leadership techniques while rejecting the negative. An interactive leader will add to the general formula of management by adding the other dimensions, and will dismissed manipulation or otherwise. Knowing this gives me some flexibility in not necessarily sticking to a set formula and setting my out to develop my own style of leadership.
Active interest in promoting integrity and authenticity seems to have become more of a norm for leadership lately, and certainly one that can have an impact. For my leadership, integrity will remain a standing rule, but I think being more explicit with what I stand for and represent could lend well to being more of a distinct personality rather than just a name with a rank. Other dimensions that might tie well to this are those on not depending on hierarchical authority and understanding different narrative patterns. Being flexible with how the organization is directed and where the next big idea comes from, as well as being able to see different patterns, seems to me best suited to someone that practices authentic leadership and has subtracted negative elements from their leadership palette. The ability to lead without the formalized authority and with the ability to recognize patterns would, I believe, lend the greatest opportunity for fresh ideas and methods with the broadest range of execution patterns.
Regarding how Denning's dimensions manifests itself in my present leadership style, I'd say that the dimensions of working with the world, adding and subtracting from the leadership palette, and not depending on a hierarchical structure. Much of this comes through the nature of my working environment and from the benefit of past study. I learned early in my communications degree about the idea of horizontal communication and giving members a say when it was feasible, and it's something that gets practiced around my office. Every so often there's a project for the unit that solicits thoughts and ideas from the unit as a whole, and hardly a meeting goes by where there isn't an "around the room" to allow anyone present to get in their two cents.
On the note of palettes, young officers are reinforced on the basics regularly but are also just as often given anecdotes (or first hand experience) in leaders adding in positive (and on occasion less than positive) twists to leadership. I make an effort to add in what I can of being available for my subordinates and getting their needs taken care of, and being very conscious not to play any rank games if I can help it.
Finally, although I work in an organization with a very well defined hierarchy, I'm in a stage of my career where there's a great deal of crossover between myself as a junior leader and my most senior subordinates. There is a very strong expectation that senior enlisted members help teach new officers what it means to lead, and we're often told to learn well about what we work with from our experienced enlisted members. This creates an environment where although there is a formalized chain, one might say there's leadership happening at the top and bottom halves in parallel, and as funny as it may seem from the outside it's a system I make strong efforts to heed (particularly since they're the technical experts!)
Sunday, December 9, 2012
A521.8.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Bottom line up front: When it comes to striking up conversation with someone I've just met, although becoming much easier in recent weeks since I've learned some communication concepts such as the FORD acronym, is still a very difficult undertaking for me. This especially gets to be an issue if the person I'm talking to also isn't the most conversant type and gives little feedback.
Working a room is even more difficult. At least if I spend enough time with one person, usually there's enough small talk to keep things from being especially awkward, but in a group I always find myself unable to get a word in edgewise unless we're taking turns...even then, I don't have a lot to say. It becomes much easier, rather, to melt into the background and listen to the conversations that people are having. Generally speaking, I've found from experience that I converse optimally with either one very talkative person, or within a group of three, as it's intimate enough to speak easily but there is enough feedback and opportunity for triggering further conversation.
Examining my personality, my lack of ease in conversation can probably be attributed to the number of ways I've acted out the role of the quiet studious type. I've always been rather shy with new people, more often preferring to be spoken to rather than initiate speaking. Frankly, I also still have issues with thinking too much about how I'm being perceived, which is compounded by my tendency to not think well on my feet. A lot of this, perhaps, might be tied to my upbringing and experiences. Being an only child, I didn't spend much time with my peer group outside of school and my parents tend to stick closer to home more often than not. When I did finally get out to school, the combination my own attitudes about the school experience and being subject to much of the slings and arrows of dealing with other kids throughout middle school and high school left me feeling that social interaction was more often than not a stressful rather than fulfilling experience. Finally though, I got into college and made a conscious decision to practice this sort of thing with a significantly more polite peer group. Studying the topic full time certainly went a long way towards at least making the communication experience more pleasant.
Much of the material from Chapter 14 of the Messages texts lines up with what I've seen in communication classes and a book or two on dating, especially the parts about framing your attitude in making the approach, utilizing good body language, and some of the basic ice breaker methods. But, there was some interesting material in the section on the levels of self-disclosure. I also thought the explanation on active listening went into greater detail than what I've heard before, and tied together earlier thoughts on listening nicely. I wouldn't mind sometime trying out some of the basic icebreaker questions and techniques to gauge their effectiveness (I'm admittedly just a touch skeptical), and I might put some thought into the levels of self-disclosure at play in my various day to day relationships. Certainly, I'm already shifting some of my thoughts just slightly on a few of my regular interactions and evaluating where on each level I might be with people I know.
Working a room is even more difficult. At least if I spend enough time with one person, usually there's enough small talk to keep things from being especially awkward, but in a group I always find myself unable to get a word in edgewise unless we're taking turns...even then, I don't have a lot to say. It becomes much easier, rather, to melt into the background and listen to the conversations that people are having. Generally speaking, I've found from experience that I converse optimally with either one very talkative person, or within a group of three, as it's intimate enough to speak easily but there is enough feedback and opportunity for triggering further conversation.
Examining my personality, my lack of ease in conversation can probably be attributed to the number of ways I've acted out the role of the quiet studious type. I've always been rather shy with new people, more often preferring to be spoken to rather than initiate speaking. Frankly, I also still have issues with thinking too much about how I'm being perceived, which is compounded by my tendency to not think well on my feet. A lot of this, perhaps, might be tied to my upbringing and experiences. Being an only child, I didn't spend much time with my peer group outside of school and my parents tend to stick closer to home more often than not. When I did finally get out to school, the combination my own attitudes about the school experience and being subject to much of the slings and arrows of dealing with other kids throughout middle school and high school left me feeling that social interaction was more often than not a stressful rather than fulfilling experience. Finally though, I got into college and made a conscious decision to practice this sort of thing with a significantly more polite peer group. Studying the topic full time certainly went a long way towards at least making the communication experience more pleasant.
Much of the material from Chapter 14 of the Messages texts lines up with what I've seen in communication classes and a book or two on dating, especially the parts about framing your attitude in making the approach, utilizing good body language, and some of the basic ice breaker methods. But, there was some interesting material in the section on the levels of self-disclosure. I also thought the explanation on active listening went into greater detail than what I've heard before, and tied together earlier thoughts on listening nicely. I wouldn't mind sometime trying out some of the basic icebreaker questions and techniques to gauge their effectiveness (I'm admittedly just a touch skeptical), and I might put some thought into the levels of self-disclosure at play in my various day to day relationships. Certainly, I'm already shifting some of my thoughts just slightly on a few of my regular interactions and evaluating where on each level I might be with people I know.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
A521.7.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Back in the Spring of 2009, my ROTC detachment was completing preparatory training for a group of our sophomore cadets due to attend summer field training in Alabama. This pre-training experience itself wasn't exactly a walk in the park, bringing the same time management demands of being a cadet and a student, but adding in arriving earlier than the rest of the unit, being subject to have scrutiny in extra inspections and marching drills, and being given something of a simulated boot camp experience with much terser instruction techniques and greater expectations of independence.
I saw my peers just one year behind me going through this, and although I wasn't directly involved in their training other than being an assistant to the senior cadet that oversaw the training flight, I wanted to do something extra for them. Not that long ago I was in their position, and that experience plus the summer encampment was indeed difficult, but very empowering in 20/20 hindsight.
When it came time for the last session for last thoughts and questions, I asked my supervising cadet for a few minutes to tell my story. Looking back, I'm not too sure if it focused on any particular anomaly like Denning notes stories should do, but it did have something of a "things working out better than expected" tone that is a touch anomalous and mostly just a positive message.
Without immediately telling these sophomores who the protagonist my story was, I shared the fragment's of one cadets experience...forgetting their hat when they flew off, fumbling through parade steps, and their attempts at trying to play the leader on command. I shared an experience of what seemed like a rather bleak and less than ideal situation given how they'd been trained. The kicker though, was the fact that in the end all these less than ideal experiences turned into an opportunity to really learn what it meant to stop thinking so much and to have some basic confidence. On top of that, the protagonist in question not only found themselves to be relatively successful as a cadet, but they were from our detachment...and it was I, the one who was telling the story. One might say I stalked the potentially sensitive topic of "what if it's just not my month out there?" Rather than simply saying a platitude, I presented an account of this happening as well as what happened next.
That talk ended up being received with great ovation, and our Commandant said outright he was quite challenged to follow that up. It became something of a subtle legend within our class year. While I didn't necessarily impart any specific skill or technique, I did impart the knowledge of an experience to show that people with a very broad range of success at this one particular snapshot in their cadet career could still come out in very good shape over their junior and senior year of school. I shared the key value of confidence, and the good that can come of simply never quitting.
I saw my peers just one year behind me going through this, and although I wasn't directly involved in their training other than being an assistant to the senior cadet that oversaw the training flight, I wanted to do something extra for them. Not that long ago I was in their position, and that experience plus the summer encampment was indeed difficult, but very empowering in 20/20 hindsight.
When it came time for the last session for last thoughts and questions, I asked my supervising cadet for a few minutes to tell my story. Looking back, I'm not too sure if it focused on any particular anomaly like Denning notes stories should do, but it did have something of a "things working out better than expected" tone that is a touch anomalous and mostly just a positive message.
Without immediately telling these sophomores who the protagonist my story was, I shared the fragment's of one cadets experience...forgetting their hat when they flew off, fumbling through parade steps, and their attempts at trying to play the leader on command. I shared an experience of what seemed like a rather bleak and less than ideal situation given how they'd been trained. The kicker though, was the fact that in the end all these less than ideal experiences turned into an opportunity to really learn what it meant to stop thinking so much and to have some basic confidence. On top of that, the protagonist in question not only found themselves to be relatively successful as a cadet, but they were from our detachment...and it was I, the one who was telling the story. One might say I stalked the potentially sensitive topic of "what if it's just not my month out there?" Rather than simply saying a platitude, I presented an account of this happening as well as what happened next.
That talk ended up being received with great ovation, and our Commandant said outright he was quite challenged to follow that up. It became something of a subtle legend within our class year. While I didn't necessarily impart any specific skill or technique, I did impart the knowledge of an experience to show that people with a very broad range of success at this one particular snapshot in their cadet career could still come out in very good shape over their junior and senior year of school. I shared the key value of confidence, and the good that can come of simply never quitting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)