We are currently experiencing a crisis of communication. While this is true of our nation and arguably the world, it‘s also true in our little world of L&D. Recently, there have been at least four different ‘spats‘ about things. While I don‘t want to address the specifics of any of them, what I do want to do is talk about how we engage. So here‘s a post on sensitivities and sensibilities.
First, let me be clear, I‘ve some social issues. I‘m an introvert, and also miss social cues. I also have a bad habit of speaking before I‘ve done the knowledge-check: is this true, kind, and necessary? Subtlety and diplomacies aren‘t my strong suit. I continue to be a work in progress. Still, I never intentionally hurt anyone, at least not anyone who hasn‘t demonstrated a reliable propensity to violate norms that I feel are minimum. I continue to try to refine my responses.
There are two issues, to me: what we should say, and how we should say it. For instance, I think when someone says something wrong, we need to educate. Initially, we need to evaluate the reason. It could be that they don‘t know any better. Or it could be that they‘re deliberately trying to mislead.
Let‘s also realize we‘re emotional animals. If I‘m attacked, for instance, I’m likely to blame myself, even when it’s wrongly. Others are highly unlikely to wear blame, and lash out. We are affected by our current context; we are more critical if we‘re tired or otherwise upset, and on the reverse are more tolerant if rested and content.
I‘m also aware that we have no insight into where someone‘s coming from. We can guess, but we really don‘t know. I really learned this when I was suffering from a pinched nerve in my back; I have more sympathy now since I‘ve come to recognize I don‘t know what anyone else is living with.
So, I‘m trying to come up with some principles about how to respond. For instance, when I write posts about things I think are misguided or misleading, I call out the problems, but not the person, e.g. I don‘t link to the post. I‘m not trying to shame anyone, and instead want to educate the market. I think this is a general principle of feedback: don‘t attack the person, attack the behavior.
Also, if you‘re concerned about something, ask first. Assume good intentions. How you ask matters as well. The same principle above applies: ask about the behavior. I’m impressed with those who worry about the asker. If the ask seems a bit harsh, they wonder whether the asker might be struggling. That‘s a very thoughtful response.
There‘s a caveat on all this: if folks continue to promote something that‘s demonstrably wrong, after notification, they should get called out. Here in the US, the first amendment says we can say whatever, but it doesn‘t say we don‘t have any consequences from what we say. (You can‘t yell ‘fire‘ in a crowded theatre if there isn‘t one!) Similarly, if you continue to promote, say, a debunked personality test, you can be called out. ;)
So this is my first draft on sensitivities and sensibilities. Assume good intent. Ask first. Educate the individual and the market. Don‘t attack the person, but the behavior. I‘m sure I‘m missing situations, conditions, additional constraints, etc. Let me know.
Many years ago, the religion site Beliefnet had active discussion forums. As you can imagine, when discussing religion, things can get really heated very quickly. One of their strategies was to have specific boards where you were allowed to have more heated debates. The arguments were still supposed to be about the topic and not the people, and the moderators did take action against some users. But, it was a place designed to have a good heated argument. Having that separate space worked. It was a “release valve” for the discussions. If something was getting too hot on the “learning” forum, the discussion shifted over to the other board–which people could choose to follow or not.
I do enjoy a good debate, I admit. But sometimes I miss those old forums, where the arguments were somewhat contained. You could put yourself in the mindset for the argument, and then you could leave that space and take a break. The separation made it easier to slow down and think, even in an argument.
On Twitter, LinkedIn, etc., everything is all together. Once you’re in one of those debates, you get instant notifications of replies, rather than a daily digest via email. The notifications encourage you to respond immediately, without thinking. I am certainly guilty of snapping back without pausing enough to think.
I don’t think we can fix the tools and the way its all mixed together, but your reminder to pause and slow down when the emotions are high is a good one.
Thanks, Christie. I think having appropriate venues that aren’t ‘always on’ would be a good idea. Unfortunately, “pause and slow down” is mostly a ‘do as I say, not…’ :(. Working on it.