(no subject)
Apr. 27th, 2006 11:19 pmI finally caught up on the online course schedule change forms, which was not easy what with the bugs, the confusion on how the system works, the getting at least fifty more each day.
By then I already had a big headache.
So I've been continuing to read Fierce Conversations and I'm feeling much less open-minded about it now. It seems like it's just saying that people should actually talk to each other about things that are true instead of ignoring them, saving face, being a yes-man, etc. And you have to learn to pay attention to what the truth is yourself instead of ignoring the icky parts and then wondering why you feel sick all the time or whatever. This is not earth-shattering to me.
And she tries to make up phrases that are helpful and memorable, but they just drive me nuts and sound too much like a politician talking. For example, the one result I've seen of people reading this book is people using the word "fierce" all the time, in an eye-rolly way. I can't stand her use of that word when she means "intense."
At yesterday's meeting, the actual author was there to speak. I think it's possible that she didn't say a single thing that wasn't in the book. And she wasn't good at answering questions. It seems like she would be good one-on-one with specific problems, but general questions just got answered with broad generalizations from the book which did not even seem all that applicable to me.
The best part was one of the interpreters for the deaf. She may have been doing more of a signed English than a real sign language, which I think only because I could follow her so easily. But her face was wonderfully expressive and, well, she just had a much better delivery than the actual speaker. Her comic timing was spot on. And it felt like she was sharing her best jokes, her most droll observations, and her best advice with us. She felt very fresh where the speaker felt a bit stale.
And the interpreter handled all kinds of crazy situations without freaking out. The speaker was not from the south; she was talking pretty quickly. And she would occasionally use foreign words and I'm not talking romance languages, I'm talking Maori words that the interpreter just had to guess how to (finger-)spell on the fly.
The other interpreter was not so entertaining for me. He had good expressions, too--it's part of the language. But I think he may have been summarizing a bit, leaving out some of the redundancies. And I couldn't really follow him which makes me think he was using ASL word order instead of English word order. But I don't really know. I only know a few words in that language. I learned to recognize a few more that day, but only one of them stuck. ("Rational" - cross your fingers to make an "r," then point them at the side of your face and move them around in a small circle.)
So today I get to the chapter on intuition and the author starts contradicting herself left and right through the entire chapter. I understand that humans are complex, and you can say opposite-sounding things about us and they can both be true. And I understand that one can misinterpret two statements that are not opposites in such a way that one sees them as conflicting when they really aren't. But really, at one point she says you can never learn anything by talking (explaining that you learn by listening). But then in this chapter she admits that sometimes you only know what you think once you have said it aloud. I'd call that learning by talking! And the chapter is full of these!
That on top of the politician-style prose was a little too much. I would have quit reading the book right then, but all kinds of people around the office are reading this book, and so I am too, in case I'm ever in a situation where I need to know my enemy. I mean because it's becoming company culture, and I might be more likely to know what's going on sometimes if I finish this book.
There is one part I like on confrontation. She says to do all the following in one minute to begin a confrontational conversation:
1. Name the issue
2. Give examples
3. Describe how you feel about that
4. Describe what is at stake
5. Admit how you have contributed to the problem (even if it's just that you should have talked to them sooner)
6. Say that you want to resolve the issue (not just get a divorce or fire the guy or whatever)
Then you ask the other person to respond so you can get their side of the story and then work from there to make some sort of agreement about what to do and how to hold each other accountable.
I have done all these things before, but probably never in one conversation. So that could be a handy list.
By then I already had a big headache.
So I've been continuing to read Fierce Conversations and I'm feeling much less open-minded about it now. It seems like it's just saying that people should actually talk to each other about things that are true instead of ignoring them, saving face, being a yes-man, etc. And you have to learn to pay attention to what the truth is yourself instead of ignoring the icky parts and then wondering why you feel sick all the time or whatever. This is not earth-shattering to me.
And she tries to make up phrases that are helpful and memorable, but they just drive me nuts and sound too much like a politician talking. For example, the one result I've seen of people reading this book is people using the word "fierce" all the time, in an eye-rolly way. I can't stand her use of that word when she means "intense."
At yesterday's meeting, the actual author was there to speak. I think it's possible that she didn't say a single thing that wasn't in the book. And she wasn't good at answering questions. It seems like she would be good one-on-one with specific problems, but general questions just got answered with broad generalizations from the book which did not even seem all that applicable to me.
The best part was one of the interpreters for the deaf. She may have been doing more of a signed English than a real sign language, which I think only because I could follow her so easily. But her face was wonderfully expressive and, well, she just had a much better delivery than the actual speaker. Her comic timing was spot on. And it felt like she was sharing her best jokes, her most droll observations, and her best advice with us. She felt very fresh where the speaker felt a bit stale.
And the interpreter handled all kinds of crazy situations without freaking out. The speaker was not from the south; she was talking pretty quickly. And she would occasionally use foreign words and I'm not talking romance languages, I'm talking Maori words that the interpreter just had to guess how to (finger-)spell on the fly.
The other interpreter was not so entertaining for me. He had good expressions, too--it's part of the language. But I think he may have been summarizing a bit, leaving out some of the redundancies. And I couldn't really follow him which makes me think he was using ASL word order instead of English word order. But I don't really know. I only know a few words in that language. I learned to recognize a few more that day, but only one of them stuck. ("Rational" - cross your fingers to make an "r," then point them at the side of your face and move them around in a small circle.)
So today I get to the chapter on intuition and the author starts contradicting herself left and right through the entire chapter. I understand that humans are complex, and you can say opposite-sounding things about us and they can both be true. And I understand that one can misinterpret two statements that are not opposites in such a way that one sees them as conflicting when they really aren't. But really, at one point she says you can never learn anything by talking (explaining that you learn by listening). But then in this chapter she admits that sometimes you only know what you think once you have said it aloud. I'd call that learning by talking! And the chapter is full of these!
That on top of the politician-style prose was a little too much. I would have quit reading the book right then, but all kinds of people around the office are reading this book, and so I am too, in case I'm ever in a situation where I need to know my enemy. I mean because it's becoming company culture, and I might be more likely to know what's going on sometimes if I finish this book.
There is one part I like on confrontation. She says to do all the following in one minute to begin a confrontational conversation:
1. Name the issue
2. Give examples
3. Describe how you feel about that
4. Describe what is at stake
5. Admit how you have contributed to the problem (even if it's just that you should have talked to them sooner)
6. Say that you want to resolve the issue (not just get a divorce or fire the guy or whatever)
Then you ask the other person to respond so you can get their side of the story and then work from there to make some sort of agreement about what to do and how to hold each other accountable.
I have done all these things before, but probably never in one conversation. So that could be a handy list.