You know what I mean, don’t you?

Someone asks a question, and I say “Well, you know, when you do [whatever] you feel [some way] and then you [do something].” How come if I’m talking about me I keep saying “you”?

This ties back to IAAM, of course.

If I say “I”, then I’m taking ownership of the good and the bad. Whereas if I say “you” I’m sharing it with – well – everyone. And if everyone says this or does this or feels this way, then it must be okay, right?

You know – when you admit how you feel, and maybe you’re not altogether proud of feeling that way, then if you make it seem as if it’s a common way to feel then you feel better, right?

Oh, wait.  Look at what I just did.  Let’s see how it sounds if I say…

You know – when I admit how I feel, and maybe I’m not altogether proud of feeling that way, then if I make it seem as if it’s a common way to feel then I feel better, right?

Does it feel different to you, too? The first one distances the whole issue from me, and allows me to feel safer. The second one makes it very personal, and I feel vulnerable and exposed.

Ooooooooo.

Have you noticed this about yourself or those around you? That when you/they are talking about yourself/themselves, you realize that you/they always say it as if it’s not really about them?

Yeah, that’s the safe way.

If it’s you, maybe you should think about taking ownership of your stuff, and saying “I” instead of “you”. Then, when you’re communicating with your team, your family, or your friends, they will be dealing with the real you, not the generalized-safe-it’s-not-just-me version of you.

And then send a nice thank you note to my brother David in Melbourne.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Feeling – no – being vulnerable (1)
• You don’t know me… (0)
• Whose fault (2)
• What’s in it for me? (0)
• What is he thinking? (3)

Her challenge is this: some software has been developed, and the users are extremely unhappy. I know this was done by an agile team, so I wondered how they’d gotten to this point.

I asked what seemed the most obvious question: “Was there a product owner representing the users?” While the answer was yes, it seems that this “product owner” hadn’t spoken with the users, and therefore the team hadn’t engaged with them. No user experience or interaction design, as far as I could find out. No input from the users on what they need from the software, how they’ll use it, or what it means to them day to day.

My colleague’s question was “I’ve been asked to facilitate a meeting that includes the users, the product owner, the Director, a user experience expert, and one or two others. How do we make this work so it’s not just a bitch session?”

Good question.  Before I get to what I suggested, let me share another incident that also came up today.

A different colleague called me to ask about a similar situation. Well, similar in that there’s a group of people who are being negative. And similar in that my colleague wants to figure out how to bring these people together and generate some positive action and attitude.

He wanted my suggestions.

The short answer to both of them has three parts: figure out where we are, look forward, and give them a sense of ownership.

Sound too easy?  Too trite?  Too mushytouchyfeely?

Maybe it does, but it’s not.

In the book Agile Retrospectives, Diana Larsen and Esther Derby have organized the activities that they offer for agile team retrospectives according to type of goal. One of the types of goals is data gathering. From my perspective, data gathering is the backward-looking activity that allows a team to look forward. While I’m a forward-looking kind of guy, I firmly believe that sometimes you have to know where you are to know how to go from here.

Yes, I said “know where you are,” not “know where you’ve been.”

Where I am may be unhappy, dissatisfied, frustrated, elated, anxious, anticipatory, angry, concerned, confused,… Whatever it is, I like to get it out on the table, give it a name, and stare it straight in the eye.

After all, if my goal is for things to get better, I have to know better than what.

Now that I know where we are, I can ask the BIG question: how do we make it better? It doesn’t matter if it’s software, teamwork, family, ergonomics, or pretty much anything else. What does matter is the “we!” How do WE make it better?

That little word is so important. My approach in these situations is to figure out where we are (issues, challenges, frustrations, whatever), look at what might be done to improve the situation, and then share the ownership.

I find too many people who believe that they have to take ownership of making things better for others – their staff, their team, their family. Unfortunately, starting from the best of intentions, they end up disempowering the people they’re trying to help.

Whereas if I ask “How are you/we going to make this better?” I put the opportunity, commitment, passion, and responsibility where it belongs – with the people who have the largest investment in seeing the situation change.

And, at the same time, make it a challenge. Not “tell me what to do to fix it” but “tell me what you’re going to do to fix it, and where you need my help.”

Look around, look forward, and give them the opportunity.

Simple, right?

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Antipattern: Superhero (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)
• Facilitation Pattern: Guide (aka Sherpa) (1)

What do I mean by “jerk?”

I believed that what I wanted came first. I believed that what I thought was more important that what other people thought. I believed that I was entitled to tell them that I was right and they were wrong. I believed that it was okay to be “honest,” regardless of how the other person felt about it.

What brought this to mind?

I was sitting looking at my wife, and wondering why she stuck it out. Truly. She met me when I was pretty much at my peak of jerk-ness, and survived all it took – including martial arts and a heart attack – for me to learn how important other people are. And for me to start taking responsibility for my own feelings and behavior.

(If you get the impression that I think my wife is a remarkable woman, you’re right.)

I’m still a jerk sometimes. I still forget to think first, and think in the right way, about the people around me. It’s true – I’m imperfect.

Like you.

One of the hardest lessons of my life has been learning to stop, think, look, and think again before I speak. In fact, I’ll include writing emails in “speaking.”

When I write an email, I read it through and edit it at least three times.  Because I’ve made too many mistakes by making too many assumptions or by not stopping to think.

At least with an email, the other person can take their time before dealing with their reactions and responses.

In person, the impact is frequently much worse.

Can you stop being a jerk?

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Whose fault (2)
• What is he thinking? (3)
• Lying to myself (1)
• Learning to type (1)
• It’s All About You, and It’s Not About You (5)

Motto

I was giving a presentation the other day at ITARC Atlanta, and a friend of mine was sitting in the back of the room with his computer open. It was a large room, with about 12 rows of tables and chairs, so my friend was way in the back. Still, I was aware of him working on his computer the whole time I was presenting. I knew he had a presentation the next day, and was probably working on his slides. I suspect that some of the attendees were aware of him working on his computer, and maybe it didn’t bother them. Still…

First of all, it doesn’t matter what the Terrible Tweeter believes about themselves, it’s distracting for others. Seeing/hearing someone typing and reading on some device, while I’m trying to focus on the meeting, is just distracting. Period.

Second, having been guilty of this myself, I can tell you that it’s not possible to give more than one thing appropriate attention, nor to derive real value if you’re not paying attention. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve said “would you repeat that, please?” when doing something other than paying attention.

In fact, the Terrible Tweeter is one of the things I love about Open Space Technology. Why? Because folks who attend OS events seem to fully embrace the idea that anyone might not be completely engaged in what’s going on, and also that the spirit of OST allows them to say “what you’re doing is distracting me – would you mind either stopping or doing it elsewhere?” without leading to offense/hurt feelings, most of the time. It’s also entirely acceptable to tweet/blog/whatever within reasonable limits without it being distracting.

Take a look at the tweets that were posted during the recent ALT.NET Seattle Open Space Conference. There was a lot of value there. I have no doubt that some of the attendees were actually updating the event wiki during the sessions.

At most meetings and events, however, this kind of behavior is distracting and detrimental to the goals and purpose of the group.

Be engaged, or be disengaged. Don’t pretend to be one while doing the other.

The Terrible Tweeter is a perfect candidate for the Facilitation Four-Step.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• The Unconference: Where Geeks JIT Together (2)
• The Margolis Wheel (1)
• Retrospecting on the Community Courtyards (2)
• Facilitation Antipattern: The Qualifier (1)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Superhero (0)

Part of that convergence came from the higher order patterns IAAM- and IAAM+.

And part comes from my reasonably consistent system of behavior and understanding.

Being a lifelong science fiction fan, it reminds me of the convergence that occurred in Isaac Asimov’s Robots storiesand Foundation series. Two seemingly separate store lines, converging as they evolved.

For me, the whole thing is reaffirming – that these two threads of my thinking and writing are coming together. It’s not really a surprise to me, but I didn’t plan it this way.

I think I’ll start thinking about how the taking-personal-responsibility stuff relates to the facilitation-and-meeting-participation stuff, as I continue forward.

There’ll be more patterns and antipatterns, and also more ways of dealing with them, and more on how our individual behavior and responsibility comes into play.

And no, I’m not comparing myself to Isaac Asimov!

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)
• Facilitation Pattern: Convergence (1)
• Facilitation Antipattern: The Qualifier (1)

“At times the individual members of a group need to express their own points of view. At other times, the same people want to narrow their differences and aim the discussion toward closure. These two sets of processes will be referred to as ‘divergent thinking’ and ‘convergent thinking.’”

Accepting Kaner’s words and work, we would consider this to be a natural occurrence in groups, but only when there is a skilled facilitator or leader present to ensure that divergence turns into convergence. And it is clear that it is essential that divergent thinking make that shift into convergent thinking in order for the group to reach some kind of decision.

A leader will emerge

This reminds me of something I learned in my Master’s Degree work years ago. My professor was Joe Luft, co-creator of the Johari window with Harry Ingham (get it? Joe-Harry => Johari). The Johari window is a model of relationships and communications that has been widely accepted. During a class on group dynamics, Joe made a statement that has stuck with me for thirty years: in any group, regardless of who is nominally in charge, a leader will emerge. That is, while there may be someone there in the group who is given the title or responsibility to be the “leader,” inevitably someone (and it may be that same person), will emerge to guide, direct, lead the group.

Leading or allowing someone else to lead

As a facilitator, you may be expected to be the “leader” and turn divergence into convergence. Or you may be expected to recognize when a member of the group steps up (overtly or simply through behavior) to demonstrate effective leadership, guiding the group from divergence to convergence. This ability to recognize that members of the group are stepping into key roles is an essential skill for a facilitator.

It is not always the facilitator’s responsibility/job to do everything. Sometimes it is the job of the facilitator to sit back and let the group go forward on its own.

So it is with convergence. There comes a point when, as a facilitator – or even as a member of the group – that you recognize that the turn must be made. If it is not happening on its own, then it is up to you to take some action. That action is not standing up and saying “Okay – enough divergent thinking, get on with the convergent thinking!” Rather, you are expected to have the skills to help and guide the group toward convergence.

Tactics that come to mind include:

• “I see that there is some disagreement here. Let’s see what we can do to find some commonality.”
• Sometimes, I suggest that two advocates of opposing views each take on the other’s position and argue it.

Rather than having me try to explain it all to you, I’ll suggest that you read Kaner’s work. There are lots of good diagrams, along with the words.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Pattern: Co-Worker (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Dominator (0)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• Faciliation Pattern: Sherlock Holmes (0)

There are certainly more than just two faces to the concept, and yet these are the two extremes, in my mind.

Ego-Driven, Self-Centered “It’s all about me!” (IAAM-)

As I write about facilitation antipatterns, it’s clear that I’m focusing on the self-centered, ego-need-driven side of “It’s all about me!” Look at Professor Moriarty or the Orator or the Dominator. For each of them, they want – perhaps need – the focus and attention of the group.

IAAM- (the negative IAAM) clearly is driven by the needs and desires of the speaker/actor, rather than a focus on improving communications or teamwork or anything else. While the person exhibiting IAAM- may convince themselves that they’re doing it “for your good” or “for the good of the group”, I believe that their reality is quite different – that they’re doing it because they need it to feel better about themselves. They may start from a position of low self-esteem or insecurity, as surprising as that sounds.

There are many common behaviors, for those who don’t feel good about themselves. Two that come to mind here are “pay attention to me” and “make you feel bad so you’ll recognize my power”.  Both of these are instances of IAAM-.

I did it a lot, in the earlier days of my marriage. Having to be right, as opposed to having a dialogue with my wife. Explaining how she didn’t understand, instead of finding common ground. Taking the center stage, rather than participating and allowing others to participate. These are examples of IAAM-.

Taking Responsibility, Connection-Focused “It’s all about me.” (IAAM+)

In my writing (and talking and talking and… ) about communication, I tend to focus on a movement away from IAAM- and toward IAAM+ as an understanding of human behavior and interactions.

In IAAM+, it’s two-sided: understanding that my behavior expresses who I am, what I believe, how I feel; and understanding that your behavior expresses the same things about you. As I embrace and internalize that understanding, my behavior changes, because my focus changes. And sometimes, by changing my behavior towards what I would like it to be, I change my feelings and understanding.

Communication and Facilitation and Participation

It all comes together in many places and times. Including in meetings. When I find myself thinking “he always…” or “she’s doing that because…” and I assign motivations and assume what’s going on inside someone else’s head, I push myself back from IAAM- toward IAAM+.  At least, I try.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• You don’t know me… (0)
• The Facilitation Four-Step(tm) (4)

What do you mean it’s not working?

“Well, no matter what I do, the other person just isn’t changing their behavior!  So why bother?”

This is one of the great fallacies that I encounter all the time.

Did I ever tell you that doing everything well will somehow lead to the other person changing?

I don’t think so.

Doing it well – not right, but well – is about you. After all, it’s all about you.

Some people will respond by changing their behavior towards you (and maybe towards others, as well).  And others won’t.

Doing it well, taking ownership, changing your behavior and your reactions, is all about you.

Don’t worry about them.

Are you worth it?

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Whose fault (2)
• Who is You? (4)
• What’s in it for me? (0)
• What is he thinking? (3)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)

Motto

This is not to say that Hoarders are actually powerful. Their power – such as it is – is illusory and mostly perceived only by the Hoarder. Others frequently see the Hoarder as obstructionist, frustrating, and self-serving.

Since Hoarders are naturally insecure and suffering from self-image issues, dealing with them requires putting aside your emotional reactions and biases toward this kind of behavior, and encouraging them through recognition and appreciation.

As with most of the antipatterns, the people who exhibit Hoarder tendencies can be either moderate or pathological.  That is, some do it out of habit, rather than a psychological need to be in control. These folks will probably respond readily when either encouraged or when having it privately explained to them. Note that I said “explained to them” not “confronted”. Confrontation implies attack and hostility, at least to some degree, and those are rarely useful.

The pathological, however, as with most of the antipatterns, are outside the scope of your ability or responsibility as a facilitator or coworker or friend to deal with. Please be careful in these circumstances. It’s not your job to deal with pathologies – issues that are deep and tightly held.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Superhero (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Orator (3)

To phrase it differently, everything I do is about me, preferably about making me feel good (about myself, of course).  If you want the context of this, please go back and read It’s All About Me.

What led to this particular post, today, was a conversation I had with an old friend of mine. She’s working as the assistant manager at a toy store, and had a question/challenge regarding one of the staff.  Here’s the dialogue:

Friend: hey, mr facilitator - I could use your advice with a co-worker's
        communication

Me    : mmhmm

Friend: ... has been with us for ages. she got pretty pissed when I was
        made asst mgr instead of her, but she and I are working together
        ok. she gets phone calls (anyone can answer the phone) from the
        office, asking her/us to do something. she'll do the thing, but
        never tells anyone abt the msg/event, which causes problems.
        I've asked her to let us know when she gets msgs like that, she
        says she will, but doesn't. any ideas on how to change her
        behavior?
Friend: not sure if it's a passive/agressive thing, or what.

Me    : hmm...
Me    : Make it be to her advantage to change

Friend: hmm, to her advantage.....

Me    : so far, it's "tell me so I'll know"
Me    : how about "tell me so I can make sure you get recognition for
        all you do"?

Friend: aha!

Me    : I'd guess she has no incentive to give you what you want if
        she doesn't see the value for her
Me    : so appeal to her selfishness (you know my position on that)
Me    : and then ask her how she'd like that to work

Friend: you're absolutely right. I hadn't seen that there was no
        "her" in it
Friend: hunh!
Friend: she doesn't realize how hard we're working to keep her job
        - everything she does, and it is much, is almost invisible

And there you have it. Dealing with the reality that each of us is looking for what’s in it for us.

Yes, I said “reality”, because that’s what I believe.

I don’t think badly of the other woman that my friend is dealing with. She’s normal – she’s looking for motivation that makes sense within her world view.

Few of us do things altruistically. Even when we’re doing a good job for the benefit of the organization we work for, it’s about (a) keeping our job, and (b) enjoying the feeling of belonging to and contributing to something bigger than ourselves.

I’ll say it again – I don’t see this as a negative or bad thing. Understanding this helps me to more effectively deal with the people in my world.

If you doubt me, ask yourself the question “Why am I doing this?” and use the Five Whys technique to help you get closer to the core.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• It’s All About You, and It’s Not About You (5)
• It’s All About Me (2)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)
• Lying to myself (1)

The challenge for most of us is that when we feel vulnerable, we also feel the need to protect ourselves – to be defensive.

Defensiveness can take on a number of different aspects: classic defensiveness (explaining, justifying), counterattacking, withdrawal, redirecting. Sadly, none of these is effective when it comes to having an effective discussion and maintaining a healthy relationship.

There are two sides to dealing with vulnerability: our own, and others’.

In dealing with my own vulnerability, I have to decide whether I think it is good to expose and accept my vulnerability or not.  After all, we are all truly vulnerable. Whether it’s in work (someone else has control over my fate), romantic relationships (if I reveal my feelings, what if the other person doesn’t reciprocate), family relationships, or elsewhere, we’re always vulnerable.

I suspect that you know some of the same kinds of people I do, those who choose to try never to reveal vulnerability. These are the people who are depriving themselves of the richness and joy (along with some of the pain and sorrow) of fully explored relationships. You know them. You might say “he always seems to have a shell, a barrier” or “no one ever seems to really get to know her”.

I’m mostly at the other end of the spectrum. My barriers are – at best – permeable, where they exist at all.  I’d rather be vulnerable – and honest – than worry about hiding things and protecting myself. I believe that by being willing to share who I really am, I gain a tremendous amount from the community in which I move.

Being vulnerable is frightening. Really. Revealing your inner self, your real feelings, your flaws and foibles – this puts you at risk of having someone use that knowledge to their advantage and to your detriment, right?

So what.

If they try to use what they know about me to their advantage, that’s about them, not me.

If they try to use what they know to my disadvantage, that’s also about them, not me.

Yes, others can cause me trouble by knowing about me. I accept that, because what I’m talking about is what’s really me.

I believe that it’s easier to move about as the real you than as some image you create for your use.  Yeah, I’m talking about me and about you.

Let me not forget about addressing others’ vulnerabilities. It’s simple – if I treat others with respect and honor, if I behave with integrity, if I do NOT use what I know about others to my advantage or to their disadvantage, then vulnerability… isn’t.

In the public speaking community, one of the bits of wisdom is that the most successful speakers are real and vulnerable. They share their own stories, including their own failings and missteps. This is true of public figures in general – we tend to like and trust people whom we think of as real.

How about you? Are you willing to be vulnerable and real?

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Lying to myself (1)
• Whose fault (2)
• Letting go (0)
• Learning to type (1)
• It’s All About You, and It’s Not About You (5)

Motto

They are willing to argue, fight, persuade, convince, and argue some more to win you over to their point of view. This means that they have the tendency to dominate a discussion, in their passion for what they know to be true/right.

This has the effect of taking over a meeting so that it is entirely focused on the Zealot’s issue. Which suits the Zealot just fine, but does not contribute to the group’s overall success.

It is important to realize that the Zealot is thoroughly well-intentioned, believing that they are serving you/the group by convincing anyone and everyone of the rightness of their view. They have nothing but good intentions, in fact. You might find yourself having the opportunity to ask “the question” (see I feel sad) from Crucial Conversations.

Dealing with this requires the strength to choose when to cut off a conversation (The Facilitation Four-Step), offer to either park it or consider it done, and keep the group moving forward. Challenging, but relatively straightforward.  This also requires the support of the other participants, which is usually forthcoming.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• You don’t know me… (0)
• It’s All About You, and It’s Not About You (5)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Conclusion Jumper (0)

Let’s say we’re having a conversation, and you say something about my mother, and I get angry.

Why do I get angry?

I’m not a psychotherapist, in spite of my education in psychology and a family full of psychotherapists*. I am a student of human nature, so I’ll take my best guess.

I’d say there are some good possibilities: I feel disrespected; I feel that I – through what you said about my mother – am being judged; I love my mother, and feel that you’ve disrespected her.

All of these are valid. Yet why angry? Why would any of these lead to me feeling angry?

I believe that it comes down to my sense of self-worth – that somehow, by disrespecting and/or judging me and/or my mother, you have also called into question my value on this planet.

Okay – I get that, too. Having someone question your value could be annoying.

But why? Why does someone else’s opinion, belief, or random thought matter?

Because I don’t want to – or can’t – acknowledge or deal with my own fear of being less valuable. And you’ve just put it out there in words!

So I blame you.  Internally, I believe it’s your fault. Externally, I take action on that belief.

I’m lying. I’m lying to myself and telling myself that I’m angry because you have disrespected me. I’m lying to you in the same way.

Perhaps the real problem is my self-image and sense of self-worth. Perhaps if I felt more comfortable with who I am and what I do and all the rest of it, instead of feeling angry, I’d feel some pity and/or sympathy.

In retrospect, this is part of what happened with my friend the other day in our email exchange that I mentioned in Learning to type. It would have been very easy to react to his hostility and his hurtful words. It was tempting now and then.

Fortunately for me, I’ve been working on not lying to myself, not lying to others, not taking responsibility for others’ feelings and behaviors, and not assigning responsibility for my feelings and behaviors.

He didn’t make me angry, nor did I feel angry, because I recognized what was going on. It was like a rain storm – nothing I can do about it, it’s got nothing to do with me, and I just have to wait and it’ll end.

Being honest with myself is hard. Being honest with you is harder. And both are worth doing.

I refer to myself as the white sheep of the family.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Whose fault (2)
• Feeling – no – being vulnerable (1)
• Letting go (0)
• It’s All About You, and It’s Not About You (5)
• It’s All About Me (2)

Motto

This applies both in group participation and in presentation. The qualifiers – kind of, sort of, about, just, basically, actually – take away from the value of what is being said.

And, as I said, it’s subtle. The subtlety is that when I say “I sort of think you should do X”, it comes across as uncertain. First, that puts everything else I say into doubt, since I sound like I’m not really sure. Second, my listeners are subconsciously taking what I’ve said from an assertion – I think you should – to a question – Do you think you should – which also shifts the responsibility.

Of course, what the qualifiers also do is leave me an out. If challenged, I can say “Well, I didn’t say you should, I said I kind of think you should.”

Why leave an out? Why not commit?

In a group dialogue, it is important to recognize that the value of each contribution is affected by the words we use and the way we say things.

Don’t qualify unless there’s a very good reason to qualify.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Antipattern: Superhero (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• You don’t know me… (0)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)

Cory Haines' post http://is.gd/im5f reminds me of learning to type.
You never learn until you stop looking @ the kb

Followed by this:

Stop looking at the keyboard, speed goes *way* down immediately.
Then, you get faster than you were at hunt n' peck...eventually

My response was this:

@ajepst there's some profundity in that beyond just about typing,
 isn't there?

It really got me to thinking about how hard change is, because that’s what this exchange is really about: change.

In fact, my entire series of posts in this category, Coping and Communicating, is largely about change.

Learning to see my own behavior as my own, to see your behavior as being about you and your feelings, and understanding that we only interact at the external, behavioral level – that’s all about changing.

Change isn’t instant. Change takes practice and commitment. Change usually involves some failures and some frustration and exasperation, and strong temptation to give up and go back to what we know that is comfortable.

Like learning touch typing. It’s easier to look at the keyboard and take your time, if that’s what you’re used to.  In fact, I’ve seen some hunt-n-peckers who are blazingly fast. But their focus is on the keyboard, not on what they’re typing, if they have to look to find the keys.

I was fortunate, in that I was required to learn touch typing in Junior High School in NYC. I was less fortunate when it comes to personal development.  There were no requirements, and I was able to self-delude into believing that there were no consequences.

It took a long time for me to embrace the ideas that I’ve been sharing here, and longer to actually be able to put them into practice.

Just this week, I had a lengthy email exchange with a dear friend. He was very angry, frustrated with me, and hostile. He swore at me, was accusatory, told me how much he’d done for me, and so on. I was able to listen, pay attention to what I saw as being most important (our relationship, and his difficulties, and  how I might help), and respond without taking any of it personally.  It felt really good.

Like when I realized that I could, in fact, type without looking at the keys (95 wpm, btw ).

Thanks, Anne.  Thought-provoking.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• It’s All About You, and It’s Not About You (5)
• It’s All About Me (2)
• Getting Closer to the Moment (3)
• What is he thinking? (3)
• I’m not responsible (0)

Personally, I catch myself at it far more frequently than I’d like. I catch myself asking questions like “Whose fault is this?” rather than the question I much prefer: “How did we get here, and what did I do or not do that contributed?”

The idea of taking personal responsibility is an essential one in my life. It applies in my personal life, when dealing with family, friends and acquaintances.  And it applies in my professional life, when dealing with co-workers, colleagues, and business associates.

Assigning fault and/or blame is relatively easy to understand as a motivation – if it’s someone else’s fault, then it’s not mine, and maybe I can feel better about myself. Of course, in taking that approach, I abrogate responsibility for my own behaviors or inactions, and disguise my own contributions.

Sadly, it doesn’t really work. I don’t actually improve my self-image by passing off the fault. All I do is mask my own feelings of fear/inadequacy/responsibility/guilt.  Really, it doesn’t work.

What it does is build up a backlog of self-deception. That backlog will come to bite me. I will become defensive, aggressive, and hostile when I am approached – even kindly or lovingly – about any incident where I might have some responsibility. Why? Because I feel challenged to own up to my own dishonesty, and that’s just freakin’ hard.

Note that I say “responsibility”, not culpability, fault, or any other word that has judgment implied in it.

Responsibility is a good thing, and there’s no judgment attached to taking or accepting responsibility.  Only to denying or declining responsibility for my own behaviors.

The next time you find yourself looking for someone to whom to assign fault and blame, stop and ask yourself my question: “How did we get here, and what did I do or not do that contributed?”

Then, take action on your answer first before looking for someone else.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Lying to myself (1)
• Feeling – no – being vulnerable (1)
• Letting go (0)
• Who is You? (4)
• What’s in it for me? (0)