Conversation is not a hockey game

[Al Boss]

We may not all agree on much, but I think we're all here because we want
to make a difference, and when we talk it's because we have something we
want someone else to hear.  Personally, I'm going to try harder to keep
that in mind--if I state my message in such a way that folks tune it
out, I've wasted my time and yours, and not done what I'd set out to do.

As long as we're limited to personal attacks on one another, we're not
going to get very much else done.  As long as we don't consider the way
others will interpret what we say, we run the risk of not getting our
message across.  No one volunteers with SCN just because they feel like
wasting their time, and no one takes the time to try to talk just so
they can hear their brains rattle.  

I forget who said, "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out," but
I agree with Sharma--personally, that's not my preferred method of
conversation.  

I have to recognize and accept that we have folks among us who believe
that confrontation and provocation are necessary for good communication
to occur.  There are others (including me) who place a premium on
civility and prefer to save our anger to channel into only those things
that deserve it--speaking for myself, if a conversation makes me mad, I
evaluate it and decide whether it's worth remaining in (and it usually
isn't).  That said, I'm the first to admit I can be unkind and downright
insulting more often than I care to think about.

What we ALL have in common here, despite our different approaches, is
what drew us together at SCN in the first place--we believe that
communication is important.  If I go to great lengths to not call
someone an idiot, it's because I'm afraid that pointing that out might
jeopardize their ability to listen to, and respect, the rest of what I'm
trying to say.  If I do label some act, process, or stance as  idiotic,
it's because I strongly believe that I can't get my message across
without making that point.  

So what?  So this--if you're writing an e-mail or talking, it should be
because you have something to say.  If your message isn't direct, it'll
be perceived by some as weak and they'll tune it out.  If your message
is insulting or combatative, it'll be perceived by some as a waste of
their time and they'll tune it out.  Either way, you don't accomplish
your task; the message isn't getting through.  

(Al's broken record, part 72) Every time SCN or SCNA communications lose
sight of talking about structure, processes, or outcomes, and start
talking about individuals, we compromise our ability to get anything
done.  I think our system remains a kind of cult of personality, a
collective of individuals rather than functions.  (For example, there
have been times when certain terms were synonymous: "Randy" and "the
computer system", "Nancy" and "the volunteer system", "Marcia" and
"fundraising", "Robert" and "registration", "JJ" and "modems", "Al" and
"trouble", and so on--this makes it difficult to criticize an operation
without seeming to insult a person.)  

We're all smart people.  We ought to be able to, as individuals, take a
hard look at how we talk and come up with ways each of us can better
work with everyone else towards our common goals.  Maybe we can even
someday give SCN an identity of its own so we can talk about it without
blasting someone important to our efforts.

Al
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *