|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 27, 2019 18:36:24 GMT
Hello Learning Community!
Now that you have all had the opportunity to log on, test out your first post and familiarize yourself with the discussion board- let's get to discussing and applying Chapters 1 & 2.
The authors identify a crucial conversation as one that has 3 elements: 1) high stakes, 2) opposing opinions and 3) strong emotions.
Submit a post with the following information:
1. Briefly provide an example of a crucial conversation you have had. (Remember, no identifying or confidential information should be posted!). A brief example would be "I needed to provide a critique of a colleague's work."
2. Talk about how you handled that type of conversation. Were you on your worst behavior, your best- what made it challenging and why do you think it did or didn't go well?
3. The author's talk about dialogue and defines it as the free flow of meaning between two or more people. How can we create a shared pool of meaning? Why is it important to a crucial conversation?
4. Tell the group about one person you have met or witnessed have a crucial conversation that went really well. What were the qualities of the conversation and person that made this go well?
* Comment on at least two other people's posts, remember, this is important, it's how we will create dialogue on our discussion board rather than static posts. |
|
|
|
Post by Jes Moss on Oct 28, 2019 15:51:55 GMT
Last month I was asked to edit a Policy Analyst's response to a question for a member of management. This analyst is newer and had lots of what I would call "pet peeves" this particular manager has in her response. I am not a policy analyst, so I worried about stepping on her toes but did not want her to get a negative management response. I also did not want to taint the newer staff to my own biases on this manager's "pet peeves" so I added comments through track changes and then went over to her desk and told her that if she had questions to come chat with me. I also did not include notes on pet peeves because I was unsure if that was just my experience. I felt through track changes I was able to keep opinion and emotion out of the conversation. I think it went well as she expressed gratitude for my feedback and was not offended by the large number of comments/edits.
The concept of Shared Pool of meaning was interesting to me as I felt those of us having this community of learning experience will appreciate the intention of that term. I do worry those not reading this book will be left with uninformed opinions on what that term means...
I witnessed a member of management have a tough conversation with a colleague regarding their lack of attention to detail.... that's how she put it... when it could have gone very wrong by stating they were not doing their job well. She stressed the importance of the detail and gave examples of how in the past that employee did well with this. She asked what they thought was preventing them from accomplishing this attention to detail. It was great. The employee was not offended but understood the importance and requirement of change without being put down.
|
|
amya
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by amya on Oct 28, 2019 19:27:30 GMT
Hi Jess,
I like how you used the "track changes" tool to help keep yourself objective. Being able to type the feedback out also gives you time to think things through vs when you're face to face (even if you've pre played the conversation in your head)and have to react quickly sometimes. I also appreciate the self-reflection in considering whether the pet peeves could perhaps taint the perspective of this new staff person. The follow up face to face to check in was welcoming her to also chat with you and get more info.
|
|
amya
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by amya on Oct 28, 2019 19:43:32 GMT
I recently had a conversation with a past colleague when we discussed a policy that had been implemented at my previous employee. As the colleague critiqued the policy that I had agreed with, I could feel my own emotions rising. I was able to recognize my own internal cues which helped me to think through my response, which was to listen and simply acknowledge the thoughts of the other person. I had a lot to say but had to think about the intent and purpose of the conversation. After quickly thinking this through, I went ahead and thanked the person for their perspective and shared mine by continuing to acknowledge the importance of multiple perspectives. I also added that I didn't think we had to necessarily agree, and was glad to be able to hear her views.
When the author talks about a shared pool of meaning, I understand this as important because it allows us to get at the genuine feelings and ideas others have, which can make the work we do much richer and productive. When there are several people within the work space who are working to create those safe spaces for thoughtful conversation to occur, the work gets better and people feel valued.
When I think of the people who have these conversations and they go really well, I see/hear active listening, acknowledgement, and genuine interest in the topic and perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by bridget on Oct 28, 2019 21:00:26 GMT
Last month I was asked to edit a Policy Analyst's response to a question for a member of management. This analyst is newer and had lots of what I would call "pet peeves" this particular manager has in her response. I am not a policy analyst, so I worried about stepping on her toes but did not want her to get a negative management response. I also did not want to taint the newer staff to my own biases on this manager's "pet peeves" so I added comments through track changes and then went over to her desk and told her that if she had questions to come chat with me. I also did not include notes on pet peeves because I was unsure if that was just my experience. I felt through track changes I was able to keep opinion and emotion out of the conversation. I think it went well as she expressed gratitude for my feedback and was not offended by the large number of comments/edits. The concept of Shared Pool of meaning was interesting to me as I felt those of us having this community of learning experience will appreciate the intention of that term. I do worry those not reading this book will be left with uninformed opinions on what that term means... I witnessed a member of management have a tough conversation with a colleague regarding their lack of attention to detail.... that's how she put it... when it could have gone very wrong by stating they were not doing their job well. She stressed the importance of the detail and gave examples of how in the past that employee did well with this. She asked what they thought was preventing them from accomplishing this attention to detail. It was great. The employee was not offended but understood the importance and requirement of change without being put down. As I was reading this the idea of "tone" came to mind. I think many times the idea of tone is overlooked in written documents and if you ask me it's almost as important as tone of voice - depending on the situation it's many times MORE important (as in documents being released to the public). Being a program and policy analyst for the last 9 years I have learned that my "pet peeves" are different than most others but that a 2nd, 3rd or even 7th review from different perspectives is most times an asset to the end product. The tough part is when "different" doesn't necessarily equate to "better" or even more clear, and sometimes acting on our pet peeves ends up taking us a step in the wrong direction. I've done this to myself a few times too. I end up making more work for myself, and THIS is where I see the value of a shared pool of meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by bridget on Oct 29, 2019 13:58:28 GMT
Several years ago I was given a project without a lot of guidance around expected product. It was one of those "show me what you got" deals where you feel a little lost because there are so many different ways the project could be carried out. Because the project was coming from several levels above I wasn't given much opportunity to ask questions either so I jumped in and worked for many hours with a group of people creating what I thought would be a great product just to have it essentially thrown out and replaced with something that already existed - but needed updating. It was a tough pill to swallow because not only did something exist that was essentially only needing to be updated (not "created from scratch") but there were other people that knew much more about what this leader wanted/expected. I think the most difficult part of the situation for me was the fact that no one even bothered to look at my project - it was just pushed aside and replaced by the existing document and my supervisor was able to update the document in less than an hour while I had spent a few weeks on the document I created with my team.
Looking back to evaluate my handling of the situation I know I let my emotions get the best of me. One thing I know about me is that I manage anger better than I manage having my feelings hurt, and instead of seeing this as a situation where I recognized "it's just business" I had invested emotionally because I had to go back to a group of people that had worked with me on the project and try to explain why it was just discarded. I think I was protecting my pride in what we had accomplished and didn't want them to feel what I was feeling - that all those hours of conversation and planning and working together meant nothing. I can honestly say I was NOT showing my best side.
This was definitely a conversation that had strong emotions, the stakes were high, and there were differing opinions - one of my unsuccessful crucial conversations. Having a shared pool of meaning would've been VERY helpful, but sometimes I don't know that it's possible in some of the work we do. Making time for longer conversations is not an easy task when schedules are so tight, and having the right people in the room in order for that shared pool of meaning to do what it's intended to do isn't always possible. I wonder if the shared pool of meaning idea is something we can explore further - brainstorming how to accomplish this in a workplace that has a top-down approach and limited access to decision-makers?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jes Moss on Oct 29, 2019 17:09:01 GMT
Awe Bridget - I sure know and have experienced your example! I always feel like this speaks to the issue of professional autonomy and how we are expected to have it, but when we utilize it and feel like we are on the right track and then get shut down, it makes me feel bad.... like I need my hand held - which I don't....
|
|
|
|
Post by Jody B on Oct 30, 2019 21:13:54 GMT
Several years ago I was given a project without a lot of guidance around expected product. It was one of those "show me what you got" deals where you feel a little lost because there are so many different ways the project could be carried out. Because the project was coming from several levels above I wasn't given much opportunity to ask questions either so I jumped in and worked for many hours with a group of people creating what I thought would be a great product just to have it essentially thrown out and replaced with something that already existed - but needed updating. It was a tough pill to swallow because not only did something exist that was essentially only needing to be updated (not "created from scratch") but there were other people that knew much more about what this leader wanted/expected. I think the most difficult part of the situation for me was the fact that no one even bothered to look at my project - it was just pushed aside and replaced by the existing document and my supervisor was able to update the document in less than an hour while I had spent a few weeks on the document I created with my team. Looking back to evaluate my handling of the situation I know I let my emotions get the best of me. One thing I know about me is that I manage anger better than I manage having my feelings hurt, and instead of seeing this as a situation where I recognized "it's just business" I had invested emotionally because I had to go back to a group of people that had worked with me on the project and try to explain why it was just discarded. I think I was protecting my pride in what we had accomplished and didn't want them to feel what I was feeling - that all those hours of conversation and planning and working together meant nothing. I can honestly say I was NOT showing my best side. This was definitely a conversation that had strong emotions, the stakes were high, and there were differing opinions - one of my unsuccessful crucial conversations. Having a shared pool of meaning would've been VERY helpful, but sometimes I don't know that it's possible in some of the work we do. Making time for longer conversations is not an easy task when schedules are so tight, and having the right people in the room in order for that shared pool of meaning to do what it's intended to do isn't always possible. I wonder if the shared pool of meaning idea is something we can explore further - brainstorming how to accomplish this in a workplace that has a top-down approach and limited access to decision-makers? |
|
|
|
Post by Jody B on Oct 30, 2019 21:21:05 GMT
Hi Bridgette,
It sounds like a frustrating experience. It is great that you know yourself well enough to recognize your trigger points. Having your feelings hurt or being angry about a response is a challenge to work through especially when you have invested so much time and effort in addition to including peers in your project. It does sometime feel that we have these great ideas to share and they don’t get the time they deserve. Knowing your own trigger points can help you approach the situation in a different way and see a bigger picture. I am interested in seeing how the shared pool meaning idea will be approached through these discussions. JB
|
|
|
|
Post by Jody B on Oct 30, 2019 21:32:26 GMT
I had a visit with a person recently and thought things went well only to get back to my office and receive a long email about all the ways this person had thought I had “done them wrong”. It made me re think the conversation and when I talked to them again I attempted to be sure I was stating things in a way so they would not be miss construed. The second visit went ok I thought. Then again I received an e-mail with concerns. Although I realize this can happen, it is not something I typically experience. The level of bitterness in the e-mail was a shock and it made me question my techniques. I am hoping this book can give me some insight into ways I can do a better job of communicating with this person. I need to find a way to a shared pool of meaning for my next conversations with her.
|
|
|
|
Post by justineg on Oct 31, 2019 0:43:21 GMT
I recently had a meeting with an agency to discuss their poor performance on a monitoring. The agency had multiple performance issues and I was meeting directly with the staff who are responsible for the oversight and quality assurance of the program. Overall, the conversation went well. I was direct and honest about the errors and patterns I saw occurring at the agency. While I gave them direct feedback, I was also prepared with ideas and solutions to help address the issues I was seeing. During the meeting I was also able to focus on other areas that the agency was performing well in. I drew from their areas of strength to find solutions. Being prepared with solutions and offering positive feedback helped the agency accept the more difficult feedback.
I’m interested in seeing how the book expands upon the shared pool of meaning and dialogue concepts. I believe in order to create a shared pool of meaning we need to create and environment where you feel “safe” so to speak to have open and honest conversations.
I have witnessed a few crucial conversations lately between my colleagues addressing a variety of topics. The overall theme of the ones that go well has been direct and honest communication and being solution focused.
|
|
|
|
Post by lindaj on Oct 31, 2019 1:41:24 GMT
Crucial conversations is part of my job when I evaluate programs on a daily basis. I have tried to involve the provider with finding acceptable solutions to a violation by stating the violation and then inviting the provider to give ideas on how they can make changes in their routines or in the center to correct the violation Often they come up with acceptable solution and we can agree on the plan of correction; at times I have further conversations with the provider that provides an equally or better solution for their situation through brainstorming ideas. I try to make it feel more like a partnership in providing the best care for the children. This technique works well most of the time and communication has a good outcome. However there are situations where the provider’s emotions are escalated and this process does not work well. I recently visited a provider who was upset the moment that I arrived due to the time frame of my arrival and the fact that she was out of ratio. I thought we had a good conversation and had adequately resolved the anger only to find out after leaving that she was still very upset and shared her feelings on social media. I tried to think about how I could have made the situation better...maybe this book will give me more tools to use in these situations.
In order to develop a shared pool of meaning we have to have adequate time and a safe environment to share ideas, respecting everyone’s opinions and ideas. This is an important dialogue in order to arrive at the best result possible with all parties feeling ownership and involvement.
I have witnessed my brother-in-law have crucial conversations with various people of all ages. He is calm, relaxed, using pointed questions to invite sharing, listens to everyone’s statements, asks for clarity of ideas. He then states the possible solutions and asks for positives and negatives of each. At the end of the conversation each person feels like they contributed to the topic or solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by lindaj on Oct 31, 2019 2:02:27 GMT
I had a visit with a person recently and thought things went well only to get back to my office and receive a long email about all the ways this person had thought I had “done them wrong”. It made me re think the conversation and when I talked to them again I attempted to be sure I was stating things in a way so they would not be miss construed. The second visit went ok I thought. Then again I received an e-mail with concerns. Although I realize this can happen, it is not something I typically experience. The level of bitterness in the e-mail was a shock and it made me question my techniques. I am hoping this book can give me some insight into ways I can do a better job of communicating with this person. I need to find a way to a shared pool of meaning for my next conversations with her. Jody B at times we get blindsided by conversations we perceive as positive because of the emotions of the people involved and the timeframe that we have to discuss the situation. I too hope to find ways to assure there is an understanding between the participants of the conversations before the closure of the visit. |
|
|
|
Post by lindaj on Oct 31, 2019 2:20:29 GMT
Hi Amy,
I appreciate the conversation you had with a former colleague. Often we can have differing views of a situation/policy. While it is important to respectfully listen to everyones point of view ...it is also important to let the others in the conversation know how you feel and why. It sounds like you handled the situation very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by lindaj on Oct 31, 2019 2:26:29 GMT
Hi Amy,
I appreciate the conversation you had with a former colleague. Often we can have differing views of a situation/policy. While it is important to respectfully listen to everyones point of view ...it is also important to let the others in the conversation know how you feel and why. It sounds like you handled the situation very well.
|
|
