Well....
I don't know.... At this moment, I don't particularly feel like using the techniques shown in 2nd textbook. I'm still in the immature stage where I think putting in the efforts is not worth the energy. I'll keep the techniques in mind, and stay on my way of 'I will try and figure out what's right and wrong, after that, if you don't agree, it's your problem'.
2008年6月12日 星期四
2008年6月9日 星期一
demo = fun
Didn't know I would like demo so much. This 2-hour session is the most fun I had in any class. Free-style presentation topic makes the knowledge pool much bigger. 10-min constraint makes people highlight the most interesting and important part of the topic. This makes the 'interest-matching' process efficient. I'm thinking maybe in a team, we can do that too, with a bit relaxed time constraint. That would be fun.
2008年6月1日 星期日
Why it has to be me?
One critical question in this book is 'Why it has to be me to make the effort?'. I agree. In my opinion, both sides have to be on the same wavelength to want to be reasonable. If only one side is doing the hardwork, it wouldn't have good result. Maybe it would look good at the start, but as the time goes on, the one side that keeps trying, and 'tolerating', would just have enough.
On another issue, it doesn't look 'energy efficient' to be so 'perfect' dealing with family members. People have emotions and moods. And when you're facing family members, most of the time, you just want to be moody, not worrying about consequences as you would at work space. You expect your close families to tolerate it, and your families expect you to tolerate it. To be so 'perfect', like in the textbook, in communicating takes a lot of brain power and mental disciplinary power. I'd rather turn a deaf ear on my 'irrational and moody' families, or put up with a quarrel. We'll forget about it later anyway.
On another issue, it doesn't look 'energy efficient' to be so 'perfect' dealing with family members. People have emotions and moods. And when you're facing family members, most of the time, you just want to be moody, not worrying about consequences as you would at work space. You expect your close families to tolerate it, and your families expect you to tolerate it. To be so 'perfect', like in the textbook, in communicating takes a lot of brain power and mental disciplinary power. I'd rather turn a deaf ear on my 'irrational and moody' families, or put up with a quarrel. We'll forget about it later anyway.
2008年5月23日 星期五
post-presentation comments
Done with the presentation this week. Not much thoughts about it. I think I got what I wanted to cover out as planned, so I'm ok with it.
2008年5月16日 星期五
general comment #2
Read through chapter 5 of Crucial Conversation. This one generally sits better than 'Communication Effectively' on me. I read that the 'idiocy of either or thinking' hits the core for Buck too. In 'The Inconvenient Truth', Al Gore mentioned the same issue in dealing with the problem he was trying to present. I think we all feel it in our lives, that's why the phrase made an impression on both me and Buck. I guess the reason is people are inherently lazy in nature. We want a solution out there to solve a problem, or we give up. The tendency to do so increases as the difficulty rises. As the communications happening in our daily lives looking so 'inconsequential' and 'trivial', we are even more prone to do that, instead of making an effort to actually use our brains and think.
The topic on 'creating a safe feeling' is too idealistic and it leaves many questions to me. Head not clear enough yet.
Off topic: Out of curiosity, I checked the 2 books on amazon, Crucial Conversation has 121 reviews, with 4.5 avg rating, and Communicating Effectively has 8, avg 4.5. Isn't that interesting?
The topic on 'creating a safe feeling' is too idealistic and it leaves many questions to me. Head not clear enough yet.
Off topic: Out of curiosity, I checked the 2 books on amazon, Crucial Conversation has 121 reviews, with 4.5 avg rating, and Communicating Effectively has 8, avg 4.5. Isn't that interesting?
Being consistent
This week's session closed the presentations of book 1, communicating effectively. Writing down my thoughts about the book based on the presentations. Disclaimer: I have not read the book in whole.
Chapter 7 and 8 are out of discussion for their technicality. So... basically 2 weeks and 4 chapters.
Week 1, chapter 2 and 4: Talking from a manager's perspective, the book tells you the differences between 'truth' and 'perception'. It tells you, as a manager, has to get the 'right perception' about your subordinates, while also telling you to manipulate your subordinates' perception toward being (so called) 'positive'. The authors say this would boost team/work performance.
Week 2, chapter 5 and 10: Chapter 5 talks from a manager's perspective on some key points to do if performance is less than desirable. The chapter spent a great deal on how to phrase your critics and directions to reduce resistance from your subordinates. Chapter 10 talks from a subordinate's perspective, giving tips to subordinate survival (which includes appeasing the boss and checking your peers).
I was neutral about the book at first. I have mixed feelings about the techniques in chapter 2, 4 and 5, treading between being manipulative and being heart-felt and treating your subordinates truthfully. Yet, I can consider those techniques as a summary of what a manager the later type would do.
That was before chapter 10 shows. The contradiction between 'getting your perception right', 'creating "positive" perception (patronizing)', and 'appeasing the boss' are just too big to be a consistent principle.
My opinion: Consistency is the first and utmost rule. If you advertise the importance of getting perceptions closer to the truth, ask the same both ways (acquiring and presenting) and regardless of your positions. If you can not be consistent in the principle you advertise, it is not a worthy (a bit too harsh a word for the purpose) principle to preach.
Other from that, well, you can still pick up some useful tricks from the book, regardless of my critics above. Those are valid points. Just saying if a manager is built from the book, I would not trust and respect him/her at all.
Chapter 7 and 8 are out of discussion for their technicality. So... basically 2 weeks and 4 chapters.
Week 1, chapter 2 and 4: Talking from a manager's perspective, the book tells you the differences between 'truth' and 'perception'. It tells you, as a manager, has to get the 'right perception' about your subordinates, while also telling you to manipulate your subordinates' perception toward being (so called) 'positive'. The authors say this would boost team/work performance.
Week 2, chapter 5 and 10: Chapter 5 talks from a manager's perspective on some key points to do if performance is less than desirable. The chapter spent a great deal on how to phrase your critics and directions to reduce resistance from your subordinates. Chapter 10 talks from a subordinate's perspective, giving tips to subordinate survival (which includes appeasing the boss and checking your peers).
I was neutral about the book at first. I have mixed feelings about the techniques in chapter 2, 4 and 5, treading between being manipulative and being heart-felt and treating your subordinates truthfully. Yet, I can consider those techniques as a summary of what a manager the later type would do.
That was before chapter 10 shows. The contradiction between 'getting your perception right', 'creating "positive" perception (patronizing)', and 'appeasing the boss' are just too big to be a consistent principle.
My opinion: Consistency is the first and utmost rule. If you advertise the importance of getting perceptions closer to the truth, ask the same both ways (acquiring and presenting) and regardless of your positions. If you can not be consistent in the principle you advertise, it is not a worthy (a bit too harsh a word for the purpose) principle to preach.
Other from that, well, you can still pick up some useful tricks from the book, regardless of my critics above. Those are valid points. Just saying if a manager is built from the book, I would not trust and respect him/her at all.
2008年4月30日 星期三
none
A nice thing about reading Critical Communication is that, the book makes me realize the patterns described in the book do occur on me. It is not that I don't know, to some extent, about the pattern. However, reading it in black on white makes it sink deeper.
A short post after reading the first few chapters of the book.
A short post after reading the first few chapters of the book.
Communication != Presentation Technique
Since I have to turn in 2 posts this week, might as well make this one.
I don't usually like these kinds of books. However, I found it enjoyable while reading Critical Communication when it points out aspects of human nature that influence our decision making (in communication, of course). What are said in the book may or may not be 'true'. Digesting the words and making my own judgement about the points given feels nice. What I think of the class on communication is actually about understanding human nature. You can not practice to be a good communicator, just like you can't practice to be smart. What is important is to understand the driving forces behind people actions/reactions in the process of communicating, and be compassionate about it. I think you can safely summarize the book is just a more technical way to tell us how to be more understanding and be willing to put ourselves in others' shoes.
So, that comes to my disagreement with spending the time to criticize other people's presentation technique in every class session. I did not like it when I first heard of it, and after sitting through the first session, I feel more strongly against it. With all due respects, it is my humble opinion that criticizing presenters' choice of colors, themes, way of speaking, etc. is just ridiculous considering our goal of this class is to learn about communication and human nature related in the process. This topic is far beyond the reach of presentation technique (not even consider it 'skill'). I could care less if the presenter uses a little bit longer of phrases, as long as the content is educational or inspiring to me. They can stutter all they want if they are presenting a pioneering research (are you going to criticize Stephen Hawkins?). Waiting for the bus for 10 mins gives me more annoyance than squinting my eyes for a bit smaller font. I would very much like to use my time to digest and think over the content of each chapter of our textbooks.
A single try of this 'judgement' process is enough. Are we going to do that for all 8 sessions of our class? I hope not, even though I will do it still if it is required to pass the class.
I don't usually like these kinds of books. However, I found it enjoyable while reading Critical Communication when it points out aspects of human nature that influence our decision making (in communication, of course). What are said in the book may or may not be 'true'. Digesting the words and making my own judgement about the points given feels nice. What I think of the class on communication is actually about understanding human nature. You can not practice to be a good communicator, just like you can't practice to be smart. What is important is to understand the driving forces behind people actions/reactions in the process of communicating, and be compassionate about it. I think you can safely summarize the book is just a more technical way to tell us how to be more understanding and be willing to put ourselves in others' shoes.
So, that comes to my disagreement with spending the time to criticize other people's presentation technique in every class session. I did not like it when I first heard of it, and after sitting through the first session, I feel more strongly against it. With all due respects, it is my humble opinion that criticizing presenters' choice of colors, themes, way of speaking, etc. is just ridiculous considering our goal of this class is to learn about communication and human nature related in the process. This topic is far beyond the reach of presentation technique (not even consider it 'skill'). I could care less if the presenter uses a little bit longer of phrases, as long as the content is educational or inspiring to me. They can stutter all they want if they are presenting a pioneering research (are you going to criticize Stephen Hawkins?). Waiting for the bus for 10 mins gives me more annoyance than squinting my eyes for a bit smaller font. I would very much like to use my time to digest and think over the content of each chapter of our textbooks.
A single try of this 'judgement' process is enough. Are we going to do that for all 8 sessions of our class? I hope not, even though I will do it still if it is required to pass the class.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)