​With special guest William M. Timpson, Ph.D.
 
Technology enables us to learn and connect with each other in ways I never imagined as I worked toward a degree in the leading edge field of computer science “back in the day”. At that time computers were often used for complex computations, a long distance phone call was expensive, and writing letters was time consuming and provided a very slow Return on Investment. Fast forward to 2017. Almost every day I am taken aback by the wide variety of options we have to communicate instantly with almost everyone we know and even some we don't know. Facebook and other forms of social media enable us to easily keep in touch and share the most exciting (and mundane) aspects of our lives with relatives and friends that are near and far; some we may not have seen face-to-face for decades and some who may live on the other side of the world. Twitter lets us receive seemingly unfiltered messages from so many, including the President of the United States. And a plethora of news channels enable us to filter perspectives so that we can customize our impressions of world events and the attitudes of others. Most of the time I think that this is great and that it enriches our lives and improves our relationships. But sometimes it seems overwhelming, my view of the world and current events becomes skewed and distorted, and/or I am left with a feeling that “everyone” else has a life fueled by a steady stream of euphoria and joy while I’m sitting at home doing laundry … again. That can be a Tech Frustration.
 
Recently, my husband, 21-year-old son, and I watched a video about Millennials in the Workplace. It sparked a great discussion, and let’s just say that the Baby Boomer parents and Millennial son didn’t see eye-to-eye on all of the opinions shared. It was a lively conversation. And it got me thinking about relationships and how they can be enhanced or hurt because of the existence of social media, our attitudes about it, and our determination to use it carefully or treat it casually and/or carelessly. 
 
Through some Restorative Justice volunteer work, I met an interesting and inspirational guy named Dr. William Timpson. Dr. Timpson is a professor in the School of Education at Colorado State University, and he has a fascinating background that includes work in Northern Ireland, South Africa, South Korea, and Burundi. Dr. Timpson and the Restorative Justice program have taught me a lot about listening and conflict resolution. Recently I asked Dr. Timpson how he thinks technology and social media are impacting our ability to strengthen relationships and resolve conflicts. Drawing from his 2002 book, Teaching and Learning Peace (Madison, WI: Atwood), here is some of what he told me.
 
Dr. Timpson: We all know that good communication can be pivotal in defusing a volatile confrontation. It helps lower emotions and defenses so everyone can obtain better understanding and define peaceful resolution alternatives. This information draws on Tom Gordon’s (1974) Teacher Effectiveness Training to describe three sets of skills that provide an effective model for establishing good communication: 1) Deep Listening, 2) Empathetic Expressing, and 3) Consensus.

1. Deep Listening
   
   There are many forms of listening including the “light” listening you do in passing with friends or colleagues. You’ll usually engage in more “professional” listening when questions arise or a discussion unfolds. You might experience some “anxious” listening when you sit down for your annual performance review. Then there is the “ceremonial” listening amidst the pomp of a graduation exercise or the “haphazard” listening when you’re watching TV. There is also “deep” listening, the kind you do to Identify with others. 
   
   Guidelines for this deeper form of listening can help you and others when you are trying to resolve a problem.  The benefits of mastering this skill can last a lifetime. Steven Covey’s (1989) book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People describes some of these skills within a context of business. Tom Gordon’s (1974) Teacher Effectiveness Training program describes the benefits of deep listening in classrooms.
   
   Seek first to understand 
   
   Too often, our own agendas and our need to be heard make it difficult to listen deeply to someone else, to give our undivided attention. Disciplining yourself to put your own needs on hold and attend to someone else can help that person—and you—get to a better understanding about a particular problem, to see more clearly from that person’s perspective.
   
   In a small group section of a first year seminar dedicated to helping students make a successful transition from high school to college, we took quite a bit of time to discuss the experience of one of the students—let’s call her Alexa —and her experience proved to be a wonderful case study that had meaning for everyone in the class.
   
   Alexa was really frustrated by the duplication she saw in her chemistry class, between what was in the text and what was covered in lecture. “I can read,” she told us. “I don’t need to be read to, word for word.” Moreover, her entire chemistry class seemed to be in revolt, with far too many students coming in late, leaving early, talking during lecture, reading the newspaper, etc. Chaos ruled and it was ugly. In Alexa’s mind, students were being really rude, very disrespectful! When she went to her instructor to complain, she first tried to understand why all this was happening.
   
   She learned that the instructor, just out of her own graduate program, was anxious about doing well and eager to follow the advice of a senior faculty mentor who told her to stay “close to the text.” Once Alexa heard that, she understood. Instead of writing her off as incompetent, uncaring or just plain dull, Alexa could see that the instructor was trapped by poor advice and a desire to do well. What Alexa needed in class were examples that would illustrate the text and that would provide concrete and accessible references for various chemical theories and concepts. After hearing Alexa’s concerns and recommendations, the instructor thanked her for coming in to talk (and listen), promised that she would rethink her future lectures, and hoped that Alexa would come back with more feedback in the future.
   
   Help clarify thoughts and feelings 
   
   Once you understand a situation better, you then want to focus on the other person’s thoughts and feelings. You become a kind of sounding board, reflecting back what you hear and what you sense, how the other might feel. Typically, the other person will either confirm that you got it right or correct you. Either way, each of you is sharpening your understanding of the issues and underlying causes.
   
   By mirroring back in this manner, you are also conveying your desire to understand. Intentions matter! One of the greatest gifts you can give anyone is your support, assistance and undivided attention. You do care what that person thinks and feels. With this kind of interactive focus, you’re building trust, as you move toward a deeper understanding. The barriers drop away. Many of us regularly think out loud. Having someone listen carefully, in the way I am describing here, can help any of us clarify our own thoughts and feelings, move past our frustrations and toward some constructive resolution.
   
   On the emotional side, be alert to nonverbal messages and your own intuition about how the other person is feeling, how volatile or charged a particular problem is for that person. Check out your hunches. Alexa might have said to her instructor, “You seem really trapped between what you were told and what we are saying that we need.” Or “If I were in your situation, I would be really frustrated.” The chemistry instructor could have confirmed or corrected Alexa’s guesses and their mutual trust might have deepened.
   
   Minimize questioning 
   
   The problem with questioning is that it comes from you, the listener, and can take the ownership of the process away from the other person. Your questions might help you clarify something, but they may also distract the other person from going deeper, from following his or her self-reflections and insights. The primary goal should always be to help the other person clarify his or her thoughts and feelings. This is a subtle but useful distinction. It’s not an iron-clad principle but a dynamic that we should recognize.
   
   For example, you can use reflective statements instead of questions: “You seem really upset about this.” This may seem like a small point, but when you put it in question form—“Are you upset about this?”--you’ve taken over the direction of the conversation. You’re demanding a response. In contrast, reflections keep the responsibility on the other person to control the process, to clarify and decide how to move on. You want to be a supportive sounding board, not an interrogator.
   
   Keep your own opinions on hold 
   
   Finally, be cautious about “hitchhiking,” jumping into the conversation with your own experiences, opinions, etc. In casual conversations there is this natural dynamic of back and forth, give and take, often rapid and overlapping. But when you want to listen deeply or help someone embroiled in a conflict, disciplining yourself to keep the focus on the other may be the best approach. In the model we are describing here, you begin with two assumptions: first, that the other person knows best the particulars of his or her situation; and second, that it’s best to let that other person decide when to ask for advice or to hear about your experiences. Offering too much too soon can undermine that person’s self-confidence and ability to see through a problem.
   
   ​In the short run, your advice might be very helpful, but it is still your advice. In the long run, you may be a better friend, colleague or instructor by holding back your own ideas until a time when the other person has wrestled with all the issues and now is asking for your help. In the daily scheme of things, few of us function like this, so it may take some real self-discipline and feedback to get there. And time! Give it a try when you get the chance.
   
   The clearness committee 
   
   Another way to approach this process of deep listening comes from Parker Palmer (1998), a former college instructor who writes and consults about teaching, learning, philosophy and spirituality, how to get more than information across, how to address deeper needs of the heart and soul. What he describes here may seem strange, perhaps because it is so different from the ways most of us tend to communicate on a daily basis. Yet, this process bears study; in part, because it has evolved from a faith-based tradition that has always been committed to nonviolence and peace as an article of faith
   
   I have had some experience with a model for this way of being together. It comes from a branch of the Quaker community that for more than three centuries has done without the benefit of clerical leadership. In order to do work that most churches do via ordained leaders—like helping people with the issues in their lives—these Quakers had to invent social structures that would allow members to do such work with and for each other (151).
   
   Here’s how the clearness committee model can work. When a member is struggling and seeking help, four or five others are invited in to support. First, however, the member or “focus person" must do some writing or journaling about the problem. The writing should include a clear statement about the issue or conflict, the essence of the struggle; then, something about its importance in the context of that person’s life, experiences and background; and finally, some thoughts about the future, how this problem threatens to play out and what that means to him or her.
   
   The group then meets for two to three hours, sitting in a circle and giving its undivided attention to the person in need. No “rushing in to give comfort.” No sharing of experiences that might be distracting. For clearness committee members this means acting as if they “had no other purpose on earth than to care for this human being.” Committee members are “forbidden to speak to the focus person in any way except to ask that person an honest, open question.”  Time slows down during this kind of meeting. It’s not a “cross-examination.”  The focus person can pass on a particular question. Everyone allows enough time and silence to elapse so that the process is “respectful and gentle.”
   
   The ground rules are simple for committee members. They keep their own advice on hold. They do not “over-identify” and take responsibility away from the focus person; e.g., “Oh, that happened to me and I…” They refrain from offering suggestions, books or activities for example. Instead, they ask honest, open questions which can help the focus person “discover wisdom within.” As Palmer reminds us:
   
   As the process unfolds, we are reminded of a simple truth: because we cannot get inside another person’s soul, we cannot possibly know the answer to another person’s problem. Indeed, we cannot even know what exactly the problem is. I am often reminded of this fact when I serve as a member of a clearness committee. Ten minutes into the proceedings, I feel certain that I know what is wrong with the focus person and how to fix it. But after two hours of attentive listening, I am appalled at my earlier arrogance. I see now that I did not understand--and even if I did, my abstract concept of the problem is meaningless until understanding arises within the person whose problem it is (154).
   
   ​
2. Empathetic Expressing
   
   Empathetic expressing is the second set of skills that Gordon identifies in Teacher Effectiveness Training. These skills also played a part in the case of Alexa and her chemistry instructor. From Alexa’s perspective, the chemistry class bordered on a waste of time; her frustration was rising. I encouraged Alexa and others to approach their instructor with some forethought, (1) to understand the problem from the instructor’s point of view, (2) to offer a clear analysis based on their own experiences and then (3) to make a clear and responsible request. This model of “empathetic expressing” offers some structure for discussing difficult issues or conflicts with someone else. It builds on mutual understanding, empathy and trust as a foundation for effective communication.
   
   When her chemistry class met again, Alexa walked up after class and repeated what she had practiced in our small group discussion section, “Hi. You know, a lot of us are struggling in this class and some examples would really help. I like it when you explain what’s in the book. I read the material outside of class but I need help with understanding it.” The teacher smiled and said, “Sure. I can try to do that.” In subsequent classes, Alexa reported that she could see some improvements. So she went up again and told this teacher how she appreciated the effort, that it was making a difference. What a mood shift for Alexa. From being just another whiner, she took some initiative, identified her needs and frustrations, expressed some empathy and offered a solution. Her whole attitude about this class changed as well. Not that everything turned around immediately, but she did move off the negative and toward a positive, constructive and assertive approach to the problem she was having. Empathy helped her make this shift and build a better communication bridge with her instructor.
   
   Description of the problem 
   
   Empathic expressing begins with a clear description of the problem. Alexa was bored with a mere repetition of what was in the text. She usually was up-to-date for class with her readings. She needed explanations, concrete examples to make sense of the theories, concepts and principles but didn’t know how she could get the help she needed in such a large lecture class. Although it took some time in our own class and with the collective help of her classmates, we did finally get through her frustrations and identify the problem affecting her learning.
   
   I-message 
   
   The next step was to practice with language that would keep the ownership of the issue with Alexa and her experience. Instead of leading with criticism--“You know, the way you teach is boring”--we shifted to a statement of feelings: “When you just review what is in the book, I get really frustrated….” or “...I feel bored.” No one can argue with Alexa’s experience and feelings here. It’s not as if there is some objective point beyond which a class automatically becomes boring for every student. An “I-message” is more honest and personal; you have to own your own feelings, but you also understand that no one can take those feelings away or judge them as “wrong.”
   
   A reason why 
   
   The next step is to give a reason for your feelings, an explanation. The immature child will pout, “I’m bored” but have no explanation of why or idea about a solution. “Fix it, mom” or “Entertain me, dad” is the underlying message. For Alexa, giving a reason meant saying, “When you just lecture from the text, I do get bored and frustrated because I read the material already. However, I do have questions and I need some help.”
   
   Express empathy 
   
   The next step for Alexa was to show some empathy for what her instructor might be feeling. We discussed a number of possibilities. Because this was a young teacher, we thought about using the following response: “I know you must be nervous and want to stay close to the assigned readings. I know this is your very first teaching assignment.” The instructor was right out of graduate school and wanted to do well as a stepping stone to a permanent position somewhere else. She was commuting sixty plus miles each way and was largely cut off from other faculty. Moreover, she had been advised by the course coordinator to “stay close to the text.” Alexa’s attempt at empathy was right on target—the instructor was anxious—and, in return, Alexa got a better understanding about why. This instructor was a real person with real feelings.
   
   Identify a positive 
   
   Important in communication about a problem is to hold out the expectation that a solution is possible. In this case Alexa said the following: “I know the lectures can work better for me. When you gave examples or stopped to answer questions, it made a real difference. It helped me get the idea better.” Here, Alexa was providing a concrete example (herself) of something that helped.
   
   Make a clear request 
   
   Instead of simply asking this instructor to “do better,” instead of just leaving it up to her to figure out a solution, Alexa offered the following. “I would like you to add more examples in your lectures. These help a lot. I’d also like you to stop and ask for questions more often. And I’ll try to see you after class or during office hours if there is something I am still confused about.” Although it took some time to work through these steps and although the very idea of approaching an instructor in a big lecture class to say all this seemed frightening at first, taking this kind of initiative made a big difference for Alexa. She learned some important lessons about advocating for herself in a responsible and effective manner.
   
   ​
3. Consensus 
   
   Consensus is the third set of skills that Gordon identifies as critical in Teacher Effectiveness Training. An example from the world of peacemaking may help. In Savage Dreams, Rebecca Solnit (1994) traces the interconnections between the history of nuclear weapons testing and the environmental movement. She and her brother were both activists and she describes her experiences with consensus this way.
   
   [My] little brother is an anarchist, and a key organizer for the antinuclear movement, and though he was initially an anarchist in the sense that innumerable punks were in the eighties, he has read his Bakunin and Kropotkin and is now very seriously an anarchist. Anarchy, I should explain, means not the lack of order but of hierarchy, a direct and absolute democracy. Voting democracy, as anarchists point out, simply allows a majority to impose its will on a minority and is not necessarily participatory or direct. They themselves continue the process of negotiation until all participants achieve consensus, until everyone—not merely a majority—has arrived at a viable decision. Anarchy proper usually works out to mean excruciatingly interminable meetings, rather than the mayhem the word evokes in most American imaginations....I have never found the patience and tolerance necessary to work with group consensus for extended periods (12-14).
   
   Finding consensus within any group can have significant payoffs although there are associated costs of time and effort. Whether you yourself are working on a big collaborative project or participating on a committee, whether students are trying to get a study group organized or just finding common ground with a roommate, having some guidelines for navigating this kind of interpersonal terrain can help. When everyone can agree, you can get more commitment for the decisions you make. You can also get better decisions when everyone’s voice is heard and a variety of perspectives surface. You can even get more creative decisions. Admittedly, diverse viewpoints, experiences and personalities can make for a degree of tension in any process, especially if everyone is in a hurry. Consensus invariably takes more time, but there are important benefits. Here is a listing of recommended guidelines you could use in any number of situations.
   
   Define the problem 
   
   If students are meeting to form a study group, for instance, it can be useful if they begin by focusing on course requirements and what they’ll need to do—when and where to meet and for how long, what to bring and how responsibilities might be best shared. Looking over past exams can give them some additional clues.
   
   Brainstorm 
   
   It’s important to understand the benefits of brainstorming, particularly that by reserving judgment at this point in the process you can get a lot of different ideas out for discussion. Sometimes the better and more creative ideas only surface after students have worked through the more obvious ones. The key here is to generate ideas, as many as possible, without stopping to evaluate. No matter how strange these ideas may sound, students can help promote consensus by getting them all out and on their list before they start to eliminate any.
   
   For example, Chuck was another student in our first year seminar. He organized a study group for his toughest class, chemistry. Together, members of the group looked over sample test questions and realized that they really did understand the material. Instead of reserving some time each week to review their notes, they decided to meet the day before the exam for a couple of hours. In that way they would be psyched, focused and efficient. And it worked, at least for the first exam. Taking the time to think through their needs and honestly assess their motivations produced a plan that worked. They were also able to avoid some needless meetings and wasted time. There are times when peacemaking can be proactive, when conflicts are avoided through effective planning and organization.
   
   Identify consequences 
   
   This stage helps you go a bit further and think about the implications of your various choices. For Chuck and his group there was a bit of a gamble as to whether the night before would be enough. However, they did believe that scheduling study time earlier would only generate frustrations and undermine their motivation. When you aim for consensus, you take a little more time to think things through instead of impulsively latching on to whatever everyone else is doing or whatever the conventional wisdom is.
   
   Decide 
   
   At this stage groups need to make a decision. One guideline many find useful is to keep any agreements tentative, like a trial run. In that way, students can assess their success early on without being so locked in that change becomes impossible. To get some movement toward consensus, they can think of a decision as an experiment. People can often agree to that.
   
   Reevaluate and modify if necessary 
   
   When Chuck and his study group got their results from the second exam—and they didn’t do as well compared to the first exam—they rethought their plans and decided that they would need to meet earlier and more frequently for the third exam, that perhaps they had gotten a bit lucky on the first exam or had been over-confident and then slacked off too much in their note-taking and engagement in class. At any rate, they channeled their disappointment with their second exam results into a revised plan for their study time together.
   
   Additional thoughts on group consensus 
   
   It can also be helpful if everyone in a group understands and agrees to these guidelines. In this way, they can get real ownership in the process and their group’s decision. Having group members take on various roles can also help. Someone could be the recorder, for example, another the task master, another the time keeper, another the synthesizer or summarizer. The moderator’s role is the peacemaker for a group, attentive to feelings and alert to resolving any conflicts that arise. On the other hand, groups can also have everyone conscious of each of these roles and let the responsibilities for their functioning be more fluid.
   
   

​Dr. Timpson concludes: There can be no doubt that deep listening, empathetic expressing, and consensus-making provide a useful model for establishing good communications. They also establish the kind of communication skills that underlie effective efforts in peacemaking. To keep those skills in good working order, we also have to be able to understand and manage our emotions.
 
References 
Covey, S. (1989) The seven habits of highly effective people, New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Gordon, T. (1974) Teacher effectiveness training. New York, NY: Peter H. Whyden.
Solnit, R. (1994) Savage dreams: A journey into the landscape wars of the American West. New York, NY: Vintage.
Timpson, W. (2002) Teaching and Learning Peace, Madison, WI: Atwood.


​Subscribe or unsubscribe to this blog.

Recently a couple of people mentioned that conversationally I like to “throw things out there” and/or “mix it up”. The comments surprised me because I often feel like I’m holding back by raising “hot button” current event topics very selectively and only within small circles of close friends or trusted relatives. Given the gravity of many current events, I feel a desperate need to understand what others think, especially when they have a different perspective. I want to discuss and debate the issues, consider various perspectives, and test my ideas within a safe space where people understand my intentions.
 
Occasionally people will say things like "Why talk about this? None of us are going to change our minds.” But I beg to differ. I change my mind all of the time. If you take the time to educate yourself and/or engage in meaningful discussions with smart people, how can you not change your mind? If you’re not changing your mind about important issues, are you fully informed? Are you listening? Are you thinking?
 
Having raised two kids under pretty similar conditions, I’ve concluded that some people are wired to enjoy discussing controversial issues and others aren’t. Some prefer tackling issues in solitude, and others seem to avoid thinking about them at all. I get that each of us has different strengths and interests, and I suppose it's why we’re likely to find a caretaker around when we’re sick, a protector around when we’re scared, and a party planner around when it's time to celebrate. (i.e. If we're lucky.) Each of us plays a different role as we strive to hold our society together. 
 
One of the great things about social media is that it can illuminate issues and perspectives we might not encounter otherwise. Conversely, it can also wall you off from certain perspectives. If a friend posts an article, I know that issue is very important to them, and I try to read and acknowledge it. This is a great use of technology (IMHO), but one Tech Frustration that arises is that sometimes, even though I’m troubled and concerned, I literally don’t know how to help. I want to help, I’m just not sure what I can or should be doing to make things better. Thanks to technology, those of you who care so much about these issues can give me some suggestions. 
 
When it comes to the scary and hateful political rhetoric, I think we can all help to be sure that reasonable debates remain productive by striving to keep them fact-based and respectful. De-escalation is usually more productive that escalation. But there are other issues that concern me, and I am literally feeling stuck. As my friends figuratively scream about their concerns, I am listening and thinking, but the answers to these problems aren't clear to me. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that I'm just not sure what I can do to help. You have my attention, but not my involvement. I need more guidance. Below is a list of issues that concern me, but I'm unsure about what I could be doing to help resolve them in a meaningful way.  

• Reducing gun (and other) violence
• Reducing racial injustice
• Reducing the use of religion to inflict pain on others

Ideally I'd like to help eliminate the need to work on these issues completely, but in the meantime, I want to invest some time and energy to at least help to reduce their severity. If you have ideas about how I can help, please pass them along in a comment or private email message. 

​Thank you!


​Subscribe or unsubscribe to this blog.

This is not a political post, although some stories have been pulled from the political spotlight. You won’t read anything controversial below, and you may learn new ways to show your friends that you respect and appreciate them.
 
Apparently the Obama daughters attended a state dinner last year. While I’ve heard a lot of criticism of President Obama (and even his wife) over the last eight years, none of it, and I mean none of it, has been focused on their parenting skills. Either they are exemplary parents, or the people I know don't feel comfortable throwing rocks at other parents right now. Maybe it’s a little bit of both. In one article Michelle talks about her girls and explains that she and her husband “tried to normalize their lives as much as possible” while they were living in the White House. I’m guessing that she didn’t think that their attendance at a lot of State Dinners would support that objective. But apparently she did want them to have that experience … once and at the right time. Hold this thought. (Or, speaking of presidential daughters, take a break and watch this 2 min video which is just fun and funny.)
 
While the Obamas were raising their daughters in the White House, and even before that, Donald Trump was making it clear that he likes to negotiate. I do too! My husband and kids know that my favorite negotiations result in win-win-win outcomes even though I simply promote myself as a “win-win negotiator” on LinkedIn. Few things are as rewarding as getting exactly what I want while making sure that other people get exactly what they want (or more) at the same time. Constructing mutually beneficial outcomes is a challenge I enjoy and my desire to achieve win-win outcomes is why I prefer to attend a “show” over a “big game” and why I volunteer with a Restorative Justice program instead of the Special Olympics.  All are interesting and worthwhile activities, I just seek out and appreciate win-win opportunities the most.
 
These stories provide an introduction to two of my favorite Facebook features; 1) Who should see this? and 2) Edit or delete this.  I use both features most days because they make it super easy to precisely control who sees things I share via Facebook, and they let me correct and/or improve my comments if I find errors or improvement opportunities after they're posted.  
 
You may find these features valuable if A) You respect your friends’ and family’s time, B) You value the way you are perceived by other people, and/or C) You want to share your ideas in a way that will be respected by others and may even cause them to see something from a different point of view.   
 
Respect Your Friends
If you think you see everything I post on Facebook, you’re wrong … and lucky :) My mom knows that I recently made her famous Hungarian Mushroom Soup for the first time, but I figured few others would want to hear about it. People who responded to my question about future political posts know what I think about the recent elections, but apparently a number of my close relatives, not to mention good friends, were very happy to be spared the experience of reading my political musings. The Facebook Who should see this? feature makes respecting people's time and interests very easy.
 
Manage Your Brand
The best collection of career advice I received came from Patty Azzarello who reminds us, “You have a Personal Brand right now whether you know it or not.” She offers lots of good advice to help you ensure that you are perceived the way you want to be perceived. The Facebook Who should see this? feature gives you a lot of control over how you are perceived. And frankly, I wish that some people would use it more often. (Because unfortunately, some things can never be unseen.)
 
Open People’s Eyes
If you start a conversation with an insult, it’s likely that your friend won't hear anything else you say. It’s even less likely that they’ll respect what you say or that you’ll be able to influence them to see something from a different perspective. If you want to change someone’s mind, you may want to start the conversation in a way that will create, not destroy, trust. This means that you need to customize your messages based on the recipient(s). The Facebook Who should see this? feature will help you do this too.
 
Since many seem unaware of the Who should see this? and Edit or delete this features, let me show them to you.

This post opened with the story about the Obamas because it's a great example of people sharing information, or in that case an experience, with others (i.e. their daughters) at the right time ... for the daughters. Donald Trump and I have learned that when you are negotiating with an audience, especially when you strive for win-win or win-win-win outcomes, you need to start by establishing a level of trust ... with the audience.

When you take the time to use the Facebook Who should see this? and Edit or delete this features to share the right message with the right people at the right time you respect your friends, reinforce your image as a careful and considerate communicator, create and maintain trust, and you may even enable people see things in a new way. 

R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Now you know what it means to me.

P.S. If you think this article is about you, you may be right, but only a little. Mostly ... it's not you, it's me. This post was inspired by many of my own experiences as well as observations gathered from too much time on Facebook. It's a jungle out there, and I'm simply striving to help you avoid a few Tech Frustrations ... and maybe a few personal frustrations too.

Last week I was back in Michigan and able to watch the Presidential Debate with my parents. At one point, as one of the candidates was clearly speaking beyond his or her allotted time, my mom asked something like, “Couldn't they shut off their microphones at some point?”  I’d had the very same thought. Then during the Vice Presidential Debate earlier this week, the moderator, Elaine Quijano, reminded Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, "Gentlemen, the people at home cannot understand either one of you when you speak over each other.” Thank you, Elaine.
 
Debate frustration continued as I listened to the On Point radio program yesterday. During a segment called Pot on the Ballot in 2016, two of the guests (from Colorado) started intensely arguing and speaking over each other (at ~37:00 min). That kind of exchange is pretty unusual for this usually intellectual, thoughtful, and respectful program. I wanted to hear what both guests were saying, but either the host, Tom Ashbrook, stopped their argument or time ran out. I forget how it ended. But I found myself wanting more info, lamenting the wasted time, and wondering about the truth. One of the guests had asserted a passionate position and then the other guest interrupted him to point out a clear bias in his position which the other guy vehemently denied. You know the routine. The words get louder and faster, but can’t be understood. I was left wondering about the truth and wondering how we could get better, higher quality info from people during conversations and debates like these.  That’s when I came up with one of my “great ideas”.
 
What if, during political debates, each candidate was allotted a set number of minutes they could speak during the entire event? Maybe they’d each get to speak for something like 40 minutes out of the 90 minute debate. If they interrupt, those minutes would be deducted from their remaining time and added to their opponent’s remaining time. Once all of their time was used, their microphone would be shut off.  If they had time left over at the end, they could use it for closing remarks. I think this would result in a lot less interrupting and it would enable us, at the very least, to evaluate their time management and maybe even communication skills.
 
Using these updated rules, the candidates would need to pace themselves more and interrupt less. I’d like to think that during the recent VP debate Tim Kaine would have interrupted less and Mike Pence would have spent less time trying to run down the clock with meaningless commentary. The technology needed to implement this plan either exists right now or would be very easy to implement. 

We should use more Technology to eliminate at least some of our Political Frustrations. What do you think? Do you like the idea? Do you have more ideas? Let me know. Maybe we can start a movement.
​

Has technology ever frustrated you?  If so, tell us about it on the Tech Frustrations web site.

Subscribe or unsubscribe to this blog.