Greg McKeown believes that if we
want to have good relationships with our colleagues on the job we should develop filters to protect
us from each other. We should learn how to protect ourselves from rude and
caustic criticism and we should protect others from our own rude and caustic criticism.
It sounds like good advice. Yet,
McKeown should have added that we would all get along better if we knew
how to save face.
Keep in mind, the face you save is
never just your own.
Of course, saving face means
maintaining your dignity by keeping a stiff upper lip when you are feeling anguished
or in despair. But it also means respecting the face of others, showing consideration
for their feelings and their self-respect.
McKeown is right to frame the
issue in terms of protection, because when you are talking with someone else
you must first protect his face. If you hurt his feelings, you need to
apologize quickly. If he exposes too much of himself you must help him to cover
up.
A culture that tells you to be
straightforward and direct, to be open and honest, to get things off your chest
and to blurt out what is on your mind… saves no one’s face. If you are rude,
insulting and demeaning to others you are compromising your own dignity by
attacking someone else’s.
McKeown offers some fine examples
of how people act toward each other when they have no face.
He writes:
I once
worked with a manager who gave blunt feedback in perpetuity: “You’re not a
grateful person!” and “You’re just not a great writer!” and “Well, that was
dumb!” My response, at first, was to listen as if everything she said was true.
On the outside, I became defensive — but on the inside, I returned home
emotionally beaten up.
To deal with the emotional fallout from such assaults, one
does best to consider, as McKeown said, the source. One does well to ignore the
comments of people who do not respect you. One does better to find a better
boss.
For having absorbed the attacks of an abusive boss, McKeown
managed to pick up the habit himself. Without knowing it.
He explains:
On the
other hand, I once worked with a leader with whom I felt I could be completely
open. One day she said to me, “I value what you have to say, but sometimes it
feels like I’ve been punched in the solar plexus when we talk.”
Astonishingly, McKeown was unaware of his own rudeness. It felt right; it seemed to echo what he had been hearing; it must
have been culturally acceptable speech.
If his interlocutor was signaling, with her facial
expressions, her distress at hearing his words, he was oblivious. One might say
that he lacked empathy or sympathy, but feeling her feelings would not, in
itself have told him what to do about it. Empathy is not a moral principle.
Saving face begins with respecting the feelings of others. In
conversation you read the facial expressions of your interlocutor. You mimic
those expressions to learn what the person is feeling. In truth, you need to know the feeling more than you need to feel it. Can you know it without having something of an emotional intimation? Possibly, you can, but sensing the feeling does not, in tell you what to do about it.
One might call this a capacity for empathy. Surely, those
who tout the virtue of empathy would say so. And yet, feeling someone else’s
anguish is not a moral principle. It does not tell you what you should do in
order to attenuate that anguish. Empathy does not tell you whether you should
try to diminish the anguish or to take advantage of it.
You certainly want to know if your competitor is weakening,
but you do not want to feel the feeling. The more you feel his
feelings the more you will start acting as he does. That is, acting defeated.
If you are playing chess you want to size up your opponent.
You want to know who he is, what his tactics are likely to be, how well he
reacts to this or that move. You might even try to read his emotion through his
facial expression.
Yet, nothing guarantees that you have read them correctly. The
state of play on the board, combined with the possible moves and countermoves
provides a context in which you can interpret the emotion you are sensing in
your opponent. The fact that he feels confident in his moves and
displays his confidence in his expression does not mean that the game is going
his way. It might mean that he is oblivious to what is really going on.
If he looks like he is worried about the course of the game
that might mean that he knows he is losing, but it might also mean that he has
not yet seen the move that will spell your defeat. Surely, good competitors will try to trick their opponents into feeling the wrong feeling.
Feeling someone’s feeling might be a part of the knowledge
you need in order compete effectively, but it is not decisive.
2 comments:
Very nice.
The "vulnerable" quadrant seems the easiest to fall into, maybe the default introvert's state, maybe Minnesota Nice, depending on sincere and kind input from others, but eventually get blindsided when our passive aggressive communication styles fails us!
I am reminded of Marshall Rosenberg's quote to help not take things personally:
http://en.nvcwiki.com/index.php/Quotes
"I'm going to show you a technology today which takes insults and criticisms out of the airwaves. With this technology, it will be impossible for you to hear criticisms, harsh remarks, or insults. All you can hear is what all people are ever saying, 'please' and 'thank you'. What used to sound like criticism, judgment, or blame, you will see, are really tragic, suicidal expressions of 'please'." -- Marshall Rosenberg, The Basics of Nonviolent Communication
"nice" soft criticism doesn't cause anyone to change behavior ... without rude and caustic criticism we'd be a bunch of average performers ... steel is not forged from love taps ...
Post a Comment