For Their Own Good: No, it probably isn't -- for many reasons

     I am a voracious reader (my wife even moreso) and often get SF/Fantasy books before they become well known. One of things I got was a copy of “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” back before most people had even heard of him. As people who enjoy the series knows, Harry is courageous, loyal, honorable, and a number of other great, positive, attributes. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have weak aspects of his character. This makes him more human as well as providing gist for the author to write more about what he must overcome.

     Since the scene happens very early in the book, I don’t consider this much of a spoiler. Within the second book in the series, “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”, a house elf named Dobby pops into Harry’s bedroom and TELLS (doesn’t ask, doesn’t inform, doesn’t reason) Harry that he must not return to Hogwarts. In spite of Harry’s efforts to quiet him or stop him from making his Aunt and Uncle angry, Dobby pays no attention to Harry. He has stopped him from getting letters from friends and now he is telling him what to do (or what not to do). Various methods continue to be used (sometimes explicitly but, more often, just inexplicable disastrous events) throughout the book that try to get Harry away from Hogwarts.

     Towards the end, in response to a query from Dobby about how Dobby can repay him, Harry asks Dobby to promise him to “never try to save my life again”. Dobby’s efforts — though with the best of motives to help and protect Harry — have been among the greatest obstacles Harry has had to face. And this reflects actions that happen in real life to us all.

This is for your own good

     I suspect that most of us have been told this at some time or another. Possibly from a parent, possibly from a friend or acquaintance. At best, it is a bad way to phrase a situation. At worst, it is a statement of control. It may be from a desire to protect based out of personal experience. It may be based on a sense of responsibility (especially as a parent). But the person does NOT know “it is for your own good”. It may be the worst possible thing. It may be avoiding a life lesson that would have been useful for the rest of the person’s life. It probably isn’t meant to be bad advice — but it certainly says “hey, there are a lot of useful things that should be talked about and we aren’t talking about them”.

     As seen from the scenes in the Harry Potter book, sometimes the desire to protect can cause greater danger than the event being protected from.

I know what you want

     This one is also something that most of us have heard at some point. They have declared that they have the power to read your mind. It would be good if they headed off to a carnival to set up a fortune teller’s booth — an appropriate use of their skills. Sometimes this is not stated up front at the beginning. Instead, they give you a watermelon flavored popsicle and say “I knew this would be what you would have chosen” — while you really dislike watermelon- flavored things.

     This situation is a call for communication. But it is also an indication that communication has not been good in the past. Sometimes it is a result of “politeness” such that you have been taught to appreciate anything given and not complain about it. It is a good way to have a house filled with specialized objects, that you don’t even like, as one person who has given you something tells others and they assume that you liked it since you didn’t say otherwise.

     This is also an opportunity for practice of assertiveness. “Thank you for your thinking of me but watermelon is not my favorite flavor”. Polite but, if they are listening to you at all, they now know that you don’t like watermelon flavored popsicles. “No, I don’t want that.” Sometimes they will then insist that you DO want that. They have no desire to listen. How you respond to that is very dependent on many things. The safest is to not respond, allow things to proceed, and minimize interactions (if possible) with the other person.

     Note that telling them, and their forgetting, can be irritating but not necessarily done on purpose.

I know what you need

     This is an additional step of control. They are not only telling you that they have read your mind but they also have possession of a crystal ball that will tell them the future.

     All of these behaviors can be lumped under the phrase “presumptuous control”. We have all encountered such (unless VERY lucky). Sometimes the control word is in command and we cannot do anything about it. At other times, via communication and assertion, we can use the situation to improve the relationship.

Under what circumstances have you been the target of, or have initiated, such statements?

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Communication: common definitions are required

     It seems to have accelerated over the past ten years but there have always been many obstacles to communication. Emotions often stop us from communicating clearly. Some people are shy and have difficulty speaking up and drawing attention to themself. Some stutter, have trouble hearing, or have other physical impediments. But all of these are problems with initiating communication. Once we have started talking, or signing, or using drum signals, or whatever we still have the situation where we want to exchange information with other people, or another person.

     In order to exchange information, we present the information. This can take various forms. It can be via sound — words with individual phonemes. It can be via signals — morse code via electrical wire, light beacons from mountaintop to mountaintop. drum rhythms and codes, finger movements either via touch or sight, and so forth.

The information must then move from the generating location to the receiving location. A light signal cannot succeed if something is in between the generator and the receiver. An electrical signal cannot work if there is no power. A vocal shout may not be heard clearly if the background noise includes a large crowd or a nearby thunderstorm.

     The next step is reception. Someone who is deaf cannot hear an audible signal, or voice, no matter how loud it is shouted (but they may be able to read lips in a possible scenario). An electrical signal only works if the other end has something to decode it.

     We now get to the center of this newsletter. There is a very large difference between hearing something, listening to something, and understanding something. The first is associated with the transmission, as talked about above. But the second is a matter of attention. My ears may hear the noises of speech but if I am thinking about next week’s menu and grocery list, I may not note anything of what has been said. If my eyes are turned a different direction from a light beacon then, not seeing it, I cannot possibly extract meaning from the signal.

     We have seen how many steps are needed to get a message from one person to another such that they are now ready to understand, and use, the information. The final hurdle may be hard to believe because — surely — if they have received, and listened to, the message they must know.

     Even if both are speaking the same language, the receiver is placed into a position of needing to decode the information — even if it appears that you are both speaking the same language. The more aspects that are the same between you, the better chance you will be understood but words are understood based upon familiarity with the language, the histories of the speaker and the receiver, and the general environment and background of how they use the word. If it is not the same for the speaker as it is for the receiver, it can appear that they are communicating when, in fact, no information is being passed along.

     Words have definitions. Almost no one uses the same precise meaning as in the dictionary. Someone who is as detail-oriented as I am may have a better chance of using words in the same manner as officially detailed but that does not give me a much better chance of being understood by another who uses a completely different definition. Some words that are currently being used in speech that no longer have universally agreed upon meanings appear to be:

• conservative

• liberal

• progressive

• radical

• socialism

• pro-life

• pro-choice

• fascism

• totalitarianism/authoritarianism

• woke

• democracy

• liberty

• freedom

     If I talk with someone who declares themselves to be liberal, I do not know what that means to them. Thus, I cannot have a discussion about liberalism. The same thing holds for conservative. Certainly, the working definition of conservative is completely different from that of someone calling themselves conservative in 1970. People can, and do, use the word socialism as an insult without having the slightest idea as to what socialism is or how it relates to modern society.

     Society within the U.S. is quite divisive right now — and some segments of the political community want it to remain divisive (or to be even more divisive). They succeed as they eliminate common definitions of words — eliminating the possibility of discussion of various topics. The only method of progress, in my opinion, is to back away from the words which are supposed to indicate types of actions or thoughts and use those words that have, as of yet, escaped the scrambling of definitions. Instead of liberal, one can use those components of being liberal such as support of unions, support of people pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, support of equality of access to resources and the opportunity to improve their situation, and so forth. Instead of democracy, one can talk about the ability for all legally qualified voters to submit their input, the need for creating common solutions that all can live with, and the willingness to abide by the laws as determined within those democratic procedures.

     Of course, as a writer and a person who loves words, I would prefer that we reclaim the definitions of words and use them as defined. But, even when one earnestly attempts to keep in mind the definitions within accepted dictionaries, words will always have different nuances based upon personal history and environment.

     Communication only takes place when the ideas, and thoughts, are mutually understood. Not easy in the best of times — and these do not appear to be the best of times.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Porch Talk: Part of the Community

 

     Do people remember old-style social media? People gathered around particular spots. These included the water cooler at work as well as the beauty shop, barber shop, local hardware store, and most powerful of all -- the front porch. (This was the front stoop for apartment buildings.)

     Why was the front porch so important? Sitting on your front porch was the same as putting up a shingle saying "open for conversation". Anyone of the neighborhood might walk by and come up and talk. It might be about  a sports game or the recipe for a favorite pie. The topics were not important. The contact was. Small children might come up and sit around listening to the "old folk" talk. Most wasn't worth listening to -- some might be vital for a person starting to grow up.

     So, what happened? A primary reason was the strong encouragement, by for-profit advertisement-supported media, of paranoia and distrust of neighbors and the community -- local, national, and global. Yes, bad things happened in past years and happen now. But the extreme focus, that keeps the media selling advertising, totally eliminates perspective. One instance of evil in a population of 333 MILLION can change the behaviors of a nation.

     I remember when one group of razor blades was found in the fresh apples given out for Halloween in one community. Luckily, no one was hurt but it changed Halloween forever. My grandmother no longer could get children to accept her homemade donuts. My aunt's popcorn balls were left in the bowl. Only the candy manufacturers benefited -- as everyone insisted on getting unhealthy, factory sealed, candy and merchandise. For quite a few years, police departments would x-ray the contents of trick-or-treat bags. Was anything bad every found? Not that I ever heard of -- though that doesn't mean it never did.

     And, as the behavior of the community changes, the market changes to accommodate. People stopped getting to know the neighbors. Walking in a neighborhood is likely to arouse the suspicions of the police and neighborhood watches. Walking when one does not fit into the cultural, ethnic, or racial composition of the neighborhood can be downright dangerous.

     If walking in the neighborhood is suspicious and few people do it then what reason is there for cities to require sidewalks? If no one stops by at other people's houses then why go out onto your front porch in the first place? Why even build front porches -- or front stoops for apartment buildings -- added cost for no benefit?

     Some people say "ah it was better in the old days". Well, memory is malleable,  There were things that were worse, some things -- like the front porch -- were better. Some things were better for certain groups of people and worse for other groups of people. Opposing the purpose of the front porch, laws prevented some groups of people from interacting with other groups of people. Food was of better quality but more people died of infections and diseases. It is not a good idea to over-generalize.

     Is there any way to recover the good of prior times but not go back to the bad aspects (and, hopefully, continue to make those areas better)? I believe so. I hope so. I pray so.

     But I don't have any answers. And don't believe ANY politician who says they have easy answers or have some group to blame for all problems. Somehow, we need to resurrect perspective. Somehow, we need to learn about our neighbors again -- including the important lesson that we are ALL neighbors as we expand the size of the community. Children need to be taught to stay safe and the caution of "stranger danger" without choosing a path where everyone they encounter forever STAYS a stranger.

     Answers? I don't have them. But awareness of the problems, I believe, is a start.

Questions & Answers: Don't ask if you don't want them to tell

 

     "How are you?" "What's up?" "Howzzit going?" These aren't really questions even though they may be written with question marks at the end of the phrase. They are social interjections. There may be a response but it will probably be a standard response for the person and should not be relied upon. (As someone likely on the autism spectrum, this aspect of social dynamics was difficult for me to understand.) This does vary a bit. The more you know someone and the closer the relationship, the more likely they will take it seriously as a question and, as such, leads into the heart of this blog.

     When you seriously ask a question, then you should expect an answer. But you should not have determined what the answer "should" be before you have even asked the question. You get their attention, ask the question, and wait for the response. You should not do a "hit and run" to ask a question and then be half-way down the corridor before they start to response. Communication involves listening and this applies to both the person posing the question as well as to the person hearing the question. You cannot be listening if you are already heading off to your next item of the day.

     So, you've asked a real question (it may still be "how are you?" -- but you really want to know). You have stopped, or paused, and wait for the answer. Do you have "that's good" on your tongue before they have responded? If you have already decided on your response then, once again, you are not listening. "How are you?" "My dog died yesterday and I am really sad about it." "That's good."  Nope, you don't want to do that.

     You've now gotten to the point of asking the question, waiting for the answer, and not creating a specific response. What comes next? The answer. You may have a specific expectation for an answer, a general expectation of an answer, or it may be open-ended with nothing particular in mind. "Is the project proceeding as scheduled?" (expecting a "yes") "How is the new equipment working for the team?" (expecting a generally positive answer but with potentially some caveats) "Do you have any plans for the weekend?" (yes, I'm going skydiving on Saturday and Sunday the whole family is going to a church picnic)

     What happens if the answer does NOT fall into the range of your expectations? "Is the project proceeding as scheduled?" (No, it looks like we won't meet the current goal and the long-term deadline will need to be pushed back) "How is the new equipment working for the team?" (No one has been able to get it to work and the only people who are getting anything done are the ones who held onto the old equipment when they came to take it away) "Did you have a good day at school today?" (No, I decided it would be much more fun to go fishing, so Fred and I took off and went fishing by the dam)

     How do you respond to an unexpected answer? The worst way to respond is by demonstrating that you weren't listening. "My dog died." (that's nice) While a highly positive response is good for unexpected good news ("my daughter just got a full scholarship for Kansas State University.") explosive anger to bad, or unexpected, news does not serve any positive purpose. Explosive anger can only lead to the situation where people no longer feeling free to communicate bad news to you (shot that messenger one too many times)

     If you ask a question from which you expect an answer then wait, listen, consider, and respond appropriately and constructively.

Daily Encounters: Remote/Hybrid thought work and the water cooler

 

     One of the things that gets mentioned a lot as the downside of people working remote, or hybrid, is how do people get to connect, discuss, brainstorm, etc. on an impromptu basis if they aren't face-to-face? This seems to be a very scary question for many managers and executives.

     Well, yes. Change is scary for most people. Change means things don't work the same, they can't be approached the same, new skills may be needed.

     In the old schema, groups met around the "water cooler" (figuratively speaking -- it might be snack machines or the company cafeteria). People had impromptu discussions in the restroom. During face-to-face meetings, people speak up and others can use facial expressions and reading of body language to get immediate feedback. Someone is not around? Put a post-it on their monitor so it must be removed first (no guarantee that they'll actually read it). Walking down the hall and seeing someone reminds you of their expertise and a problem you currently have and you discuss it. Of course, it is much different if the need is to physically work together in the laboratory or out on a construction site.

     Yes, these old scenarios worked for those for whom it did work. And they are the familiar, comfortable, situations in which you expect to communicate.

     But, guess what? These scenarios "worked" because those were the interactions being evaluated. People have diverse communication styles. An introvert may find it very difficult to ask a question in a meeting -- and wouldn't even think about asking someone, whom they met in a hallway, a question. What if you are a different gender and you would not be welcome entering the restroom to join that discussion? Some become invisible, because of personality or because of cultural biases, within a meeting. Certain people -- extraverts and alpha employees -- find it easy to put their ideas out into the pool. But not all.

     The basic reality is that the old ways don't work universally well. Yes, they do work -- for some (in some companies, possibly many). But there are many for whom they don't work and never have.

     "But that's the way it's always been done." A fact -- and impossible to contradict. But it does NOT mean that it always worked well or that it worked for everyone.

     Within all these scenarios, we are talking about communication. How can everyone be heard and acknowledged? How can people notice others and ask those questions, or have a discussion, to speed up work or start on the path to the next bleeding edge product? Perhaps new remote/hybrid viewpoints can be of great help in re-examining our communications and making them better?

     We seem to be at a point of business where we have various Cxx positions that are created, change, and disappear. I will not say that yet another executive is needed but someone, or some small group of people truly familiar with the company, its products, and the way it works needs to constantly examine how people interact and how can it be improved. Some methods are most easily used face-to-face. Other methods are independent of location. It does not work to force ALL to use the same methods and conduits. People are unique. They learn differently, think differently, and communicate differently.

     There must be alternative conduits encouraged and facilitated. As such are utilized, location becomes less important.

Performance Evaluation: Does location matter?

 

     One aspect of remote/hybrid work that is of concern to a number of companies and/or their managers is "how do I know my teams are doing their work"? This is more of an emotional question than it is a quantitative question. The work is the same, the people on the team are the same, the objectives are the same. Evaluation of work -- while perhaps requiring use of different skills and methods -- remains the same whether in the office, remote on a desert island, or a hybrid of home and office.

     Evaluation is composed of two parts -- commitment and results. A commitment is something that is agreed to by all parties. One party CAN state what the end result, and time frame, should be but, without agreement by all parties, no reasonable evaluation can be made. (Perhaps, within this type of situation, the evaluation can only be made about the person, or team, mandating the commitment.)

     Once upon a time, I was given a project to do, with time frame, for something that had not been done before. After three weeks of research, it was obvious that the work could not be done in the original time frame. I reported this fact to my manager who was terrified to tell his manager (this person had most of the laboratory terrified -- whether they reported to them or not). I got the project done well and on time according to my revised estimates. My evaluation was not good. It was not a reasonable evaluation. A good way to destroy morale and effectiveness within an organization.

      One vital part of the commitment, to which ALL parties agree to, are the set of acceptance criteria. This is used to evaluate results. If the results satisfy the set of acceptance criteria then it was done well. If they do not, then deficits need to be evaluated to determine what the team could have done better or could do better in the future knowing such information. In this part, communication is key. Delays can be worked with -- but only if all parties are aware of the delay. Technical problems can be worked on with adequate communication and allocation of resources. With proper communication, there is no one "to blame" but it is possible to determine how well teams, and individuals, did within the process.

     Note that, within the above description, location of people and teams does not arise. That is because the location is not important. Nor is the process important -- waterfall, agile, lean six sigma, ... Communication is important. Honest evaluation and discussion is important. Location is not important.

     This applies to known current projects. What about future projects? Brainstorming? And, within current projects, how is communication facilitated, to keep the various people and teams working well with one another. That is another topic.

Assumptions: a deadly block to communication

 

     We have a good friend of the family who has a saying. "To assume is to make an ass of you (u) and me". It's a good way to remember the danger of making assumptions.

     So, what's so dangerous about assumptions? Just what IS an assumption? An assumption is a lack of communication. Even though the other person, or persons, have not said something you tell yourself that you know what they are thinking, how they would react, what they would say, or what they would do. Just writing that out makes it easy to recognize how absurd it can be.

     Yes, there are people in our lives that we may have a good chance of knowing how they would behave -- say, greater than 50% chance. Even in those cases, there is also a significant (depending on how much we REALLY know them, maybe from 5% up to 80 or 90%) chance that we are wrong.

     So, why do we continue to make assumptions? First, because it is easy. Not communicating may not have many positive benefits but it is easy. Another purpose may be because we want OUR viewpoint to be in control so by not giving the other party(ies) a chance to establish their point-of-view, we maintain the status that we want. Yet another is that it can give us the feeling that we know the other person better than we really do.

     The first step to fighting the use of assumptions is to recognize it. I might go even further to say that recognizing the use of an assumption gives us the ability to override it. That can be very hard. Just like rationalizations, assumptions are a large part of most people's everyday lives. There may be some people who seem to like to make other people's lives harder to live but there are few of us who, consciously, try to make our own lives harder.

     Once it is recognized, the next step is to stop doing it.  You may say to yourself "well, if I recognize I am doing it, why would I continue?" The same "advantages" exist with conscious awareness as in a subconscious manner. Easy, maintain control, keep an illusion.

     Stopped, the next step is to establish communication. There may be some aspects of communication that are focused enough for a blog of this nature but it is way too large of an area to discuss in general in a blog.

     But there are useful courses.

"Quiet quitting" versus work/life balance

 

     As best as I've been able to interpret, the newly popular term "quiet quitting" is a phrase used to indicate that a person has reached the border of how much time and energy they are willing to put into their paid work and where they feel they need to put the time and energy into keeping their families, and themselves, healthy and productive.

     Of course, that is NOT what the term "quiet quitting" calls to mind. I don't know WHO in the world comes up with these meme labels but whoever picked the term appears to be quite happy with the pre-pandemic US (and some other global cultures) status quo of putting in as much time and energy as work appears to "require". Such places the control over work/life boundaries firmly in the hands of management. From some points of view, that seems reasonable for a business.

     However, there have been MANY studies that indicate that this approach is counter-productive. Work efficiency declines, and the number of need-to-recover-from mistakes increases, as a person pushes themselves beyond what they can support. The current exploration of the 4-day work week is one approach to keeping employees productive. There are other methods.

     Within Europe, there are many limits placed on work environment/home boundaries. A strict number of hours that can be worked (few, if any, after hours calls and work assignments). A reasonable amount of vacation allocated per employee which they are required to take. Maternity/paternity leaves. Und so weiter (and so forth). These are methods of legislating work/life boundaries.

     The scary part, for some, of "quiet quitting" (and the reason it is not called "life balance maintenance") is that it moves the control over maintenance of work/life allocation to the hands of the employees. It is true that many employees are not used to this control. In many cases, it might have a similar effect as "unlimited PTO" does -- when people take almost NO paid time off -- not even as many days as they would have been allotted within a fixed vacation benefit. In others, they may not find themselves with adequate self-motivation to do the amount of work expected on their work assignments.

     I will stop using the term "q q" -- and move over to "life balance maintenance" (which I consider to be a better description). Achieving this IS a challenge for the employee and the company. It requires good communication conduits and awareness of each person's situation. There will be times when the business seriously needs an extra push of effort from its peoples -- but it should not become an expected way of life. If the communication lines are open and there is respect in all directions, then almost every employee (if at all possible within their circumstances) will put in extra effort. For most employees, it is harder for them to recognize that they are reaching diminishing returns than to accept another short night's sleep and missed ballgame.

Remote/Hybrid working: skills aren't new but they need to be refined

 

     One of my sons just unsuccessfully completed a year at college which shifted their curriculum from in-person to online. (They shifted ALL responsibility for success to the student -- difficult for any student but, for our student on the autistic spectrum, it was a disaster.) Another son (different college) did OK -- but hit snags (how do you do an astronomy lab course from home?). Our third younger son repeated a course FOUR times because the department was so concerned about potential cheating that they decided that teaching and learning was unimportant. (How can anyone learn if they are not told what they have gotten right or wrong?)

     The above three personal examples (all real -- not theoretical examples) directly pertain to the problems associated with a transition to remote/hybrid jobs. The first is associated with proactive versus passive communication. The second indicates that remote/hybrid work may require additional equipment/infrastructure. The third is an example of how fear of the employee not doing their job properly can actually sabotage the work.

     While I do not consider myself an "expert" in any area, I have had 24 years of experience working and managing remote work. Three years were as a remote employee, 20 years were as a remote executive (VP of Engineering) working within an all-remote (telecommuting) company, and one year as a manager during enforced remote work during this pandemic. My experiences may be of benefit to others.

     Remote work does not require any different skills than that of in-person work. It does require different application of those skills. It also may require duplication/enhancement of infrastructure to allow in-office work to be done remotely. The primary reorientation of skills is that tasks that used to be passively collaborative must shift to proactively collaborative AND self-determined.

     What would be an example of passive collaboration? The "water cooler" is a great example. Off-task casual exchange of information sometimes leads to great ideas as well as getting "unstuck" from problems that may be happening within the group or for an individual. Another is "walking the aisles" -- poking a nose (managers or fellow peers) in to cubicles to see what is happening, how things are going, and discuss any obstacles that need to be overcome.

     All of the passive collaboration needs to be shifted to proactive collaboration. This is useful in an in-office environment also -- people were just able to "get away with" not doing it when they encountered each other face-to-face on a regular basis. While not a new skill, not everyone is good at it as it requires active participation from both sides. One side has to check, the other side has to ask and be able to receive. All can be learned -- but it's a lot easier to describe it than to do it.

     I call out three areas that need to be refined/improved. (I make no claims that this list is exhaustive.) As I said earlier, all of these skills are very useful in a "regular" work environment -- they become a necessity when working remotely (hybrid, of course, is a mixture of remote and in-office so I am concentrating on remote needs). These are:

1. Communication: As mentioned above, you cannot get away with passive communication. If you want to know something, you have to ask. If you need something, you have to ask. Regular, prescheduled, checkin points are important -- but keep them short and only as needed. Three 20 minute remote sessions are more effective than one hour-long session. Stay focused.
   
   Include informal sessions. "Water cooler" talk. Some may be managed team members only. Others may include managers and above.
   
   Feedback. No surprises. Minimum of quarterly, short, feedback sessions on how the team member is perceived and possible discussion thereof.
   
   
2. Requirements/specifications:
   Clearly agree on -- have a written version -- expectations. How will the team member be evaluated?
   
   For projects/assignments:
   Agree on acceptance criteria. In the case of Agile/SCRUM, this is per User Story.
   
   
3. Checkpoints:
   Trust will make or break a remote arrangement. But, until points 1 and 2 are agreed upon and everyone is following through as agreed, it is very useful to have checkpoints. (Once again, an Agile environment will have this built-in.)
   
   Experience includes overall work experience and experience working remotely. The less experience, the smaller the granularity of checkpoints needed. Perhaps agreed upon checkpoints (defined as demonstrable progress towards goal) every two weeks for someone with very little experience. Perhaps at the 1/3, 2/3, and final point for someone with moderate experience. Very experienced people may need no checkpoints.

     The process of working remote -- or managing remotely can cause anxiety. I won't say that anxiety, or any reaction, is unreasonable. All feelings are legitimate. You feel the way you feel.

     This blog only addresses work aspects. Working remote has personal aspects that must be addressed -- but there is no "one size fits all" situation and I am not trying to address them here. These needs are real. Communication is key both between workers and within the in-office and remote environment.

     The needs are not new. You have the same end goals. You have the same processes. You have the same needs for training and communication. The differences are primarily that of perspective, practice, and implementation.

Listening: A key to communication

 

     In the recent US election turmoil, one of the candidates indicated that they heard an opponent say something insulting about them. The other candidate denied that they had said it. I believe both of them. The reality is that what we hear is not always what the other person says. Especially during emotional moments, we tend to shift the words around based on our histories and expectations.

     There is a game called "telephone". Within this game, people gather in a circle (I suppose it could be done with only three people). One person whispers something in the ear of the first person, who then whispers it into the ear of the next person within the circle, and so on -- until it gets back to the person who originally said it. Depending on how many people are in the circle, the amount of distortion of the original message can be enormous. Within the context of the game, this is considered to be something for great laughter and enjoyment. Within the context of life, it can lead to all kinds of problems.

     Of course, heard/said still applies to other media. Email, voice telephone, gossip over the fence, ... With email and social media, it is possible to backtrack and find out what was originally said -- but not necessarily what was originally meant. Sometimes what is said is not clear -- it is sometimes "open to misinterpretation". Somewhat like the grammar joke of the difference between "Come in and eat, grandma" and "Come in and eat grandma".

     In real life, if you misinterpreted the above example, your response would likely be "WHAT?" And then the meaning would be clarified amidst smiles and chuckles (hopefully the second interpretation was not the correct one). But it is often the case that there is no feedback and no request for clarification. A good friend of the family says that "assume" just makes an "ass of u and me".

     Not listening well can cause a lot of problems.  A subset of listening is called "Active listening" and that is when you are listening in order to have a reasonable, constructive response. ("Passive listening" is when you are listening to music in the background or a prerecorded lecture -- though, in the latter case, listening better is likely to still be of great use.) Luckily, listening is a skill that can be learned (if desired to learn). The following areas of focus are oriented primarily towards active listening -- but can be useful in passive listening cases also.

• Face the speaker. Of course, this cannot be done in social media. In fact, many people posting within social media don't think of the post to which they are replying as coming from a person at all. But, if you can face the speaker, then it will help you to notice facial and body clues as well as give the speaker more confidence that you are listening.
  
  
• Picture what is being said. This is not daydreaming. This is being fully attuned to the speaker with all of your senses.
  
  
• Withhold judgement and don't interrupt. How can you form a reasonable response before you know what all has been said -- and have taken the steps (as listed below) to make certain that you have actually heard what has been said? Let the speaker (or writer) finish what they are saying before formulating a response. For a long initial message, taking notes may be needed to properly pose questions about areas that might be misunderstood. For a written, or prerecorded, message it may be useful to read it, or hear it, multiple times.
  
  
• Summarize and clarify. The speaker has finished. Now it is your job to make certain that you have heard what was meant to be said. One method is to reflect the conversation back. "I heard you say X, Y, and Z". Is that correct?" "When you said X, just what did you mean?"
  
  This is an iterative process which does not end until both of you are in agreement that each person knows what the other meant to say. This does NOT mean that you agree with each other. But you will at least know what areas are there for discussion if the person is open to discussion about the matter (or for just recognizing the other's right to have a different viewpoint or opinion).

Sometimes it is NOT a matter of listening well; you may understand what the other person is saying very well -- and disagree very strongly. You may understand what the other person is saying very well -- but it is not truthful.

     In the current era, listening well is a skill that has lost ground -- fewer make the attempt. Whether you end up agreeing or not, whether it is true or not, with active listening you are disagreeing with what they meant rather than what you think they said and meant. This allows the potential for discussion and resolution.

Synchronization: One is a wiggle, multiples are a movement

     We can sit back and watch someone dance. We observe the fluidity of their motion, the deliberateness of the position, the rhythm of the movements. Perhaps it is even in accordance with the components of music -- the tempo, the syncopation, the tones. The body becomes an extension of the mind and spirit -- an instrument for expression. The experience is different for the participant than for the observer but still capable of extending beyond words, or sounds, or sights.
     But, what happens when we observe someone (or do it ourselves) who does something that is considered "clumsy"? Something is dropped. The body sways to one side in an erratic way. A jump is made but the landing does not meet expectations of how it should be done. There is a fall, a jostle, a slip. Instead of smooth transitions, each movement is jerky and without observable rhythm.
     We have probably all noticed this -- in ourselves and in others. Perhaps we have also made judgements about ourselves. "I just can't dance." "I have no rhythm." "I cannot let myself be seen in public."
     But what happens when movements match within groups of people -- or even couples? One person raises their arm up at a 45 degree angle. What is going on? Two people raise their arms up at a 45 degree angle at the same time. Does it feel different? How about when a dozen people do it at the same time? It can no longer be considered an accident or a coincidence. There is synchronization -- individuals are becoming part of a group and using that coordination to communicate something.
     What are they communicating? Ah, that is a question indeed. About the only answer I can give is "42". Bees join into groups of movement to indicate food supplies and directions and weather and other things vital to the colony. Aliens from other worlds might join to indicate similar things -- so could humans, if desired.
     What about our examples of "clumsy"? What if two people sway to one side at the same time? What if an entire group of people jump up and land in an unexpected way? What if the jerks happen in a series of movement within a group of people -- no longer at the very same time with each person but in a series that is apparent even if not predictable?
     What we can see from this is that movements do not carry inherent worth -- or they all carry inherent worth. While an individual may tune their body to express in ways that are socially recognized as approved movements, the individual movements that are not so approved can still be appreciated when synchronized within a group.
     So, am I clumsy or have I just not found the group to match my wiggles?