When I was in grad school years ago, Dr. Robert Nash was the primary instructor for ethics. I heard horror stories from other students. The general consensus seemed to be, Nash likes to inflict pain, so avoid this elective. I enrolled anyway and it’s one of the best courses I’ve ever taken, from one of the best teachers (I’m told Dr. Nash still teaches ethics, though rumor has it he’s a kinder and gentler Robert these days). I’m a better person for his tutelage.
It’s my favorite reminder about the failings of decisions based on indirect information. Robert Nash returned to my thoughts recently, when in the period of just a few days, two of my conflict management coaching clients described the same “aha” moment about conflict with their own clients.
In both situations, there was a primary person with whom there was difficulty and a secondary person through whom a great deal of information was funneled. In both instances, my clients were receiving worrisome information from the secondary player about how the primary player felt and thought about the situation. And in both, my clients made the smart decision to go around the self-appointed gate keeper and speak directly with the primary player. The conversations surprised them.
Girded for battle, they instead found the conversations quite benign. Prepared for difficulty, they discovered the primary player to be quite reasonable and willing to listen. In short, they discovered that the secondary player had made matters more difficult with their “insider” advice and counsel. Just like my grad school peers, steering others away from Dr. Nash.
It’s better to find out for yourself. The more players, the more confusion, the more complexity, and maybe the more negativity. If those other players don’t have 20/20, you’ll be led astray.
Copyright © 2007 by Tammy Lenski. All rights reserved.
Tammy, you build a good case for holding ideas up to the rainbow long enough to see another color! Thanks! How might we do more of this on a busy day – and with so much grabbing for our attention? Ideas?
Hey there, Ellen, thanks for stopping by. Your comment reminded me of something communications disorders expert Rebekah Shafir said in her book, The Zen of Listening. This is a paraphrase: Multi-tasking is the enemy of good listening and careful attention to a matter. If a difficult situation is on our mind enough, then perhaps it’s a hint that it’s time to slow down the busy day and take the time to attend properly to it.
I think that’s probably more fruitful and time-efficient than letting the difficulty take some portion of our attention while we do other things…some of which will be done less well as a result of monkey mind (a Buddhist idea describing the experience of a person who is not fully in the present moment. Like a monkey swinging from tree to tree, the monkey mind jumps from thought to thought, rarely resting for more than a brief moment. Monkey mind prevents us from “being here now” and distracts us from the present).
You know a thing or two about the brain yourself…what would you add?
Fantastic post, Tammy! It is so true that going directly to the source can often be the most productive way to resolve a situation. I’m always amazed when I see people who avoid based on indirect information. I’m sure many will find your post helpful
Hey there, Jill! I always appreciate your generosity of spirit. I also really loved the post you wrote to your son on his 9th birthday…so moving, so loving, so full of possiblity.