Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I could be wrong, but this sounds like the conflict I'm having with
    you. I guess my first question is "Why doesn't it apply?" 
    
    You offer two options: walk away or explain how she is (I am) wrong.
    That doesn't leave a lot of room for compromise. How come? Whatever
    happened to negotiation, talking it out, explaining your side,
    listening to her side?
    
    In a personality conflict course I recently took, I learned that I was
    a "feeler", someone who brings emotional values to all situations. So,
    to me, my response is not "inappropriate", its just how I deal with
    things. The correct response that was developed in a workshop
    environment was: first discuss the emotions, clear them up, then deal
    with the facts. 
    
    It is something to consider. But I'm sure there are other options as
    well. After all, I'm just saying what techniques would work with me.

    Cindi,
    
    Well, ub, duh, um.  You may not get any takers on the grounds
    that potential reply-ers aren't sure what you're talking about.
    (Alternately, I may be the only one completely ignorant of the
    context implied by "You've challenged me emotionally with your
    opinions.")
    
    For myself, my response to "You've challenged me emotionally with
    your opinions." is a round of applause and a rating of at least 9.1.
    It may only be a polite version of "Your opinionated claptrap
    annoys the h-- out of me, buster", but it could be "What your
    saying goes contrary to what I believe, but there seems to be
    some truth in it, so I'm going to be emotionally brave and look
    into the possibility of <dramatic pause> changing my mind." and
    either comment deserves some sort of positive reinforcement (for
    very different reasons).
    
    So.  What did you really mean? she asked plaintively.
    
    						Ann B.

    Re .2=
    
    My style is often cold and calculated.  I seldom argue just from
    the heart without having a lot of stats to back me.  I have learned,
    from college, high school , etc... that the man or woman that cries
    or "gets emotional" in business, or debate situations may get what
    they want... for the moment... but is seldom counted upon in the
    future as a strong force.  
    
    However, I have noted, that with personal relationships, a tear-
    a plea for forgiveness, a "cry for help", can sometimes yield
    the desired response, without future negative repercussions.
    
    The cool, clear, logical approach I consider "womanine". The
    emotional, what about my FEELINGS, I consider "feminine".  Both
    may work, however, the merits, and long term affectivenes
    of the tactics differ.
    
    In the second case, people will recant to prevent hurting your
    feelings.  In the first, if they recant, it will tend to be a
    REAL change, based on the facts of your opinions.  
    
    At the same time...
        Emotions should not be entirely discounted... Even in business/
    debate situations.
    
    I was hoping someone out there might have an opinion on what parts
    of which apply best at work?  Which apply best for noting?  Which
    go best for womannotes?
      
    
    Cindi
    

    
    Cindi, I think the question of styles has to do with what you want. If
    you want "to win", i.e. the debate, or your point, or whatever, the
    debating style works well. However, in debate, sometimes winning also
    includes invalidating the other side, proving them wrong. But it is
    known to ruin friendships as well. If you want your point to stand side
    by side with an alternative point, both having equal merit, then often
    a negotiating tactic is more effective. Where you give a little, so
    that you acknowledge that the alternative viewpoint is there as well.
    An example of where you might choose one over the other might be when
    discussing the question of abortion. Or the existence of a God. In our
    country, those questions have backers on both sides. If you push your
    position, you can make enemies, but you'll win strict legislation...
    for the moment. If you use a negotiating style, you may make fewer
    enemies, and in the long term, possibly enable your more
    middle-of-the-road legislation to resist being overturned, because
    people see that you've acknowledged both sides.
    
    Here in noting land, its the same thing. Do you wish to drive a point
    home, or do you wish to leave room for both sides of the argument?
    Being cold and calculated about your side may make it difficult for
    people to see your respect for the other side of the argument. Someone
    may not think you HAVE that respect. And a lot of people are sensitive
    to the idea that their viewpoint is not respected. I'm not alone in
    this. Ironically, I also admit to driving my point home on occasion.
    Typically, I have weighed the impact, and I'm willing to make enemies,
    because I think my point is that important, and I believe its more
    important to prove someone wrong than to preserve a friendship.
    
    Some people, knowing that their style has this impact, put disclaimers
    forward. They say "I'm not out to offend" or "I recognize that there
    are two sides to this; I'm only going to discuss my viewpoint." 
    
    Its very important to decide whether or not you're trying to invalidate
    someone else's opinion. If you aren't, it is often a good idea to make
    sure everyone knows that invalidation is NOT your intent.

    I have often imagined that with friends, male or female,
    
    The way you state your opinions is not relevant.
    The same fears for invalidation do not usually apply.
    If you are wrong, a friend could tell you that outright, and
    not have to worry too much about feelings because the deeper
    feelings would be understood.
    
    However, with a manager, that underlying feeling is not always
    correct or appropriate.  If they are taking your project, 
    or not considering your sensibilities, the only chance you have
    is to tell them the facts.
    
    To me, it would seem that all that was important was truth.
    In the worst case, you were true to yourself and or professional
    in your presentation of your interests.
    
    The weaker or more emotional a persons presentation is... 
       the more we can fall victim to the stereo type of being
    "emotional" or "unreasoned".
    
    Is there a place for both?
    
    Cindi
    
    

    In the business situation one thing I've seen that works  is trying to
    figure out what response works best for your manager and delivering.
    
    If your manager responds best to logic, use logic. If your manager
    responds best to empathy and feelings, try that. If your manager
    responds best to "I see the big picture", try that. If your manager
    responds best to "Here are the details", try that. 
    
    A lot of times, you can tell what works best with your manager by
    watching what s/he says to you AND to maybe 4 other people. Some
    managers have been taught to use different styles, others don't know
    how.
    
    The best way to deal with a manager usually is not by driving home a
    point. That frequently leads to alienation. A manager is human and does
    not often like to be proven wrong, even in a one-on-one situation.
    Something more akin to negotiating is far better. Show that you see
    both sides, present your argument so that your manager WINS SOMETHING
    (lord knows what, but SOMETHING) by taking your side. Maybe your
    manager saves face, because s/he realizes that its going to look bad if
    you go to personnel.  But that's drastic. Maybe your manager looks good
    when his/her subordinates are doing well. And s/he can take credit for
    choosing you, or developing your abilities or managing you well. That's
    something positive to offer.
    
    Many people I've talked to do not completely respect their managers.
    But confrontation has often led to poor reviews. Negotiating with
    niceness, albeit a firm stand, seems to work better. The main thing
    that doesn't work is avoidance. But the opposite of avoidance, blunt
    confrontation, is often just as bad.
    
    If anyone can think of a time in which a locked horns confrontation
    with a manager designed to prove him or her wrong won that manager's
    respect, cooperation and a good review, please share that experience. 
    
    One last thing. Sometimes justice and kindness are very far apart,
    sometimes they are very close together. Appealing to someone's sense of
    justice and fairness is appropriate, as opposed to going in for the
    pity plea, which may not be. 
    
    I've said more than enough. I hope someone else will give some opinion.
    

    I think there's a big difference in how emotions can be used.  There's 
    a HUGE difference to me between someone who cries or screams or throws 
    things to make a point, and someone who says that such and such a thing 
    makes them feel a certain way, so let's work on an alternative solution.
    
    The former will rarely ever work with me for anything but the short
    term.  The latter gets a lot of weight with me, and opens up a line
    for further communication, which might include logic as a solution 
    to the problems.  Even in a work environment, I think it can sometimes
    be appropriate to tell your supervisor (or whomever) that some action
    or thing makes you feel something.  I'm hesitant to use examples or
    we'll go down a rathole discussing the example rather than your point,
    but something like "When so-and-so does this in a meeting I feel angry
    and find it difficult to respond.  How can I/we deal with this problem
    effectively?" might be a good opening line with a supervisor to discuss
    a communication problem in a meeting.
    
    I think feelings and logic both have a very important place in
    communication of any kind.  Either one without the other can lead to
    miscommunication and assumptions being made.  Clearly there are times,
    such as when making a presentation, when logic alone is enough.  But
    any time there are more than one person interacting over a period of
    time I think you need both logic and feelings, if appropriately used.
    
    Karen.

    
    RE .6
    
    YES. I absolutely agree with you.
    
    I try to....
    
    1) Understand and deal with what I'm feeling
    2) Decide what I want the outcome of the situation to be
    3) Work out what my manager/partner's style is
    4) Work out how to present the facts in a way that will make
       sense to them, depending on their natural mode of operating
    
    Some neuro-lingistic programming stuff is very usful when you're
    wanting to analyse how someone else "clicks" - whether they
    are visual, aural, or kinetic, what their value heirarchies
    are etc etc.
    
    I take the view that the only person I can control is myself.
    I would like to have a boss who responds to my natural style,
    but I don't, and I can't change that. What I can do is change
    the emphasis of the way I present information to him in a way
    that makes it easy for him to understand what I'm saying.
    
    I have done a lot of work with this recently, and I've
    completely turned around my relationship with my boss as a result.
    It's hard, even in retrospect, for me to accept that the few
    small changes I made in my approach had such enormous effects.
    
    'gail
    
    
    

    I will rarely, if ever compromise my integrity or beliefs in order
    to "make nice".
    
    I will, however, compromise my behavior by being a bit less sarcastic,
    by stating things once, by not nagging, etc.
    
    In other words, you may ask my how I feel about George Bush. I will
    tell you. If you do not like what I have to say I won't mention it
    again.
    
    Kate

    Oh. I almost forgot. As long as you can look at yourself in the mirror
    every morning you're doing well.
    
    Kate