|
Hi Melinda - inline..
On 7/11/2019 2:00 PM, Melinda Shore
wrote:
On 7/11/19 8:27 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:"Unprofessional" (RFC3005's "Unprofessional commentary") has a lot of meanings, and Webster has it as "**not exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, or generally businesslike manner in the workplace", but at times there will be a conflict between what's perceived as "courteous" and what's "conscientious".I don't think anybody's arguing that people shouldn't make the technical points that need to be made. However, if the goal is persuasion, which I think we probably agree it is (or should be) that suggests that the argument, in both substance and form, should be persuasive rather than alienating. I strongly agree with the above, especially that the goal of a
technical discussion is persuasion leading to agreement or at
least grumpy acquiescence. But for fact-finding and
accountability discussions, the model probably needs to be
persistence when faced with answers or explanations that are not
forthcoming, that are incomplete or that are inconsistent with
known facts. IMO, "Alienating" is a very strange word to compare and contrast with persuasion. Maybe "browbeating" or "intimidating" or "hectoring"? I think that line is probably clear enough on the technical side, but I wonder how it gets reconciled on the accountability side? At some point, if answers are not forthcoming, persistent questioning can be probably be seen as one of those three - especially by those being questioned. The question then becomes whether it's the inquirer's fault for keeping up the questioning or the target's fault for failing to answer fully and truthfully (or for completeness some blend of the two). I refer you back again to the "Organization Dissent" wiki page and the discussion of whistle blowers. In the current discussion I believe I have a reasonable understanding of what and when. I still lack clarity on why, how and who and I expect getting answers to those questions to be a substantial part of the discussion at the plenary this coming meeting along with understanding what remediations need to be done. In other words - "accountability through persistence".
Mike
Melinda
|
