Take it or leave it stances or propositions do not help to solve the problem although they clearly identify your #perspective. When the previous CE (Ketso Gordhan) of PPC wished to enforce his position on the board he found that his resignation became permanent as he clearly focused on himself rather than the challenges the company was facing in addition to executive sentiment.
So do you stand #outside of the problem situation or are you part of the problem. The former can be likened to talking to yourself and at the same time assuming that you are impartial to the discourse. Although the stance of a scientific observer would require that level of objectivity, most of us remain by definition subjective. So, then, it is the level of subjectivity that we aim to manage (can’t really say control) in the discourse in order to provide an objectified view. That level of subjectivity is a function of the level to which we are impacted by the discourse and, importantly, separately consider managing our #Ego in the conversation. The latter is similar to having another Person in the middle of the conversation.
Clearly, we don’t like being part of the problem, and we feel that probably mostly we are not. Yet, excluding that possibility is also loosing sight of an obvious factor that can get in the way. It is easier to blame others and factors outside of our control if results do not meet expectations. After all, real clarity as to causes is difficult enough. But then, does that assumption make an ass-u-me?
A friend shared the AA 12 steps with me where a key factor in step 4 is #not to apportion blame to others. In that step you also evaluate your expectations of others based on your actions. Failing to meet #expectations is often caused by oneself in creating expectations of measurable reaction by others in one’s mind BUT not making these explicit. Quite often we don’t know them ourselves as our motivations can be deep-seated and we rarely #take inventory of ourself. Failure to meet expectations leads to tension which the other party can not resolve as they did not understand your expectations. Not blaming others and understanding what one can control become a way of engaging with oneself that in time provides a certain peace with the situational context.
#Powerplays in the boardroom, in parliament (as we again heard yesterday), or in private life are another version of expecting actions from others that are not based on a mutual understanding of the problem. Clearly, the party/person with power can exert such positively, excessively or with restraint. However, whichever way, the party/person in power usually expects compliance in some form to its ideals and objectives. It may seem clear to all of us is that there will be a gap in expectations. Yet, how often do you think will the person in power seeks to see itself as part of the problem and take inventory not blaming others first? And what makes your view right?