October 21, 2017

Are you associated with the problem?

Business People in a Board meetingI don’t mean are you causing the problem: I mean are you engaged with it; or engaged with the people who are dealing with it?

If not, you probably won’t have much impact.

If you’re dissociated from the problem or the people, chances are you won’t be able to influence what happens, however insightful your thinking is.

To be able to influence, we need to be in relationship with the people who are involved; to be connected. We probably need to be engaged with the problem itself too.

Can we be both engaged in the system and able to stand back and maintain perspective, if not simultaneously, then at least sequentially?

Do you have a method for doing that?

Are you associated or disassociated with the problems you care about? It does make a difference.

What is the opposite of “quiet?”

Group in discussion at a computerIt’s often said that someone is “quiet’, meaning that either they aren’t saying much in the moment, or don’t say much in general. At least, that’s what it appears to mean.

In the first instance, the implication is that their “state” is different from normal, either because of some unrelated happening or because of some response to the present circumstances. In the second instance, the person is seen as relatively unengaged on an on-going basis.

So some observers, at least, expect a different behaviour.

But what is the opposite of “quiet?”

That perhaps isn’t so obvious.

Literally, the opposite is “loud,” but that’s not what me mean surely.

What about “vocal?” Is that closer?

Or is it that we hope for the person to be more engaged in what is going on? The jargon word for that might be “associated.”

We want people to be engaged in our stories, our dramas, our conversations, our ideas, and our lives.

But maybe they don’t want to be.

What’s the opposite of “quiet” in your map of the world?

And what makes you “quiet?”