Ethics: #2

[samvara]

I had a quick talk to my lecturer S. about whether she felt comfortable about me blogging my lecture notes - given it’s an Ethics course it seemed like a good idea. I tend to keep things pretty vague on some areas and I leave out everything related to people’s work out of respect for their privacy. S. said she was OK with it and I may give her a link once the course is over. *waves to S.*

We did the first test (70% individual / 87% team but we appealed one of the questions so that could change), and there was much discussion with new group over answers. We’re still learning each others styles and being very polite - it’s a good style so far, everyone says what they think then explains why & how strongly then we negotiate for a final consensus. The group is an interesting mix: Me, Chinese woman (consultant), 1st gen Egyptian guy (family business), young Aussie white guy (local govt.) and a ?gen guy (engineer) of the physical type I associate with Croatian/Serbian heritage - or maybe a little further south. It is kind of fun watching myself classing people by their gender, age, cultural background and profession (what else do I have!) - I’m also pinging off responsiveness, style of communication and style of conflict resolution and so far I’m happy with my team.

I managed to log into the new WiFi network (Humans: 1, Technology: 1) which was possibly more exciting then it should have been. The previous SNAP network had defeated me so it was good to win this round. I am happy with the ipad, it makes finding and referring to things for discussion very easy and I should totally get extra cool points for having it. This week’s notes I will also scan and store electronically.

We watched a short video of Mary Gentile describing how she came to the Giving Voice to Values process (this is not it, but it gives you an idea). We then quickly wrote up a situation where we had spoken up about our values and how we experienced it - then shared with our teams. I got gently teased for taking up too much time and will work to be more respectful of time in the future - also, I can totally take gentle teasing as a method of correcting my behaviour with this group.

Things to contemplate were:

• What did you do and what was the impact?
• What motivated you to speak up and act?
• How satisfied are you? How would you like to have responded?
• What would make it easier for you to speak/act?
• Things within your control
• Things within the control of others

My example wasn’t one I’d discuss in an unlocked post, but I will share it was a work related one where my choosing to speak had meant far less discomfort for me personally, and a far better understanding of where I stood professionally on something. My motivation was very much my own discomfort, although my co-workers were also a goad and I was pleased with how it worked out. I had control of my own reaction and sod all control of the situation.

The entire-group discussion was people sharing general things they’d gotten out of the group talks. People brought up things that made it possible for them to speak - their personal values (fairness, desire to help others) and the values of their workplace (safety first!) being the ones that stuck in my mind.

We then did the exercise again thinking of situations where we have not spoken despite a values conflict. We didn’t have enough group time to work through all of our examples which is a shame and needs to be worked on. There seemed to be a judgement thing going on about the examples based on whether they were personally meaningful or professionally meaningful or maybe that feeling just belongs to me. My example was one I don’t think I wrote about but I discussed in detail with family, home, friends and co-workers and addressed side-ways at work because I found I couldn’t stay quiet on it. I was never happy with the various outcomes and have vowed to jump in boots first next time even if I think it’s going to go badly because I don’t think I can work in an environment that supports that kind of behaviour.

The entire-group debrief ended up being a talk about the things we need to be able to speak which I am kicking myself for not taking notes on at the time - I was kind of absorbed in the discussion. I can remember ‘practice speaking,’ ‘having allies’ and ‘knowing you can make a difference.’ This hooks directly into what we’re talking about in liminal_boundaries and the Safe Spaces panels where yes, there is a responsibility for creating a safe space for others but there is also a responsibility to act.

We talked about things you can control (what would make it easier) and I have a huge laundry list of options here:

• Allies
• Selection and sequencing of audience
• Greater confidence of viewpoint due to securing more information
• Starting with questions rathe than assertions
• Greater understanding of each others’ motivations / needs / fears
• One-on-one or group discussions (off-line discussions with dissenters or key supporters.) Yes I am conscious of the irony in calling it ‘off-line’ when I do a large chunk of my casual networking on the internet and yes, it irritates me in meetings when people say ‘we’ll take this off-line’ - you’re not on-line darn it.
• Working through incremental steps
• Changing the frame: opportunity versus risk, for example, or as ‘learning dialogue’. Heh, I think of this as the ‘it’s not being mean, it’s giving them an opportunity for person growth’ dynamic
• Finding win / win solutions
• Questioning assumptions / professional rationalisations / truisms
• Appealing to shared purpose and or values (alignment)
• Normalising (doing this kind of this is normal and part of the job, I should be able to do it effectively)

I am reminded of the Art of Rhetoric: be someone people can respect, appeal to their emotions, persuade through the use of reason.