Quote from John Freeman on December 23, 2022, 5:59 am

Hello guys,

This is great feed-back, thanks a lot! About the title, the format you proposed Lucio and Ali to power protect goes into my note, good stuff for me to improve on that! In my mind I did power protect, it's very good to know that it could/has been felt on the other side as not enough. So yes, what you wrote Lucio is close to what I intended to express, not as elaborate unfortunately.

If I would have said:

About the title: I prefer it as it is now. Thanks for the proposition though! 🙂

Would it have expressed what you said? Because if I say I prefer it short and to the point, it implies Ali’s proposition is too long that would have been not power protecting or am I wrong? That is the reason I did not write that.

Regarding the value given: I'll answer very soon to both of your posts, thank you very much guys! I can totally see that my gratitude feels a bit curt, I agree. Also if one would like to analyze the social exchange aspect one could also notice that there is no "thumbs up" under my original post which could be a way to say "thanks for the value given". It's not that important to me. If we go in the social value exchange analysis of this exchange both sides of the social exchange can also be taken into account I think. As you said, if there was no value received: fair enough.

To be honest, I feel it is a bit harsh to say that I "ignored Ali's moderator rights". I thought I showed enough consideration in my answer. But I do respect your opinion. Thanks for your honesty in sharing it with me!

Important note about repeat interactions as well!

I want to thank you all sincerely for these feed-backs they are priceless to improve on our blindspots.

Cheers!

PS: regarding the @ my other username, the thing is that I don't get the email notifications in my main email box. So the @John is fine on the forum I'll see it, thanks for asking! (and please let me know if you feel I did not power protect enough in this last answer: as you see I'm working on it).

edit: on a side note I stopped using “to be honest” formulations as I thought it implied I am not honest in other circumstances, I’m guessing it’s a matter of context (straight talk) what do you think?

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 23, 2022, 6:49 am

Thank you for the note, John!

Yeah, everything you say is fair and I agree with you.

And I also agree that "ignored" was the wrong word: my apologies for that.

Also, I, in Ali's shoes as a new moderator, would have felt it was disempowering.

However, as you can see, both Ali and Maverick didn't feel it was nearly as disempowering as I felt.
So, as anything related to people, there is an element of subjectivity, and it's possible I'd score higher in power-sensitivity/power than Ali or Maverick.

Tricky transition of "rank gains"

There's also one more reason why I'd have personally preferred to see more power protection if I was in Ali's shoes.

And it's about the "tricky transition" of rank changes.

Of course it's an online forum with nicknames, but still, many dynamics are not too dissimilar from real life.
And a new moderator is similar to any transition into a new higher-power role, the equivalent in corporate would be a former colleague who becomes the boss.

These are often tricky changes to navigate, since relationships have an element of "stickiness".

The new boss has to earn that acknowledgment of his new role, without breaking rapport.

And the former colleagues also have an important role to play: they can either facilitate that change, or resist it and make it more difficult.
Many former colleagues may resist the new role and don't want to "submit" to the powers that their former colleagues gained with the new rank.

So just to avoid giving any idea I may be one of those rebellious ones, I'd make it extra clear that I'm totally cool with their new roles and powers, and that I respect it -hence going the extra length in power protection in the very beginning makes even more sense than doing so later on-.
One may start very power-protecting in the beginning, and then settle for shorter and more efficient communication later on because by then the sub-communication of "I respect your rank, I appreciate you respecting me as a high-value member of this community, and we're cool with each other" is clearer.

In part, the same also holds true from new bosses coming from the outside.
And that's why I like new bosses coming in: it's an opportunity to gain brownie points by displaying early on that you welcome them and accept them as the new bosses.
They'll be grateful for it.

Edit:
Also, I wanted to raise that as an opportunity to surface and clarify that respect and consideration go both ways: Ali's new mod roles are respected, and Ali equally respects that most members here are high-value folks who deserve equal respect back (and he's already shown).

"I Prefer": great option

The "I prefer" solution is a neat and slick way of doing more power protection, without even adding any single word.

Pretty cool.

Off-topic

John, your nickname for the "@" option right now is not John.

So if I "@" you, your original choice for nickname should be used.

That's what I don't know if you're cool with.

Off-topic

Quote from Growfast on December 23, 2022, 6:57 am

Quote from John Freeman on December 18, 2022, 10:11 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 17, 2022, 4:09 am

Thank you for this note, John.

I'm actually glad to hear that you knew/felt it wasn't cool.
I was indeed a bit surprised you didn't call that out -and part of me wished you did-.

Now in grey to figuratively keep old stuff as old stuff:

As for that old thing, I still hold the same views strictly about the interaction(s) we discussed -not about the person, for whom I've also noticed changes for the better over time-. Everything's different today anyway. Things are cool, Matthew is not here (unluckily and hopefully he'll be back) and, most of all, it's in the past (together with that "admin warning" that is now decayed. So if you feel something is not cool, with anyone, please feel free to say it out loud).

Alright cool, thanks: I agree, let's do this.

And if you wish, please let me know if you prefer to add a link to this post or any other type of note to that lesson (I may add it anyway, but happy to hear your wishes/thoughts).

No need. My post was to clarify things between you and me, I'm glad it did.

But if any of you, John and Growfast, felt in any way that the lesson misrepresented the events and/or that there was anything that wasn't cool towards you, please do let me know.

It is a good example of going too far with the growth mindset as you pointed out. The clarification was for the background of the example between us as I said earlier. So I think it's valuable for other people as it is with your comments as they are.

@Growfast: it's all good man. As Lucio said: it's in the past.

Good to know it's in the past.

As a note I didn't like it when you completely ignored the powermove of yours I had talked about again in the previous post.

There is no apology/addressing from your side even though I apologised for it from my end.

This feels like you are out for win-lose rather than win-win.

(This is the impression I get from "it's all in the past" Without explicitly addressing what I talked about).

If this had happened between us face to face and had I not known you were in self improvement just like me I would have had a powermove right back which would have caused more misunderstandings and bad blood.

Feel free to leave your thoughts on this.

Side note :- I am learning too and if anyone had any other thoughts on the interaction, Feel free to share.

 

 

Quote from B on December 24, 2022, 5:41 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 21, 2022, 1:22 am

Hello John,

Quick opinion on this one:

Quote from John Freeman on December 20, 2022, 6:20 pm

Thanks Ali for your feed-back!

About the title: it's all good as it is now. Thanks for the proposition though! 🙂

On the technical side, I also feel that the current title is great: brief and to the point, with all the right keywords.

Still, if I had been in Ali's shoes, I'd have felt disempowered by that reply (Ali may differ in that, and curious to hear his take if he wishes to do so).

So I'd have power-protected more on that.

The way it stands, it can feel like a door shut on someone's face because:

• Quick thanks doesn't match effort levels: the "thanks" is very quick compared to the time Ali took for the feedback and doesn't mention any value added (if there wasn't, then fair enough. If there was, then I'd have mentioned it. Just to keep things good, it's still a good idea to mention something good in one's reply)
• Standalone "no": the "no" standing without a justification can feel like a door shut on someone's face
• Distant "thanks": the "thanks for the proposition though" may feel corporate speak for covering one's ass with "distant politeness". One potential issue with that approach is that it feels like a stock sentence for CYA, rather than honest "thanks".
  It's great in professional settings, but in settings where one would want closer (and more informal) relationships, it may create distance (if you prefer more "professionally distant relationships", then it may work for your goals)
• Ignores Ali's moderator rights: including changing titles. Ali asking first is also a form of displaying public consideration -even respect-. Just for that public display, not doing the same back can feel like a form of power hoarding (ie.: you show consideration for me, but I don't the same back to you)

The way I'd have phrased it:

Thank you for the feedback, Ali, great value in that (and powerful reminder on power-protecting others).

As for the title, thank you so much for asking: I appreciate that, (<--- a good, "considerate back" way to keep that consideration coming)
and your options also seem great.
To be honest, (<--- a good way to start the "direct talk")
I feel the current title is fine because... (<---with all the above the "because" isn't needed anymore, but it still won't hurt)

P.S.:

I'm not using the "@" John because you have a different nickname for the "@".
Let me know if you're cool with using the "@".

Please share opinions...

Really curious to hear how others feel about this one.

I believe that how people perceive disempowerment depends a lot on people's level of power awareness, sensitivity, and, ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶e̶g̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶s̶i̶d̶e̶ , ego and "drive to power" (previously wrote "thirst for power" I stroke it through as it's not inherently negative to have some ego and some "drive to power").

That's my theory so far, but I'd like to hear more to have it either confirmed, or disproved.

To me - and let me be the first to admit I may be totally wrong about this, and I am sharing this feeling of mine just to understand if I am wrong in my perception - John's answer seemed indeed a bit curt, but Ali's post also seemed, on the other end, a bit patronizing/teacher frame in tone.

So to me the exchange felt somewhat "balanced". In some sense, it is what I would have probably done, ie somewhat retreat emotionally when I sense something's amiss.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 25, 2022, 2:33 am

Quote from Bel on December 24, 2022, 5:41 pm

To me - and let me be the first to admit I may be totally wrong about this, and I am sharing this feeling of mine just to understand if I am wrong in my perception - John's answer seemed indeed a bit curt, but Ali's post also seemed, on the other end, a bit patronizing/teacher frame in tone.

So to me the exchange felt somewhat "balanced". In some sense, it is what I would have probably done, ie somewhat retreat emotionally when I sense something's amiss.

Thank you for this, Bel!

Overall, on John's side, it seems that many agree it was curt / not power protecting enough, even though a lower level than I personally felt.

On the new angle you bring to the discussion: great point.

And yes, I think you're right.

These parts here for example could be a good example of over-power protecting (still working on that lesson):

Quote from Ali Scarlett on December 19, 2022, 11:12 pm

Can I propose another idea though, John?

Perhaps (...)

Happy to read if you disagree mate.

(...)

If you think so too, happy to adjust it, and if you disagree happy to leave it as is.

And we already explore because over-power protecting is not good.

Namely:

• You lose too much power: and people don't like dealing with those who behave too low power
• You can come across as sneaky/not direct enough
• You sub-communicate you think they're too thin-skinned

We also explored in a different thread some time ago and again and with an even better example that repeating one's name can come across as condescending.

Needless to say, that wasn't Ali's intention.

With my initial feedback, I focused only on effort in Ali's reply and on even more on Ali's good gesture in respecting and including John's choice and preference while in theory he could change titles, and John's reply taking that kindness for granted.

Quote from Growfast on December 23, 2022, 6:57 am

Side note :- I am learning too and if anyone had any other thoughts on the interaction, Feel free to share.

On this:

Yeah, happy to weigh in with some quick thoughts once you guys finish clarifying.

Quote from John Freeman on December 25, 2022, 9:00 am

Hello everyone,

Thank you very much Bel for your supports and kind words, I'm fine though! :) I also think it's important to look at two sides in any interaction.

@lucio: I must admit that I was quite surprised by your post about new boss power dynamics. I totally agree with you about the dynamics with new bosses and it's valuable info for me (and all of us I think). I learned by reading it that to be socially savvy, one must put extra effort in the beginning, which is new info to me. As said in my previous post I thought I did put adequate social effort. I was surprised as at no point in time, this dynamics was part of the situation from my side. To make things clear: I'm glad that Ali is on board to moderate the forum and I wish him the best success! It's good that you can share this responsibility together. For me that was 100% clear from the start you appointed him. There is a bias towards Ali, yes you're right. But not this one. It's the same bias I have with you: you and Ali have power over me on this forum. So I'm as diplomatic with everyone here as possible and especially with both of you. That is why I did not even think or wanted to take it to this thread. I decided to let it go. So there might have been a slight misinterpretation of my behaviour and I understand better your reaction now. You probably wanted to make sure that the new moderator you appointed was getting proper respect in his new role and I agree with your attitude. If someone is not giving the proper respect to someone in a new role, it's always good to have a higher up backing up the person. That is great leadership in my opinion.

I think Ali's post content was interesting. Just as Bel, I thought the tone was not optimal. In hindsight, I think maybe I should have addressed it here in the first place. For the sake of clarification, here are my thoughts:

If you're constantly "schooling" the same person in front of others and they're power-aware enough, they might start to get sick of it (or at least annoyed by it).

From my understanding, this assumes that it's what I'm doing currently (of course one can say it was the "hypothetical if" but that is not my current understanding). That is not the case. However, my experience here taught me that if I go: "that is not what I'm doing/did..." or "this is not what I said, I said this.." then it goes into frame battle/imposing, risk of turkey spiral and the communication does not improve. This is from my experience, I could be missing a skill here for these situations. So I felt there was some power-protecting that was missing, not giving me the benefit of the doubt. So since my previous experiences when I see a negative and inexact interpretation of what I'm saying negative that is not in accord with what I meant/say, I let it go now rather than trying to correct it.

It sounds like you're saying that bystanders/people overhearing the teacher give value/insight to the student could be takers for not acknowledging that the teacher's wisdom was helpful for them too (i.e. they're credit withholding).

Once again, this is not what I said. So same as above. I did not want to enter in conflict with the new moderator (even just by trying to correct him) for 2 reasons:

1. Same as above
2. He's the new mod, so this would have been perceived as me not respecting him in his new role (which is exactly what happened).

In this instance, if one wanted to choose another option than power protection, it could have taken in the shape of a question if something is not clear and one is giving the other the benefit of the doubt, for instance:

"I'm not sure I understand: are you saying that the people around are takers?"

I would have answered: "Great question, no that is not what I meant, they are neutral bystanders: they don't have to acknowledge anything as they did not request anything and we are not in a teacher-student relationship together". That is why I do my best to encourage people to ask questions at the end of my posts: "Questions and Comments are welcome!", this potentially opens the door for requests of clarifications and therefore better communication. Despite being amazing tools of communication, we all know the limitations of forum and we all do our best to mitigate it as much as possible.

Perhaps the teacher's lessons were only valuable to the student who requested them and, therefore, the bystanders overhearing/listening are already in the green.

So this basically invalidates a large part of my original post (2 parts: 1. you're gaining status by teaching (higher status, expert) 2. if the knowledge is not known from the people around you you're seen even more as an expert as well (he knows what I don't)), which I think is a bit patronizing as Bel said. There is a "Perhaps" but it sounds like "you did not think about it, dummy?" (my interpretation, not Ali's words). It assumes that I have not considered this proposition before taking he time to share my experience and analysis with all of you. If I thought they did have the knowledge I would have not written that of course. So here, there also could have been more power-protection as well in my opinion. On my side, maybe more context would have make things clearer. When I'm on the other side and something is not that clear, I do request clarifications. Here is a proposition of indirect question:

I don't know if you considered that they might already be in the green and therefore that what you're teaching him has no value to them.

Which I think is totally a fair way of asking the question. To which I would have answered: "Yes, I did and I'm quite 100% sure that they don't know. First, they're nurses and I'm teaching doctor's stuff which is more advanced. Second I see them work everyday and I see their lacks, I can see what they don't know. Third, they're not very good nurses and have quite a superficial understanding of medicine from my observation".

I'd say that's the case because if the teacher started to assume that the help he provided to one was help needed by everyone (and then expecting credit based on that assumption), his good intentions could actually turn into social scalping the group (which is a form of social exchange manipulation) because of that credit presupposing — all for the sake wanting to social climb.

Here, there are 2 assumptions:

1. I expect credit
2. I want to social climb (this is almost a direct attack)

Once again, this is not the purpose of my post, if one would have given me the benefit of the doubt or asked a question I would have gladly clarified. I'm talking about a side-effect of increased status while teaching to someone in public. I never said "you should go around trying to teach people in public so they all see how great you are". I presented it as a phenomenon that could be translated in a strategy, yes. However I don't think I presented as such. If this was unclear, my bad.

Finally the post ends on proposing a longer title, while you agreed mine was optimal. So to me it felt that the situation was a bit like one was throwing one's weight around. So I chose a way of answering that was diplomatic.

All in all in the shape of the communication had a slightly patronizing tone combined with several negative assumptions about me.  I chose to go (what I thought was) the diplomatic route and let it go. As a reminder, I did thank Ali twice in my answer BTW (which I think is quite civil and polite). So here is my perspective on me reading Ali's answer.  I don't know how you guys would have reacted? Now I learned that it was not enough power protection (if going diplomatic) and/or I should have addressed the points above here (if going straight talk, but I did not as I thought it was not the best strategy in this case: see first point in the post). About the content of Ali's post, I'll answer in the thread of course.

So, as anything related to people, there is an element of subjectivity, and it's possible I'd score higher in power-sensitivity/power than Ali or Maverick.

Yes, that is why I think it's optimal if the person writing in this thread is the person involved rather than a 3rd party. Otherwise there might be a risk to end up in a triangulation. There are always lessons from this of course anyway. However, then the problem could end up with 3 people in the communication instead of 2, which I think is not ideal for clarifying things between people.

Off-topic

The thing is that I don't look at my secondary email often. So the @ won't help me to see answers earlier. :(

That is why I proposed to use the @John (I know my other one is @am....) I changed nickname also for privacy purposes. So I think that using @am.... would defeat the purpose).

Whenever something is posted here I make sure to have a look though.

Off-topic

@growfast: thank you for your post, I read it and will answer as soon as I can. In the mean time to make things clear: my wishes in the other post extend to you as well of course, man!

Quote from John Freeman on December 25, 2022, 11:28 am

To be complete:

With my initial feedback, I focused only on effort in Ali's reply and on even more on Ali's good gesture in respecting and including John's choice and preference while in theory he could change titles, and John's reply taking that kindness for granted.

I did not take and do not take any respect for granted, I must be clear on this: nor from Ali nor from anyone. What I'm starting to understand is that we might have a different view of the poster's and admin's rights and duties, generally speaking on a forum. For me, the admin is the owner of the forum and the poster is the owner of the post. How do you see it yourself?

So for me, I see it the opposite: it's when the title change has been made out of the person's knowledge and agreement that it is disrepectful rather than the other way around. So I think we might have different views on this and this also helps me to understand your perspective.

I want to say that I totally appreciate and respect the way this is done here: asking the person when needed or changing if the person does not answer after a reasonable amount of time.

Quote from B on December 25, 2022, 11:35 am

John,

I did not read your whole post, but this:

Quote from John Freeman on December 25, 2022, 9:00 am

Thank you very much Bel for your supports and kind words, I'm fine though! 🙂

This thing you wrote here:

- frames my post above as a “defense to you” (which it was not: I know you can defend yourself well enough, and it was just my pointing out another dynamic I noticed)

- and spurns my “support” by saying “not needed”.

Then the final emoji to smoothen it a bit…

So if you could avoid these things with me in the future it would be much appreciated.

Quote from John Freeman on December 25, 2022, 12:18 pm

frames my post above as a “defense to you”

Well, that was my understanding. It seems I misunderstood. Apologies if you felt disrespected.

and spurns my “support” by saying “not needed”.

Not what I meant. Ah got it you understood it as: "Thank you very much Bel for your supports and kind words BUT I'm fine though! 🙂

As I meant it:

"Thank you very much Bel for your supports and kind words AND I'm fine though!

So the gratitude is sincere and your support is great (hence my sentence). My intention is to communicate that I'm well despite the clarifications in progress.

The final emoji is not to smoothen it, it's to stress that my intention is positive (specifically to avoid misunderstandings, I see I have lot of work to do still on my side)

But I totally see, re-reading the sentence again, that it can be understood this way as well, so fair enough! It does sound a little bit passive aggressive, not my intention, it comes out like that but that's not what I meant. Unintended PM here, so my apologies!