Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Short Thank You's and Feedback
Hello Lucio,
off-topic
thank you, alright I will let you know. I agree with everything you said. It has to be something I want to do. As you said it's more a matter of timing.
/off-topic
A quick shoutout to Com Truise. Every time I see your username in the people logged in it brings a smile on my face. Funniest username ever, thanks.
I want to thank and give credit to @power-duck.
Thanks for the power-protection in our recent exchanges: this was respectful. I trusted you had good intentions and I believed you trusted I had the same. In your message, it stresses it even further which leaves no doubt about the positive intention and the positive feelings towards me (not the exchange of course). This also shows the importance of displaying goodwill. Maybe for us it’s clear but it could not be to the other party. Sometimes we start a relationship on the wrong foot. Sometimes we make enemies through clumsiness, misinterpretations or misunderstanding or plainly taking it personnally. By stressing that we’re operating from a goodwill perspective it allows us to build smoothly great relationships. If there are conflicts they are quickly resolved since there is a history of displaying goodwill. By displaying I mean not saying “I’m coming from good intentions” but showing it, for instance with power protection, apologies, empathy or trying to better understand the other’s POV.
Give credit (instead of congratulate which would be a PM) since the way you did it is something I think is worth considering as a general practice on the forum.
You said in the post at the bottom of the post itself that you intended to do a “feedback and clarifications”. I think it’s better since for the person it does not feel like it’s “coming out of the blue”. It’s also better for readers as they can follow the rest of the meta exchange if they want to.
Putting it in grey (even if it's only for readibility) also frames it as a side issue or even a minor issue. So by minimizing it encourages the other party to partake in a conversation that can potentially be triggering. It lowers the stake.
Finally you asked my permission to do so. I think it’s not mandatory. However it’s another sign of good will. It also allows to cement the frame of “we’re going to have a constructive conversation about what I think was not ok”. So if the other person agrees it sets a collaborative frame from the start. So it’s great leadership I think as well.
So all in all great diplomacy from my perspective.
I also want to thank (again) everyone here for your patience and brotherhood. Going through PU I read some of my old posts and it’s a bit painful. I see all the mistakes I did in terms of power dynamics and often a quite bad social intelligence: misinterpretations, etc.
I wanted to stress this as I owe you all a lot. Im aware of it.
Correction: "Finally you asked if it was ok for me".
Quote from John Freeman on August 11, 2023, 12:20 pmI want to thank and give credit to @power-duck.
Thanks for the power-protection in our recent exchanges: this was respectful. I trusted you had good intentions and I believed you trusted I had the same. In your message, it stresses it even further which leaves no doubt about the positive intention and the positive feelings towards me (not the exchange of course). This also shows the importance of displaying goodwill. Maybe for us it’s clear but it could not be to the other party. Sometimes we start a relationship on the wrong foot. Sometimes we make enemies through clumsiness, misinterpretations or misunderstanding or plainly taking it personnally. By stressing that we’re operating from a goodwill perspective it allows us to build smoothly great relationships. If there are conflicts they are quickly resolved since there is a history of displaying goodwill. By displaying I mean not saying “I’m coming from good intentions” but showing it, for instance with power protection, apologies, empathy or trying to better understand the other’s POV.
Give credit (instead of congratulate which would be a PM) since the way you did it is something I think is worth considering as a general practice on the forum.
You said in the post at the bottom of the post itself that you intended to do a “feedback and clarifications”. I think it’s better since for the person it does not feel like it’s “coming out of the blue”. It’s also better for readers as they can follow the rest of the meta exchange if they want to.
Putting it in grey (even if it's only for readibility) also frames it as a side issue or even a minor issue. So by minimizing it encourages the other party to partake in a conversation that can potentially be triggering. It lowers the stake.
Finally you asked my permission to do so. I think it’s not mandatory. However it’s another sign of good will. It also allows to cement the frame of “we’re going to have a constructive conversation about what I think was not ok”. So if the other person agrees it sets a collaborative frame from the start. So it’s great leadership I think as well.
So all in all great diplomacy from my perspective.
I also want to thank (again) everyone here for your patience and brotherhood. Going through PU I read some of my old posts and it’s a bit painful. I see all the mistakes I did in terms of power dynamics and often a quite bad social intelligence: misinterpretations, etc.
I wanted to stress this as I owe you all a lot. Im aware of it.
Thanks to you too for the post John. :)
I agree with the things you point out.
This part in particular:
Finally you asked my permission to do so. I think it’s not mandatory. However it’s another sign of good will. It also allows to cement the frame of “we’re going to have a constructive conversation about what I think was not ok”. So if the other person agrees it sets a collaborative frame from the start. So it’s great leadership I think as well.
I didn't imagine it would be good from a leadership perpective, so another thing I learn.
I was afraid I might had overdone the power protecting part thus making me come across as weak. But I think that as long as one makes the statement clear and direct without beating around the bushes, and then, follows up with power protecting and shows/displays of goodwill one is good to go.
Thanks again for the post, I have learned valuable things from this.
Cheers.
Off-topic
Indeed there was a lot of power protecting. However I think when we haven’t met the other person it’s better to err on more than less. After we can calibrate as you are doing.
Also, I don’t think it made you come across as weak. Because there was leadership with it that strengthened it. I think you came across as not wanting to offend. I did not feel you were framing me as thin-skinned either.
In this case I was on board no matter the power protection (I think) as I wanted to learn. It was also your right to ask for clarification and give feed-back. So it would have been fair to use less power protection in this case. I personnally interpreted it as a courtesy and a sign of respect and you not wanting to damage the relationship. Since I felt the same I think it worked here.
If the person is confrontational/adversarial too much power protection could be interpreted as a sign of weakness I agree.
All in all I do agree with you that you could experiment with less power protection. Depending on context and person.
/Off-topic
If the person is confrontational/adversarial too much power protection could be interpreted as a sign of weakness I agree.
Thanks John. Will keep this in mind.
OFF TOPIC
I will write some things in regards to what you said in my journal. Wrote this in case you/someone else reading this wants to keep up.
END OFF TOPIC
Hello @bel,
I want to thank you for your solution regarding thanking back when value is acknowledged by the other party.
I have now enough perspective to give a feed-back on it. This was very helpful for me. It allowed me to express my gratitude without credit scalping.
I hope you are well.
Correction: credit inflating.
