June 9, 2008
I versus We
My husband and I both tend to be independent, and we will catch ourselves making decisions without consulting the other. He recently challenged me for excluding him from a process that I should have consulted him on. Of course, he was right. (And of course I hated that he was right.)
Your words reveal the way you think. I catch myself using the word “I” at times when I should be using the word “we.” I see it as a signal that it’s time to be more inclusive in my thinking.
I read an article years ago that said leaders who seek power to dominate rather than support to lead will substitute the word “I” for the word “we.” Statements like: “I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent” instead of we won’t do these things shifts power from the people to the leader.
“I” is exclusive. “We” is inclusive. An exclusive politician who knows this might use the word “we” in a tactical way. Only time can tell us that. But a leader who focuses on him or herself rather than appeal to a collective effort sends out red flags to those of us who would rather Unite and Concur.
Email This Post
Related posts which may interest you
- Priorities ~ Bowling for distraction
- Get real ~ You can wish your candidate had more experience AND still support him or her
- Reader question ~Who’s entitled to an opinion?
- Air America Radio suspension of host Randi Rhodes raises communication questions
- Communication standards ~ Political bullying…in kindergarden?
Congressman Lee Hamilton’s advice to the consensus-starved
Retired Congressman Lee Hamilton says Americans are starved for consensus and that, building consensus is straightforward. Here’s his advice.
- Work cooperatively, not confrontationally.
- Look at your colleagues as colleagues, not political adversaries.
- Agree on facts before you apply your ideology to policy.
- Take ample time to understand different views and deliberate on where you’re going.
- Search for areas of agreement, and do not exaggerate areas of disagreement.
- Get people focused on the national interest, not on partisan advantage.
- Decide from the get-go that you’re going to reach an agreement, not use disagreement to score political points.
Keep these points in mind when you evaluate leaders and news sources, and when you plan your own approach to potentially contentious discussions.
Email This Post
Related posts which may interest you
- Priorities ~ Bowling for distraction
- Blog guidelines: How to start a reasonable dialogue about reasonable dialogue
- Across party lines ~ Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson Unite and Concur on Climate Change
- A Political First Date - What not to say
- Communication Question - talking with your political opposite
SpeakStrong in Politics: You don’t miss what you don’t see
Here’s a test for you. Watch the news and ask yourself, what WASN’T reported? While the airwaves were filled with campaign news, what was omitted? What voices do you not hear?
Think about old news. Since news has a short cycle, chances are good there are scores of stories that dropped off the radar but still are relevant. If Iraq has not been in the news, can you assume nothing is happening in Iraq?
If the economy isn’t in the news, can you assume it’s sailing along just fine?
If no one carries labor news any more, does that mean there is no labor news?
You don’t miss what you can’t see. So next time you watch the news, ask what wasn’t there, and let your news providers know what you want to see covered.
Email This Post
Related posts which may interest you
- Priorities ~ Bowling for distraction
- What not to say ~ “How does it feel to have abandoned the cause of your life?”
- What’s wrong with this picture?: Huge profit opportunities
- Reader question ~Who’s entitled to an opinion?
- Across party lines ~ Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson Unite and Concur on Climate Change
Unite and Concur Pressroom