Some groups have a dynamic wherein certain forms of communication are more valued than others. This phenomenon holds true across broad swathes of human endeavor — and the workplace, not least of all. This prompts a question: What is the appropriate response for a person who does not subscribe to the dominant mode of discourse in a given social context?

I ponder this as I struggle to arrive at a coherent response to some ongoing disruptions in the workplace. Healthcare has its own rhythm, and mixing revenue-cycle operations with clinical care can sometimes lead to curious cultural hybrids. But my hospital in general, and my department most especially, is moving along a path that is offering a privileged place to one particular way of communicating. And I’m not sure this is a good thing.

In brief … My department is hewing ever more closely to a communications culture that elevates relationship building and indirect influencing as the officially prescribed means of discourse. It is a very feminist model — the highest virtue is preserving relationships and avoiding direct conflict. It also encourages multilateral negotiation over unilateral assertion, and legitimizes a wide range of emotional responses to workplace stresses as not just valid, but encouraged. More masculine modes of discourse — especially those that give pride of place to logic, authority, stoicism and bluntness — are frowned upon, and practitioners thereof are de-legitimized as being difficult, arrogant, or power-hungry lone rangers who don’t care about the team.

To be sure, there is great value in building relationships and in finding indirect means of encouraging a particular outcome short of direct conflict. But however valuable these skills may be, they do not represent the source and summit of professional behavior. The feminist modes are excellent tools in one’s communication toolbox, but they cannot be the only tools, and they cannot be used indiscriminately. Sometimes, persuasion and consensus-building is appropriate; sometimes, someone just needs to make a decision and be done with it.

It amazes me, still, to see the number of times that logic is trumped by the desire to avoid “burning a bridge” — especially when the logical position must yield to an irrational emotional response (actual or anticipated) by others. And I lose count of how many times a conversation has shifted from the “what” to the “how” of communication; when concerns about “trust” are permitted to cloud the substance of a disagreement, everyone loses.

It takes only the briefest survey of the day’s headlines to conclude that society is increasingly incapable of channeling natural male aggression to socially useful ends. Suicide bombing, prolonged “college” adolescence and inner-city gangs provide ample evidence of a certain degree of widespread social decline. It does not help when traditionally masculine behaviors are banished from the pale of professional behavior and feminist approaches to communication are considered normative, deviation from which is considered to reflect poorly on the transgressor.

A healthy approach to workplace communication recognizes that there are several (often contradictory) approaches that are equally valid. Superior communicators realize that there are many different tools in the idea-sharing toolbox, and have an understanding of which tool is right for a specific job.

But all this notwithstanding, it is a difficult task to move two dozen leaders away from the Kool-Aid of feminist discourse and toward a more healthy and comprehensive understanding of communication excellence. What an adventure this should prove to be!

My name is Jason, and I’m a victim of road rage.

On Saturday, as I was driving to church (church!), a male in his thirties in a minivan backed out of a driveway directly into the path of my oncoming Jeep.  So what did your friendly blogger do?  He passed him, so as to avoid killing him.  Right decent of me, I think.

My kindness earned me an assault of the most bizarre kind.  See, the road upon which we traveled was zoned as “no passing,” but to avoid hitting the minivan, I had to pass him.  Not the worst thing in the world, since there was no oncoming traffic.  But I guess I hit a nerve with this guy, who sped up, blew a stop sign, and cut me off at a choke point along the road.  He then exited his vehicle, ran up to me, and started screaming about me passing him in a no-passing zone.

Well, I’m one of those strange people who gets very calm and rational in the face of aggression.  Whenever people blow up in my face, my mind clears and I become almost tranquil.  So I very gently reminded the angry man that, in fact, he pulled out in front of me.  At which he became even more angry — apparently, the fact that he didn’t bother to look for oncoming traffic means that I must’ve been going at least 40 in a 25 zone.  Why those numbers?  Don’t ask me.  I was too busy watching his spittle coat my window to focus on his math.

OK.  Guy in a minivan with a horrible case of road rage.  I can deal with that.  What astonished me, however, was the behavior of those present for the adventure.  Two other vehicles served as effective barriers, boxing me in place, while the occupants simply observed the encounter.  A second minivan, which was nearly sideswiped by the road-rage guy, also simply sat there while the nut was screaming at me.  One shudders to imagine how supine my fellow travelers would have been if the road-rage guy were an Islamist terrorist with a bomb.  Would they have watched in silent fascination as he carefully armed his suicide fanny pack?

This past week was spent in sunny Central Florida for the annual Cerner Health Conference.  Overall, things went quite well, from my perspective — I traveled with a great group of co-workers, the sessions were mostly informative, and the hotel (Gaylord Palms) spectacular.

While in Florida, I read Mark Steyn’s new book, America Alone.  His thesis is that militant Islamism presents a serious civilizational threat because the political systems of the West have denuded Western Man of a certain vitality — and that this tendency gives Islamists the upper hand because (a) the West’s preoccupation with “diversity” means we downplay the threat, and (b) the nihilistic vacuousness of Western ideology is being rationally displayed through dangerously low birthrates.  In short:  Radical Islam might win because radical Muslims might outbreed us.

Speaking of breeding … the dehumanization of women as sexual beings may be more advanced than I thought.  Many are familiar with the colorful terms used in, say, gangsta rap — but what is more chilling is the reaction in a closed and relatively informed discussion group to one person’s comments about casual sex.  The short version is that he has male friends who like to sleep with different women, without using contraception — even pressuring the women into not using contraception — so that these virile studs might “breed” them (his terms, which went largely unchallenged and unanalyzed by the group).  For these men, the thought of having dozens of unknown children by buxom, servile women is a psychological turn-on of the first rank, and the titilation factor is only enhanced by explicitly referring to women in terms usually reserved for livestock.  That this has always been true, in a latent sense, is probably trite; that social conventions are loosening to the point that sexually predatory male behavior is essentially uncontrolled, is a development with complex outcomes whose advent has not received the attention it deserves.  Not the least of which is an acceleration of the sexual objectification of women.

On a not-very-related note, I’ve had several people mention dating problems to me.  Which is sorta funny, in a way.  But the theme is similar: No one is out there, I’m all alone, men/women only want one thing (that “I” don’t have).  OK; fair enough.  But everyone presents a package of strengths and weaknesses to potential partners.  I firmly believe that anyone who tries really hard can find a mate.  The challenge, though, is that desperation tends to work in contradictory ways.  For some, it relaxes their standards; for others, it tightens them.  As it happens, for some of my friends, the latter is happening, and so they’ve narrowed their “minimum acceptable criteria” in such a way that anyone would have trouble finding the ideal him or her — and moreso given the limitations of each person’s own ante-up into the dating game.  Until they realize the improbability of a Royal Flush, their luck at the table will probably be disappointing.

This past week was spent in sunny Central Florida for the annual Cerner Health Conference.  Overall, things went quite well, from my perspective — I traveled with a great group of co-workers, the sessions were mostly informative, and the hotel (Gaylord Palms) spectacular.
While in Florida, I read Mark Steyn’s new book, America Alone.  His thesis is that militant Islamism presents a serious civilizational threat because the political systems of the West have denuded Western Man of a certain vitality — and that this tendency gives Islamists the upper hand because (a) the West’s preoccupation with “diversity” means we downplay the threat, and (b) the nihilistic vacuousness of Western ideology is being rationally displayed through dangerously low birthrates.  In short:  Radical Islam might win because radical Muslims might outbreed us.
Speaking of breeding … the dehumanization of women as sexual beings may be more advanced than I thought.  Many are familiar with the colorful terms used in, say, gangsta rap — but what is more chilling is the reaction in a closed and relatively informed discussion group to one person’s comments about casual sex.  The short version is that he has male friends who like to sleep with different women, without using contraception — even pressuring the women into not using contraception — so that these virile studs might “breed” them (his terms, which went largely unchallenged and unanalyzed by the group).  For these men, the thought of having dozens of unknown children by buxom, servile women is a psychological turn-on of the first rank, and the titilation factor is only enhanced by explicitly referring to women in terms usually reserved for livestock.  That this has always been true, in a latent sense, is probably trite; that social conventions are loosening to the point that sexually predatory male behavior is essentially uncontrolled, is a development with complex outcomes whose advent has not received the attention it deserves.  Not the least of which is an acceleration of the sexual objectification of women.
On a not-very-related note, I’ve had several people mention dating problems to me.  Which is sorta funny, in a way.  But the theme is similar: No one is out there, I’m all alone, men/women only want one thing (that “I” don’t have).  OK; fair enough.  But everyone presents a package of strengths and weaknesses to potential partners.  I firmly believe that anyone who tries really hard can find a mate.  The challenge, though, is that desperation tends to work in contradictory ways.  For some, it relaxes their standards; for others, it tightens them.  As it happens, for some of my friends, the latter is happening, and so they’ve narrowed their “minimum acceptable criteria” in such a way that anyone would have trouble finding the ideal him or her — and moreso given the limitations of each person’s own ante-up into the dating game.  Until they realize the improbability of a Royal Flush, their luck at the table will probably be disappointing.