Of Illness, Turkeys, and Decisions
I'm currently comming down from a three day bout with some sort of cold-virusy-thing. I missed a day and a half of work, which was fine, but I also missed a day of Bowling Watch, which I'm going to have to make up to the guy who stood in for me. Fortunately Kyn and Pepper were around to keep me full with soup and sandwiches, and to make sure that I didn't try to pretend I was okay when I was still sick. I pretty much just stayed on the couch for three days and played Assassins Creed 2 and Dragon Age: Origins. Not that I'm complaining, but I would rather do something like that on my own terms, not because some bug decided to host a party for his buddies in my body.
Pepper and I also picked up all of the fixings for Thanksgiving dinner yesterday. She insisted on picking up a free range, non-frozen turkey, which I reluctantly agreed to. I wasn't too happy about the price (over three times what the other turkeys were going for), but she had a good point in that this is pretty much the only time that she gets to cook a dinner like this, and wanted for it to be as good as can be. She always aces Thanksgiving dinner!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There is a question that I like to ask my students in order to get them to think about the kind of leader and person they are going to be in the Coast Guard.
You are standing outside early one morning, observing colors. It is cold and raining, but still you stand and salute the flag as it rises up. A car pulls in to the parking lot next to you, and you see a person in uniform get out of the car and instead of standing and observing colors, as you are, runs into the nearest building, out of the cold and rain. Colors ends. What will you do?
It is a simple question with a complicated answer. What I am asking for is their opinion on what the best course of action would be in this situation, with just that information. Opinions vary from not doing anything, to going after the person and accosting them, to going to that persons supervisor. Then I look for different responses when I change the identity of the individual not observing colors. What would you do if it was a subordinate? What if it was a peer you respected? What about a peer you didn't like? What if it were me, your supervisor? What if it were the Captain of the TRACEN?
The thing is, while everyone agrees what the goal is - the person not observing colors needs to be held accountable for his or her actions - very rarely do the students agree on how to get to that goal, especially when the rank and personality of the person in the story changes. I love listening to the variety of answers and suggestions on how to handle the situation. I encourage everyone to give their feelings and why. I will even provide examples of what I would do, and have done in a similar situation. The one thing I will not do, however, is say what should be done.
I feel that by answering the common question, "Well what should we do?" I would be implying that there is only one way to handle the situation and each of its variants. It's a reasonable enough question, to be sure, but it does not take into account a persons own intuition and experiences. I feel that there is no sure-fire way to handle that situation every time - everyone brings a unique perspective and solution to the situation. Naturally I will either agree or disagree with the answers provided, but I do not feel that it is my place to say whether those solutions are right or wrong.
I tend to take this approach with similar situations both great and small. In my personal experience disagreeing and agreeing with people is preferable to being wrong or right in relation to them. Now I say "preferable" in the understanding that there are times where a difinitive line must be drawn and a decision made on a particular issue. I suppose I simply feel that there are fewer such lines out there than others do.
There is a lot about the book, Nonviolent Communciation: A Language of Life that I enjoy, a part of which deals with this concept. Like a lot of guidebooks, at the end of a chapter there is a quiz on the subject matter. The answers are straightforward enough, but instead of writing "Yes or No" or "True or False" Rosenberg (the author) states, "We are in agreement" or "We are not in agreement". I absolutely loved reading that. Even in a situation where I personally thought that the answer was an obvious Yes or No, the author still left room for individual thought process. To me, that was simply divine to read.
Pepper and I also picked up all of the fixings for Thanksgiving dinner yesterday. She insisted on picking up a free range, non-frozen turkey, which I reluctantly agreed to. I wasn't too happy about the price (over three times what the other turkeys were going for), but she had a good point in that this is pretty much the only time that she gets to cook a dinner like this, and wanted for it to be as good as can be. She always aces Thanksgiving dinner!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There is a question that I like to ask my students in order to get them to think about the kind of leader and person they are going to be in the Coast Guard.
You are standing outside early one morning, observing colors. It is cold and raining, but still you stand and salute the flag as it rises up. A car pulls in to the parking lot next to you, and you see a person in uniform get out of the car and instead of standing and observing colors, as you are, runs into the nearest building, out of the cold and rain. Colors ends. What will you do?
It is a simple question with a complicated answer. What I am asking for is their opinion on what the best course of action would be in this situation, with just that information. Opinions vary from not doing anything, to going after the person and accosting them, to going to that persons supervisor. Then I look for different responses when I change the identity of the individual not observing colors. What would you do if it was a subordinate? What if it was a peer you respected? What about a peer you didn't like? What if it were me, your supervisor? What if it were the Captain of the TRACEN?
The thing is, while everyone agrees what the goal is - the person not observing colors needs to be held accountable for his or her actions - very rarely do the students agree on how to get to that goal, especially when the rank and personality of the person in the story changes. I love listening to the variety of answers and suggestions on how to handle the situation. I encourage everyone to give their feelings and why. I will even provide examples of what I would do, and have done in a similar situation. The one thing I will not do, however, is say what should be done.
I feel that by answering the common question, "Well what should we do?" I would be implying that there is only one way to handle the situation and each of its variants. It's a reasonable enough question, to be sure, but it does not take into account a persons own intuition and experiences. I feel that there is no sure-fire way to handle that situation every time - everyone brings a unique perspective and solution to the situation. Naturally I will either agree or disagree with the answers provided, but I do not feel that it is my place to say whether those solutions are right or wrong.
I tend to take this approach with similar situations both great and small. In my personal experience disagreeing and agreeing with people is preferable to being wrong or right in relation to them. Now I say "preferable" in the understanding that there are times where a difinitive line must be drawn and a decision made on a particular issue. I suppose I simply feel that there are fewer such lines out there than others do.
There is a lot about the book, Nonviolent Communciation: A Language of Life that I enjoy, a part of which deals with this concept. Like a lot of guidebooks, at the end of a chapter there is a quiz on the subject matter. The answers are straightforward enough, but instead of writing "Yes or No" or "True or False" Rosenberg (the author) states, "We are in agreement" or "We are not in agreement". I absolutely loved reading that. Even in a situation where I personally thought that the answer was an obvious Yes or No, the author still left room for individual thought process. To me, that was simply divine to read.