People don’t like negativity, I get why, but sometimes is vital!
To set the scene, today we had a “Staff Day” (one of the many things our truly fantastic CEO has brought in). We had updates from various department heads and did team building crap, and then we got into the good stuff.
I hated the Vision that had been recently written for the organisation and I was quick to criticise parts of it I didn’t like to my breakout group. People didn’t like the bluntness of my brutal honesty, however my points were noted and we moved onto suggesting values for the organisation. It wasn’t until each group fed back that I realised I had been reading the Vision wrong.
While I had looked at it from my engineering mathematical brain and concluded that it was wishy washy and unachievable. My colleagues group had analysed it as a piece of english. Their explanation of each sentence opened my eyes to another way of reading it. On a slight tangent I am trying to read a copy of the Quran (translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali). During the introduction a beautiful sentence is used
“One important point in understanding the Quran is that it is not a legal book, but a Book Of Mission”
Obviously our Vision is not the Quran but this idea of missionary style of writing is amazing! I shouldn’t always read words in their black and white literally/legal sense. Sometimes words have to be understood as a phrase. A phrase that explains something greater than its parts with the additional of emotion, importance and desire.
Lunch then happened.
Stop – Start – Continue was the first afternoon activity. Some people would appear to be oblivious to problems. Some people are just really incredibly bad at chairing/facilitating meetings and should probably be thrown off the nearest pier head, but I digress. After my initial “negative” suggestions regarding the Vision people assumed I was going to tear the rest of the organisation apart. I am very good at finding faults, but I’d like to think I’m pretty good at suggesting fixes too. The Stop – Stop – Continue was ineffective for our group at least. People were too caught up in suggesting changes to effects that they experience, rather than zooming and suggesting changes to the systems that cause them. I spend 10 minutes trying to justify why I think people should be paid for the job they do instead of the position they hold. In the end I took one for the team and suggested that my contract should not be renewed and others in the organisation should be paid an acceptable wage. Too few people are willing to say and do what is necessary!
Finally on the topic of Nomenclature, I hate the term “Science Communicator” just because you work in a science centre you’re not a “Science Communicator”! Think of a better term, this is just lazy and in reality means nothing.
Anyway, if you’d like to hear/read my full rant regarding “Science Communicators” just ask or something. Also if you’d like me to find some faults for you give me a shout.
Until next time, I might not get my contract renewed, hire me?