interpersonal relations

Craig Berger's blog

What If? Rethinking America's coffeehouses

Bumped. --Mike

I would think that the introvert in me would love America's coffeehouses (when I use this term, I am referring to the shops that most Americans experience -- places like Starbucks, Caribou Coffee, Dunkin' Donuts). They're small, usually fairly quiet, lounging customers usually have headphones on typing on a laptop, and no one talks to you until you go get a cup of coffee or a refill. But I don't love them. Let me count the ways.

1.) When I describe them as "usually fairly quiet," that's ignoring the sound of making the lattes and smoothies which, at worst, can be severely irritating.

2.) I like being left alone to some degree, but in today's coffeehouses, I can't avoid noticing the missed storytelling opportunities. Each person has an intricately woven set of experiences that every other person in the world can learn from. Where else in society do we have the opportunity to organize these experience-based exchanges?

3.) These chain coffeehouses are usually surrounded by strip malls, big box stores and found on four lane highways. This restricts the building of any kind of community, and it deteriorates the economic health of our small town walking districts.

When I was first thinking about this topic, I consulted a book titled The Great Good Place by Ray Oldenburg. The book reviews the importance of the "third place" in our civic health, a place apart from home and work that allows us to relax and enjoy the company of others. In addition to coffeehouses, we do have other places like hair salons and taverns that serve as third places, but, as Oldenburg writes in the book, coffeehouses have always had the intellectually social side to them. Most of the chain coffeehouses that we have today do fit some of Oldenburg's "third place" characteristics.

But what if we tinkered with some things?

For example, what if the focus of the coffeehouse was not the beverage, but the conversation? What if the "coffeehouse" became a "commons"? Starbucks initially was started with its focus on the environment within the store (after realizing selling just coffee beans was a bit bland). Howard Schultz, the founder of the company, got the urge to start Starbucks when he visited the streetside Italian cafes, was impressed with their environments, and wanted to bring it back to the United States. But the difference between this idea and between Schultz's wish is the injection of interpersonal communication into this mission. This commons should be a place that welcomes everyone into the collective conversation. Oldenburg writes a bit about these qualities found in the London coffeehouses of yesteryear in his book.

In the era of its reign . . . the coffeehouse was often referred to as the Penny University. A penny was the price of admission to its store of literary and intellectual flavors. Twopence was the price of a cup of coffee; a pipe cost a penny; a newspaper was free. The coffeehouse of the seventeenth century was the precursor of the daily newspaper and home delivery of mail . . . Whether on a regular schedule or not, many Londoners dropped into the coffeehouse several times a day in order to keep abreast of the news. Customarily, the literate would read aloud from the house's newspapers, tracts, and broadsides so that the illiterate could digest the contents and discuss the issues of the day (185).

The focus definitely was centered on the dialogue. The conversation, as you read, was set up like a course (the Penny University). You got the news, but you also had the opportunity to digest it, to play with it, with other people just as interested as you. I emphasized "discuss" above because it was not enough even for the illiterate to know the news -- they were expected to discuss it too. The newspaper was free, so there was an obvious focus on substantive conversation. How much better could our society be if we had discussions about public events that happened more frequently? We'd be more educated, more prepared to perform our civic duties. And because the focus is centered on the dialogue and not the beverage, the fancy drinks of Starbucks and Caribou Coffee turn to a more quietly made coffee.

What if this outlet was more centrally located? What if it sucked more people into the plighted downtown areas many rust belt communities are stuck with? What if this "commons" served as an incentive to live in these areas? These commons could be the heart of "walking districts," the downtowns of tomorrow. With a burgeoning emphasis on green behavior, these districts could take off and restore the promise of smalltown America. Improved public dialogue and civic health could result in better school systems, as citizens become more involved in the town's institutions. Better education brings more corporations to these towns to set up shop. It also infuses energy into the town leading to entrepreneurs who are dedicated to the town's future.

I realize this is a very rough, brainstormy entry. But when we look at the "common good," I think we should start in our local communities. The "common good" can only be appreciated, targeted, and pursued when people are talking, and while we have these fancy technological tools (like this blog), the best communication continues to be face-to-face. Coincidentally, Mike offers this tidbit about Clay Shirkey's "cognitive surplus" thesis in a comment on the recent volunteerism entry. It fits in quite nicely with this discussion. This "commons" could find incentives that would enable us to get youth to take one more step and invest some of the time spent on the internet in these grounded, substantive conversations.

What do you think of this commons idea? Is there anything else we can do to reinvigorate the hearts and restore the civic health of our small communities?

July 31st, 2008 8:17am

Tags:

4 comments

Suggestions for Giving and Receiving Feedback

Body:

Few people enjoy confronting others. Even fewer relish being confronted. Many avoid confrontation, with the result that issues remain unresolved or worsen. Giving and receiving feedback responsibly are necessary to a healthy and trusting work relationship. Feedback should not be confused with mere criticism. The following guidelines may assist in this important task:

Giving Feedback:

What: Not every issue merits confrontation. A good rule of thumb:
1. you care enough about the issue that it is taking emotional energy
2. It involves an ongoing relationship
Where: Confronting someone publicly only causes the other to lose face and become more defensive; doing so intentionally is a form of bullying. The more neutral and safe the setting, the more likely the outcome will be positive on both sides.
Who: Feedback is most useful when shared directly with the involved person. Involve others only with permission and for a constructive purpose - e.g. a coach or facilitator. Avoid triangles.
How: Think through the best approach in advance, both for you and the other person, to make the confrontation as positive as possible.
When: Proceed at the earliest available opportunity, so matters are resolved when still fresh. However, it is best to ask permission: “Is this a time to offer you some feedback, or can we plan a time soon?”
Be descriptive: Describe the concern and its impact on you, rather than evaluating, judging, accusing (e.g. “When you… I felt….”).
Be clear and specific: Refer to specific words, actions, or situations. Avoid generalizations, especially “you always…” and “you never…”
Make the feedback useable: Refer to specific words, actions, thinking, or behaviors that the receiver can realistically work to change.
Affirm: Include positive feedback along with correction. Regular positive feedback builds a bank of trust, which makes negative feedback more easily received. A good ratio is at least 3:1. Affirming your commitment to the relationship is key.
Speak for yourself: Express your own concerns and what you need or expect. Use “I” statements and avoid the set-up, “Everyone says…”
Clarify what you want: If you are looking for a change in behavior, don’t leave the person guessing. Be honest about your expectations (“In the future, I need/prefer/expect/do not want…”)

Receiving Feedback:

Changing roles: Anytime we give feedback, we should also be prepared to listen to the other person’s perspective and receive feedback ourselves (“Thanks for listening to me… how are you feeling about things?”)
Be confrontable: If someone approaches you, try first to understand. Then move to being understood.
Listen carefully: Give your full attention (body, mind, emotion)
Clarify the concerns: State back in summary form what you have heard (facts, feelings, impact). Stay as neutral as possible, avoiding defensive add-ons at this time. (“So for you…”; “I understand that….”)
Be open: Ask for more information to further clarify matters (“Say more about…”; “Please explain that…”; “Help me recognize with an example…”)
Acknowledge the concerns: Recognizing another’s concerns or feelings is an important part of respect; it is not the same as agreeing.
Determine an appropriate response: This will vary depending on the circumstances, issue, and relationship. Possible options include:
1. Thank them for their feedback
2. Offer to give their feedback more thought and consideration
3. Enter into a fuller dialogue on the spot, if this seems constructive
4. Plan a follow-up time to talk further
5. Discuss whether a more structured framework may be needed to resolve the issues (with or without facilitation)
6. By agreement, involve others in a broader dialogue or problem-solving session, as appropriate.

February 4th, 2007 9:49am

Tags:

Basic Problem-Solving Steps for Interpersonal Conflicts

Body:

Set ground rules:
- Don’t interrupt
- No insults
- Try to solve the problem together
Take turns: Each person tells what happened, as they see it.
Then each person shares:
- What they need now
- How they could help solve things
Brainstorm solutions that are fair and work for everyone
Agree on one or more ideas.
Set a check-in time.

February 4th, 2007 9:38am

Tags:

Interpersonal Conflict

Body:

Conflict can be a hurtful obstacle, but it can also be an excellent opportunity for change.

[[Basic Problem-Solving Steps for Interpersonal Conflicts]]

February 4th, 2007 9:32am

Tags:

Preventing Burnout

Body:

Burnout is a prolonged stress reaction common to people working in high-emotion jobs.

Symptoms:

People suffering from burnout often cut themselves off from certain aspects of their life or stop participating in activities they formerly enjoyed. Chronic fatigue is a common symptom. Other physical symptoms such as headaches, stomach problems, and a weakened immune system can also accompany burnout. The emotional and mental effects can be even more distressing - for some it amounts to a personality change. Common feelings are depression, chronic anxiety and a sense of being overwhelmed or besieged by demands. People who formerly held a positive outlook can slip into pessimism.

Burnout is qualitatively different from an acute stress reaction caused by a sudden crisis or short burst of overwork. The effects of burnout are usually deeper. Bewildered sufferers may find themselves beset by a sense of futility; their life may be devoid of joy, they may resent others and crave isolation from something that once seemed important and attractive. They are likely to be ambivalent, caught between wanting to escape from the situation on the one hand, and obsession with keeping on going, on the other.

Causes of Burnout:

Burnout is kindled by taking on too much, too intensely, for too long. But it is not that simple. There is usually a complex web of causes that includes personal or internal factors, structural or organizational factors, and social factors such as social injustice. Ultimately, however, it is the way in which an individual interprets or reacts to these factors which makes the difference.

Personal Factors as Causes of Burnout:

Overexposure and Obsession: The first stage in a stress reaction is the release of adrenaline, which gives temporary bursts of energy and even induces euphoria. When people become addicted to this, they become real “workaholics.” They push themselves to work more and more, and sacrifice much of their personal time and life. But it is impossible to maintain such an impossible level of productivity. The next stage is running out of fuel. Depression, lethargy, and lack of direction is the end result.
Emotional Accumulation: Even if we are not obsessively seeking out bad news, as people concerned about social issues we are more exposed to distressing realities. This awareness can be profoundly disturbing to a positive outlook on life and positive visions for the future. Feelings of grief, hopelessness, or despair may alternate with anger or even numbness and disbelief. It can be helpful to acknowledge such painful feelings and lean on others for support when necessary.
Denial of Personal Needs: As William Bryan puts it, “We just assume that the mission is more important than our personal needs. This is where a fundamental contradiction sets in. Those of us who are burnout-prone are also sensitive people who have feelings, want to be liked and recognized, and wish to do worthwhile things for other people. We want to do well and look good in the eyes of our peers, but unfortunately our peers are usually in the same dilemma. They also play down personal needs. Consequently, we fall into playing their game which is ours as well. This usually means that competition thrives between us… Who worked more hours last week? Who originated the better idea?… Purity tests abound as to who is the better environmentalist, feminist, civil rights advocate or socialist.”

Solutions:

To get back on the right track, the burned-out person must realize the extent of their situation and make an effort to identify and rectify the unbalance in their lives. This process could include one or more of the following:

Take time for self-nurturing. When we are caught up in “Important Work,” often self-nurturing comes to be perceived as selfish or trivial, but a trip to the beach or a good novel can do wonders for replenishing one’s energy.
Reach out for support. Utilize support systems available to you to relieve some of the burden.
Celebrate accomplishments.
Draw a boundary around your personal life. Allow space in your house and in your brain for work-free time.
Get organized. Making timelines and lists of priorities can help put your workload in perspective.
Know your work style. Recognize what you need to be effective, and work toward optimizing your potential.
Learn how to take criticism. If you are burning out because you fear reprisal, try to incorporate constructive criticism into your comfort zone.
Don’t expect the impossible of yourself. Be realistic about what your limits are and learn to work comfortably within them.
Get feedback on your work. You could be trying to live up to standards that are not expected of you.

The information on this page was adapted from In the Tiger’s Mouth: An Empowerment Guide to Social Action.

February 3rd, 2007 9:54pm

Tags: