-- [ From: Lynda Rogerson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] --
Hi Monty,
I teach such a course; Years ago, I used to teach it only for women.
Then as I worked my way through various organizations, I found that a
large number of men experience the same lack of assertiveness that
causes a large number of women problems.
Recently I read an article by a former Digital pal in which she writes
about "rhetorical sensitivity." Her thesis is that certain people (may
be male or female) are more conscientious about 'attending ' to the
needs of others in the environment. Thus, rather than voicing their own
abilities, needs, or observations they will use their communication time
(air time) to direct attention to others, to assist others in
idenitifying their abilities, needs, accomplishments, etc.
Sometimes this is a cultural issue and sometimes it is a gender issue.
It doesn't really matter where it comes from; the point is that it is a
very significant factor in why some people never get taken seriously,
never get 'heard," never feel as though they are recognized and so forth
. Another piece of this rhetorical sensitivity behavior is that the
individual practicing it is always "scanning" the 'attitudes' of those
listening and tries to anticipate their values and needs in his or her
response. Thus, they often end statements with a question mark (or an
intonation question rather than a firm commitment).
It's an interesting phenomenon. Now, when I teach team development, I
spend a great deal of time on the issue of 'rhetorical sensitivity" and
the importance of assertive communication in the organization. (It's a
far cry from the values that were important in my gender and in my
professional arena: 'don't blow your own horn,' 'never use "I"
statements, "let other people go first," "don't hog the limelite' and
so on. Each of these, while quite appropriate in social dialog with
one's peers or elders is not really appropriate in a problem solving
setting or in a 'board room"--especially if your 'air time' with the
decision makers and the career makers is limited.
The article by the way has a formidable title, but is not as abstract as
it sounds!!
Dell, S. (Dec., 1992) A communication-based thoery of the glass ceiling
: Rhetorical sensitivty and upward mobility within the technical
organizaiton. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication Vol 35 #2
..
So, I don't know if this is useful for your situation, but it certainly
helped me in working with diversity issues, and with team training. And
my class now called "No Apologies Necessary" is for both men and women.
Lynda Rogerson, Ed.D.
hxbg65a@prodigy.com
www.lynco.com
-------- REPLY, Original message follows --------
Date: Tuesday, 07-Oct-97 08:11 PM
From: Montague Brown \ Internet: (
brnmont@azstarnet.com) To
:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU (Unlisted Name) \ Internet: (mg-ed
-dv@maelstrom.stjohns.edu)
Subject: Converting courses to program
A query from a student is the subject of this situation.
A course is designed to help women become more assertive members of
management teams. Assume that such a course could be done, done well
and in fact has been used as a stand alone course for a wide range of
people. Once done, would it then be desirable to run a similar program
for the men on such teams? Should this be followed by a team building
course for the full teams.
In the situation a client has asked for a course for women based on
experience with stand alone course successes.
What course of action should the human resource manager follow and what
course of action should the consultant recommend.
My response was that if I were the human resource director my long term
goal would be strong teams and separate courses would likely be but a
step towards that goal. If I were the consultant, I would want to at a
minimum probe the need for the first course, the likelihood of it
working long term and whether or not the two additional courses might be
needed.
What do you think?
Monty Brown
Editor, Health Care Management Review
-------- REPLY, End of original message