Month: August 2014
In a hat tip to Om Malik who writes a periodic column called “What I’m reading“, I decided to write a weekly note on what I’ve been reading. Today it was Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes. I was rooting around the basement library of some friends that I was crashing with for the week, hoping to find a mindless Ludlumesque or Lee Child adventure, when I came across the book. My friend’s copy was in mint condition lulling me into believing it was a recent book despite its blurb “The classical novel that inspired the Academy Award-winning movie Charly” which of course I’d never heard of.
Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
I picked up the book with little idea of what it was about or even when it was written. I certainly did not think of it as science fiction, which is what Wikipedia speaks of it as. I read the book in a single sitting, as it held me enthralled. The start of the book, as in letter form or more accurately, journal entries took a moment to get used to and for the first page or two, the misspellings and poor grammar seems a little contrived. However, Charlie Gordon’s voice and narration drew me in and I had a hard time attending to real life needs be it breakfast or lunch as I plunged my way through the book on a work day! The book worked at so many levels, from how mentally retarded folks are treated, to the insular world of academicians and scientists to growing self-awareness and insight of an evolving Charlie Gordon and how childhood experiences and memories continue to shape us. The redemption of Charlie’s sister Norma, his encounter with his father, his evolving relationship with Alice – the book is filled with tales of redemption and self-knowledge – even if every one of these characters are not threshed out fully. I’ve rated the book with 5 Stars for both the subject and how it’s been covered and the way it held me truly enthralled.
Get it and read it.
The other book I’m reading at present is
Mojo: How to Get It, How to Keep It, How to Get It Back When You Lose It
Whether a startup or a large corporation, email has become just a fact of our work lives, it’s hard to imagine a time when it wasn’t so. Email useful as it is, however seems to create as many problems as it addresses. Beyond the chain letters and phishing emails or spam, flame wars conducted over email is probably the biggest cause of productivity loss, in both large and small companies.
Most back-and-forth email stinkers or flame wars are preventable and many times seem downright silly or petty. Yet they seem to pop up all over the place with near-despairing regularity. Flame wars, particularly between colleagues, is a huge emotional sink, sapping productivity and motivation. This is even truer when the parties involved are in the same office. It is to overcome these that we’ve formulated a simple rule – yep 1 single rule to prevent email flame wars.
The No 3rd email rule Simply put this rule states, if one person has sent an email (#1) and a second person has responded (#2) and it’s clear that they are not agreeing, or not happy – there should be no 3rd email sent. Instead the two parties should talk in person (sometimes this only requires swivelling in one’s chair) or pick up the phone, if not in the same office.
Think about it – most email flaming starts due to one of two reasons:
- public questioning, accusation or challenge (real or perceived) by usually the sender
- outright misunderstanding by one party (usually the reader)
In the former case, the recipient responds either defensively, or attacks the sender, as they perceive themselves or their work being undermined or attacked. This may or may not have been the intent of the sender. In the latter, regardless of the sender’s intent, the recipient misunderstands either what is being said or why it is being said (or at times to whom it is being said or copied to) and leads to misunderstanding and grief.
Regardless of who started it, their intent and what was being actually said, the No 3rd email rule works excellently by stopping the electronic conversation, which would at this stage usually deteriorate into accusations, counter accusations and fingerpointing. The beauty of this rule is it is independent of who wields the organizational power between the sender and the recipient and nips the blooming potential conflict in the proverbial bud.
Like all good rules, it’s simple to state and understand, a little bit harder to practice. We are still working on it. What are you waiting for?
Recent Comments