Mother Marie of the Incarnation has a hard job, for sure.
For a while I was reading books on negotiation (Getting to Yes; Getting Past No; Having Difficult Conversations; etc), but it seems that these are only helpful when you have someone who is willing to *have* a conversation, difficult or otherwise, and in the end (when someone will n…
Mother Marie of the Incarnation has a hard job, for sure.
For a while I was reading books on negotiation (Getting to Yes; Getting Past No; Having Difficult Conversations; etc), but it seems that these are only helpful when you have someone who is willing to *have* a conversation, difficult or otherwise, and in the end (when someone will not have a conversation) it was only possible to 1. clearly state in writing my expectations, and what I intended to do if those expectations were ignored, and a (perhaps coldblooded) estimate of what the "cost" of that would be, and then 2. to carry out what I had said I would do. Rationally, no one wants things to get to the point of 2 because the cost is high for both parties, and yet sometimes that's what happens (and the reason it happens, logic suggests, is that for one party the *perceived cost* of repairing the relationship is much higher than the estimated cost of waiting to see if the other party will really do what they had said they would, possibly tempered by an expectation "they won't really", or by "if they do, then they are the bad guys and I will feel absolutely justified in everything I have ever done and I can feel reassured that I have never done anything wrong" which is a heck of a drug. So, why is the *perceived cost* of repair high? Because *vulnerability* is necessary; exercise left for reader.) Rationally, no one even wants to get to the point of clearly stating the consequences because this sounds (to the receiving party who can't think clearly about the sending party's motives) like emotional manipulation, or a power struggle, or a threat.
So if the nuns continue, for their part, to stonewall, then my coldblooded expectation is that somebody is going to state some consequences (danger: there is a cliff) and a deadline (danger: the cliff is in 2 miles) and that whoever is driving is just going to drive right off the cliff like a Looney Tunes cartoon [brief pause while I look up how to spell loony tunes], but I would like to be proven wrong by events.
Mother Marie of the Incarnation has a hard job, for sure.
For a while I was reading books on negotiation (Getting to Yes; Getting Past No; Having Difficult Conversations; etc), but it seems that these are only helpful when you have someone who is willing to *have* a conversation, difficult or otherwise, and in the end (when someone will not have a conversation) it was only possible to 1. clearly state in writing my expectations, and what I intended to do if those expectations were ignored, and a (perhaps coldblooded) estimate of what the "cost" of that would be, and then 2. to carry out what I had said I would do. Rationally, no one wants things to get to the point of 2 because the cost is high for both parties, and yet sometimes that's what happens (and the reason it happens, logic suggests, is that for one party the *perceived cost* of repairing the relationship is much higher than the estimated cost of waiting to see if the other party will really do what they had said they would, possibly tempered by an expectation "they won't really", or by "if they do, then they are the bad guys and I will feel absolutely justified in everything I have ever done and I can feel reassured that I have never done anything wrong" which is a heck of a drug. So, why is the *perceived cost* of repair high? Because *vulnerability* is necessary; exercise left for reader.) Rationally, no one even wants to get to the point of clearly stating the consequences because this sounds (to the receiving party who can't think clearly about the sending party's motives) like emotional manipulation, or a power struggle, or a threat.
So if the nuns continue, for their part, to stonewall, then my coldblooded expectation is that somebody is going to state some consequences (danger: there is a cliff) and a deadline (danger: the cliff is in 2 miles) and that whoever is driving is just going to drive right off the cliff like a Looney Tunes cartoon [brief pause while I look up how to spell loony tunes], but I would like to be proven wrong by events.
I love how you spelled it "Looney" and "loony" in your last line...