Musings
About three times a year, I receive "feedback" from a reader which is in the form of snide comments tacked to my various items here. Of the two dozen of these I've received over the years, I've never been able to decipher the convoluted, sarcastic point the writers were obsessively laboring to make. This is a free newsletter in which I express my opinions. I'm not about to change my style because someone has taken an offense that I can't figure out in a newsletter they've voluntarily subscribed to.
Recently, a man told me that he wasn't going to renew membership in the Society for Advancement of Consulting® because "it has no value for me." I told him I understood, it's a personal decision and thank goodness very few feel that way, but that he'd have to remove the logo and the "board approval" designation which were prominently displayed on his web home page. He began to argue that he was entitled to take credit for membership and accolades that he "used to belong to and achieve."
I asked him why, if the society were valueless to him, it was of such value to display the connection. I still don't have an answer.
I don't blame people for not liking something they've read, or deciding not to perpetuate a membership, or concluding that they don't want to continue to collaborate with certain people. These are rational, healthy, self-serving decisions. But why do so with an offensive swipe and aggressive commentary? (One woman once took two pages to tell me why she was unsubscribing to Balancing Act. I suggested that anything which caused her so much thought and provocation was probably good for her. She then wrote another page to tell me why that idea was ridiculous, and I realized I had better let her walk away shouting or I'd never be done with it.)
Most of my mail, and I receive about 50 emails a week regarding my columns and books and newsletter, is overwhelming constructive. Those who disagree ask for clarification, or whether I've considered another view. Some correct facts or demonstrate the difference between fact and opinion. (Peter Drucker was famous for confusing these, and I'm just trying to modestly follow in his footsteps.) And, I report immodestly, most tell me about how something they've read has helped them. (The recent column I included from Nancy Michaels describing her health ordeal is a case in point.)
The conventional wisdom tells us that a complaint is a sign of interest, and that apathy is the real danger. Auto dealers or insurance agents would rather have a customer who bothers to tell them what's wrong instead of one who simply refuses to return their calls and disappears.
I'm no longer so sure that's universally true. I don't need to know about one's private reasons for taking issue with something that can't change (you don't pay your dues, you don't use the logo). I know that I'm not going to make one-off changes at any time, that is, listen to one dissenter when thousands of others aren't in agreement. (That's why unsolicited feedback is so dangerous for those who are insecure.)
At times, I guess, I'd take issue with Dylan Thomas, and suggest, paraphrasing, that it's okay for some people to go gentle into that good night.
ORTIYKMWOYBNT-O Department
A colleague visited my home once when my 100-pound dog Trotsky lived with us. Trotsky looked like an alpha-wolf, but I assured my guest that he was a lovable dog. My colleague, instead of extending a hand to be sniffed, bent over and looked into Trotsky's eyes from about six inches away and said, "You're a great looking dog."
Trotsky immediately bit his lower lip before either of us could move. By the time he returned to an upright position, he asked if there was a mark. He could hardly finish the question, because part of his lip had turned into a small, purple plum. For the two hours of our meeting, he would painfully say, "Offgod, plexo, ruminstad" and things like that, and I would politely nod, keeping him away from mirrors until he left.