Reduce defensiveness: When we attack the person, they're more likely to become defensive and less receptive to feedback.
Increase understanding: By focusing on the issue, we can better understand each other's perspectives and find common ground.
Build trust: Objectifying conversations can help to foster a more positive and collaborative environment.
Additional Examples -
Here are some more examples to illustrate the difference between subjectivized and objectified conversations:
Subjectivized: "You're always late."
Objectified: "The project is behind schedule."
Subjectivized: "You're a terrible listener."
Objectified: "I didn't feel heard in our last meeting."
Subjectivized: "You're so negative."
Objectified: "I'm concerned about the potential risks of this approach."
Remember: The goal is not to avoid personal pronouns entirely but to use them strategically. If a personal pronoun is necessary to convey a specific message, use it, but try to avoid making it the primary focus of the conversation.
Srinath - I hope you had a good new years and also enjoyed your IPA's?
Yes Issa. Thank you and hope you had the same. Taking breaks are always good. I did enjoy the IPA's but also mixed it with some single malts and bourbon.Interesting - you know we should talk at length some time about IPA's, malt whiskey and bourbon. But today I want to talk about Teamwork - are you ready?Yes Issa of course. Teamwork is critical to success in any effort.So what makes people feel like they are in a team?That is a loaded question Issa - many things and perhaps may different ways. If you google "how to build team chemistry?" you will get a ton of hits. I have looked at it differently and will ask you the negation - what would prevent teamwork?Lack of a common goal?Sure. That is the most essential attribute. Is that all? Once again all the experts cite common goals - but beyond that they all differ on which methods work and which do not. And I have rejected these methods because I have felt they are dependent on people. Can you team up with someone, who you do not trust?Certainly not. You and I have been a team for more than 19 years - but trust is the cornerstone for it. Now that you mention it, I am looking back at how we have been able to sustain that. We have been through so many ups and downs, fought legal battles, downturns, desisted unethical business practices and relationships, but our trust has been intact. But going back to people can you not make the argument that it was still "people" - you and I. You know we had some bad apples. Yes Issa - you are right. I am as proud of it as you are. In the process, we also made sure that we did not compromise on our core principles of integrity and our commitment to employees and customers. We have always put them first, ahead of our interests. Our common goal and vision was exactly that. It is also the people, but we need a method which forces the "wrong" people to exit the team, rather than drag it down. So you need a mechanism to build the other block - trust. If you have a common goal and you trust a bunch of people then team chemistry automatically builds you do not have to force it.Yes we did. Even in the most troubled times we did not miss payroll even though we had to put back money to do just that.So what did we do to build that trust? Would it have been possible if we had hid things from each other?Certainly not. It would have fostered total mistrust.So there you go Issa - the most important attribute building trust is transparency.Agreed. Should we summarize it as the three T's? Transparency leads to Trust which leads to Teamwork?Nice. The three T's. I will add that transparency also includes all the good you do. It is important that your partners in any shared initiative know that so that they do not take you for granted. In fact it is transparency that allows the bad apples to fall off as they are forced to being transparent and they are not comfortable doing that. Transparency also fosters recognition of common goals as in you are not saying one thing while covertly trying to achieve something else.Yes Srinath. I agree. We need to be transparent on all accounts. Now I also can relate to what Sanjay Bhatnagar said about our all hands meeting "I have never seen this kind of transparency in any organization".Indeed Issa. Let us conclude with the three T's: Transparency, Trust and Teamwork. It is simple - but not easy. It takes time and effort but the principles are simple. If you do not compromise and persist it works!On that note, IPA's next?Perhaps :-)Srinath, you and I have forever heard the phrase Garbage In Garbage out (GIGO) - do you still think it exists?Issa, I think you know the answer to that!.Sorry man I was being facetious?I have known you long enough Issa - no worries. But you do bring up an age old topic. Why do you think we still have not solved the problem?I thought this Q&A was that I ask the questions and you answer - but anyway let me take a crack at it. People, including yours truly, usually think that if we ignore unpleasant things then they will somehow magically go away. But sadly that does not happen - and that I think is also true of GIGO - what do you think?Partially Issa. I do not believe everyone thinks that ignoring the GIGO problem will make it disappear. I contend that they do not perceive the problem accurately. While I concede that some problems do go away (as they say Time is the greatest healer), but that certainly is not the case with GIGO. If you do not solve the underlying causes, they will fester. As a wise eccentric man once defined "Insanity" as "Doing the same thing again and expecting different results".Agreed. So while the industry has focussed on making prettier presentation layers (you see new tools in the market continuously - Tableau etc), you really do not see much in fixing the plumbing layers. Why do you think that is the case?You make an interesting point Issa. As our friend Stephen Ibbitson says, you can have the most expensive Faucet - but if the water is dirty, you still cannot afford to drink it. To answer your question - I think it is because ironically, keeping data clean is a dirty job. You must also remember that there are quite a lot of tools in the market that cleanse data and give this perception that you can solve the dirty data problem with "Data Quality tools".Do you think the tools that cleanse data work?Yes, No and finally NO. Yes, because they are effective in cleaning the data. No because they do not solve the root cause. In effect No - because it is the classical case of whack a mole!.So, what does one need to do?I think you need both. Because you have bad data to start with, you need these tools when you recognize the problem. So while you need the medicine to fix the bad data, you also need the vaccine to prevent it from being created. Then you really solve the problem.I guess that is a good way to look at it. Do you want to talk about the Vaccine?Next time Issa - now it is time for an IPA or a Pilsner and chat about the possibility of controlling Fusion and harnessing it as the silver bullet. :-)Why do applications need application data management systems? Isn’t this duplicated functionality which already exists in the business applications in use today?Applications in general and ERP specifically were not designed to address the data cleanliness issue. They do validations for referential integrity alone. They assumed that data would be entered accurately which is a very poor assumption. In other words you could not enter a receipt of a purchase order if the purchase order did not exist but they paid no attention as to whether the purchase order used is the correct purchase order, or whether the purchase order itself is correct in the first place.What does a company lose by not managing its application data? In other words, if I’m not managing the data that was in the application, what problems would I see?At an abstract level there are two fundamental problems that you would seeWhat causes these problems?These two problems or symptoms that we have talked about are caused mainly because the data capture process within the individual upstream systems is not robust. I will illustrate what I mean. Let us go back to our order capture process. If the requested date of the service or the product is incorrectly captured then your delivery is on the wrong date and will cause a customer service incident. This also has an impact on the reporting on the financial effect as to when the revenue will be recognized. If you tell me that any user can make an error entering a date, my response is that there are ways to minimize the chances of an error happening. With the correct user interface, assignment of roles, audit tracking, field level control for updates, you can prevent most errors.How does application data management solve this problem?Application data management solves this problem in three broad waysHow does Triniti application data management provide these features?Triniti application data management is built on a platform that provides the governance and stewardship of application data. This is different from the workflow that you get from the ERP application itself. Triniti workflow is designed to assign accountability at the user level and not at the role level. Additionally, it also provides a framework to put in contextual validation that is only valid for that particular organization and for that particular business process and for that particular role or user. Usually, these business rules are often encapsulated not with the application but within a user document. With Triniti application data management now you can make it a part of the system. Finally it provides an easier UI so that the user makes fewer mistakes.Call 866-531-9587 / Fill out the contact form.
