Imagine for a moment that you are asked to settle a dispute. There are two parties who have opposing views. They each present their arguments, and then it is up to you to make a decision.
Is it better to have empathy and open-mindedness if you are in this situation?
Apparently I will never know if it's better or worse, because I always seem to try to take the empathy & open-minded path. [Or maybe I just don't recognize when I'm not empathetic and my mind is closed....]
I have a feeling that, if I were less empathetic, I could make the decision more quickly, because I really wouldn't be interested in the feelings of the person who "lost."
Similarly, I am quite convinced that if I had a less open mind, one side of many disputes would clearly be right, and the other clearly wrong. This would make decisions easier, and quicker.
I tend to work for consensus in these situations because I want to help both people understand the merits and feelings of the other side, and I would prefer that they participate in the decision. Yet, that approach fails -- too often -- and the decision must be mine.
In the end, I hope that my approach is respected, at least, since the decision itself cannot be approved by the losing side.
But if I could just stop empathizing after the decision, at least I wouldn't feel bad for as long.
.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
[Image from mrbill on Flickr.]
No comments:
Post a Comment