I'm sorry you feel that way...

If you're sorry, say sorry. If you're not sorry, don't say it.

Here are some things people said to me at various times, and what they really mean.

• "I'm sorry you feel that way" - What you say to someone who's ill.
• "I'm sorry if we hurt you" - I don't think we did, you do and you're wrong.
• "I'm sorry you think that" - You're wrong and I feel sorry for you.
• "I'm sorry you see things that way" - You're entire outlook on life is wrong.

Really they all mean the same thing: "I'm not sorry, I have nothing to apologise for but I want to smooth things over and sound like the good person I know myself to be".

Three options

I'm part of a large church (by UK standards) and we, like many churches, are challenged by consumerism; that is people approaching church as a consumer asking what can they get from it. This approach has a significant impact on what we can do and how we go about it, in short in how effective the church can be.

The difficult conversation

If you're in a position of leadership or management the difficult conversation is something you're going to have to initiate from time to time. But what if you just don't like having them?

Do you listen?

I've found myself wondering recently how many of the world's problems are fundamentally about listening. Listening is something I'm pretty sure I don't do as well as I might and I'm sure I fall into the trap mentioned by Stephen R Covey in his book 7 habits of highly effective people:

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply."

When you listen, do you seek to understand the other's perspective, idea or feelings, or do you look for something you can pick on to justify your own position, question their motives or defend your actions?

Recently I found myself in a position where something that could have a substantive impact on my job was being discussed in a way I felt inappropriate. I said so and made it abundantly clear there was no way things could proceed as proposed whilst being ethically (or potentially legally) sound. My argument was clear, simple, could easily be demonstrated to be correct by consulting any good HR professional and yet it was ignored.

The reason? People weren't listening. Good people who know better just weren't listening to what I was saying. They, I think, were hearing me demand no process at all, a desire for my job to be untouchable. I believe they heard me defending my position and, significantly, they heard that I was upset.

I was upset. But that didn't mean what I said didn't have substance and could be written off as inevitable personal feeling that would pass. Of course the initial upset has passed, but the fundamental problem hasn't.

As I've attempted to resolve things through talking to people, surely that's the best way, some of those involved have consistently failed to listen, resulting in my motives being questioned and accusations that I'm out to trap people through inconsistencies. That couldn't be further from the truth.

In the situation I find myself in today, sadly it seems that I am not trusted. The reason is simply because people haven't listened. They've heard the words coming out of my face, or read my emails and looked for the threat they assume to be there, misinterpreting what I have said and making a bad situation worse.

My words have been twisted into accusations, all because people have only listened with the intent to reply, rather than an intent to understand.

Listening is hard but it's the only way to reconcile differences without a fight. That might end up with a difficult compromise, but no compromise is possible if you won't trust and you can't trust without understanding and you can't understand without listening.

It's not so bad

I use something called Drupal (you don't need to know what that is) and I'm an avid reader of the blog by drupal developer Aaron Winborn. Any time I feel things are getting me down, a read of his blog is enough to get things in perspective. In case you're wondering this isn't a blog about software development and is worth reading.

Democracy

I hold democracy as something of great importance, that somehow seems to be the 'right' way to do things.

What I don't know is whether that's just because I've always lived in a largely democratic society and, having been told it's the way to go, just generally accept that. Maybe it's like how one's native street signs or currency just seems right and everyone else's seems strange and not quite as it should be.

The problem with democracy is that just because the majority want something or agree with it, that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

I've recently been listening to archives of The Life Scientific from radio 4. Many scientists interviewed comment on the public's general ignorance or scientific matters. It strikes me that many great innovations and major progressions in our collective knowledge have been met with popular resistance (although I can't come up with good examples right now).

There are various ways the people at large can make their feelings known, with market forces being and example. How we behave with our spending habits can betray our preferences and prejudices. Even a big company can be brought down if enough people choose to avoid it.

But democracy is usually about government. Based on the idea that the majority gets their way (usually) it makes a lot of sense when it comes to selecting which political party or politician will be in power. But it is fallible.

Our idea of what is 'right' can so often be relative. When all was rosy in 1920s Germany the Nazi party didn't do well in elections. When the Great Depression hit and people were scared for their economic future, the hollow promises of Hitler became far more appealing, and you probably know where that ended up.

It's important to remember that just because the majority have voted for something, doesn't mean that same majority isn't basing their decision on completely the wrong criteria.

Take the recent UK parliament vote on redefining marriage. How many of those who voted no did so because they don't like change and have prejudices against those who are gay? How many of those who voted yes did so because it's trendy to support gay rights or perhaps because (most of them weren't Conservatives) it's a potential nail in the coffin of David Cameron's premiership. How many MPs really considered the people or the potential consequences behind their decision? Politics is rarely black and white.

There are issues in education, a policy area that for some reason most people think they have an opinion worthy of note, where education secretaries have usually failed to take heed of professionals (eg teachers) and pushed through policies based on personal agenda (and often scant academic research).

I still think democracy is a good way to do things and probably the best way to achieve the level of accountability necessary. But it's important we're not blind to the faults of any system and can call out those who try to gloss over the cracks.

I'm reminded of the fabulous clip of Sky TVs Kay Burley interviewing someone for the campaign group 38degrees and saying something along the lines of 'what right do you have to intervene in whether the lib dems go into coalition or not, people have voted for this!'. Of course nobody had voted for that and faced with such pathological stupidity and failure to understand the democratic process the poor man didn't know what to say.

The trouble with YouTube

YouTube is great. Any idiot can publish video in high quality with reliable streaming to an audience across the world. Chuffin' marvellous. But there's a frustrating problem for those wanting to make use of the videos...

Some would say this is a problem with the internet itself, and maybe that's so, but it's certainly a frustration with YouTube. The issue is related videos. You have no idea what you might be offered and whether it's in anyway appropriate to the audience.

Here's the example that's prompted this blog post

It's what comes up at the end of a video about the making of Disney's Paperman (worth watching btw). The top left video is a news story about android prostitutes. It's not really something appropriate to appear in front of a group of children interested in animation for example.

Separately there's an issue with adverts appearing. These can be annoying but are usually not inappropriate, although they can be amusing. I recall a pop up advert for Christian Dating appearing on a video being shown in church once.

It's for these reasons that I strongly advise against people showing YouTube clips in presentations whether they by in church, in a classroom or at a conference or even on your website.

For me the golden rule is that video in presentations should be downloaded and played locally. That takes away adverts and streaming issues.

If you want video online to embed in a website, I recommend Vimeo.com. Preferred by pretentious film maker types, it's a nicer website with better quality video than YouTube, but importantly you can buy a pro account which gives you far more control over how your videos appear, who can download them and what happens when they finish playing.