While working within the wonderful bubble of the university system, everything was very touchy-feely and politically correct. It was a utopia, and we needed the language to reflect that. For example, to keep a positive spin on things, we encouraged students to "satisfy" or "fulfill" their requirements rather than "get rid of" them. It's just more positive that way.
In interviews, we'd ask people what their strengths were, and conversely, areas in which they would like to see continued growth. "You mean 'weaknesses'?" they'd ask. "We prefer to call them 'areas in which you would like to see continued growth', but yes, you got the point."
When constructive criticism was needed, we would use the "feedback sandwich" method. (I've since seen Stewie on "Family Guy" use this method, but he didn't call it that.) We would nicely state the suggested improvement between two positive comments. For example, after watching an academic presentation, I might say the following: "Ok, first of all, great energy and enthusiasm throughout the presentation - the students will really connect with you. Just a little note here: don't forget to mention that they need 184 units if they satisfy Area B with college level course work instead of the normal 180. Oh, and great work explaining the differences between the Ethnicity requirement and the Non-Western Culture Requirement. Those can be tricky!"
If the presentation wasn't very good, this method proved to be more difficult. I would end up saying something like, "Ok, first of all, nice printing on the posters - that'll help the students really get the most out of your presentation. I noted that you had some errors on your posters though, mostly located in...the information that the students need to know...in order to graduate. But I really like the sad faces in the Academic Disqualification section - nice touch!"
We sugar-coated everything and created the most positive environment possible. (It was fantastic at the time, although it was quite a shock to leave that bubble and be faced with bosses whose feedback sandwiches were open-faced and double meat.) We not only had team-building retreats, but an annual diversity retreat for our student workers to help them better understand the variety of students they'd soon be helping. My boss and I co-led these retreats, and we would cram exercises and discussions on race, gender, socio-economic status, ability/disability, sexual orientation and more into one long and draining day.
In my preparation for the diversity retreat one year, I came across an article explaining that we should stop describing the U.S. as a "melting pot." I was confused by this, because I always thought that was one of the good things about the country, that people all became Americans regardless of their background. What I learned, according to the article, was that "melting pot" suggested that people all assimilated and left their own cultures behind in order to become homogenous with the rest of the population. Instead, it argued, we should be a "cultural salad bowl" with several pieces each adding to the overall flavor of the dish. A salad of just lettuce is boring, right? Each added component retains its unique flavor, but in doing so, makes the whole salad better and more interesting.
Whether you buy that or not is unimportant. What is important though, is why I thought of this while having a snack this weekend. I started off with just a tortilla, and I was going to make what we refer to as "my thing," which is basically a quesadilla with turkey and some kind of salsa inside. I'm not at all claiming that I created this, it's just that I have it often enough that I can say I'm making "my thing" and my wife will know what I mean. Anyway, I decided to use some Havarti we had left over instead of the standard cheddar. I put some Tapatio on it to add a little kick, and then for some reason, a few drops of soy sauce.
In interviews, we'd ask people what their strengths were, and conversely, areas in which they would like to see continued growth. "You mean 'weaknesses'?" they'd ask. "We prefer to call them 'areas in which you would like to see continued growth', but yes, you got the point."
When constructive criticism was needed, we would use the "feedback sandwich" method. (I've since seen Stewie on "Family Guy" use this method, but he didn't call it that.) We would nicely state the suggested improvement between two positive comments. For example, after watching an academic presentation, I might say the following: "Ok, first of all, great energy and enthusiasm throughout the presentation - the students will really connect with you. Just a little note here: don't forget to mention that they need 184 units if they satisfy Area B with college level course work instead of the normal 180. Oh, and great work explaining the differences between the Ethnicity requirement and the Non-Western Culture Requirement. Those can be tricky!"
If the presentation wasn't very good, this method proved to be more difficult. I would end up saying something like, "Ok, first of all, nice printing on the posters - that'll help the students really get the most out of your presentation. I noted that you had some errors on your posters though, mostly located in...the information that the students need to know...in order to graduate. But I really like the sad faces in the Academic Disqualification section - nice touch!"
We sugar-coated everything and created the most positive environment possible. (It was fantastic at the time, although it was quite a shock to leave that bubble and be faced with bosses whose feedback sandwiches were open-faced and double meat.) We not only had team-building retreats, but an annual diversity retreat for our student workers to help them better understand the variety of students they'd soon be helping. My boss and I co-led these retreats, and we would cram exercises and discussions on race, gender, socio-economic status, ability/disability, sexual orientation and more into one long and draining day.
In my preparation for the diversity retreat one year, I came across an article explaining that we should stop describing the U.S. as a "melting pot." I was confused by this, because I always thought that was one of the good things about the country, that people all became Americans regardless of their background. What I learned, according to the article, was that "melting pot" suggested that people all assimilated and left their own cultures behind in order to become homogenous with the rest of the population. Instead, it argued, we should be a "cultural salad bowl" with several pieces each adding to the overall flavor of the dish. A salad of just lettuce is boring, right? Each added component retains its unique flavor, but in doing so, makes the whole salad better and more interesting.
Whether you buy that or not is unimportant. What is important though, is why I thought of this while having a snack this weekend. I started off with just a tortilla, and I was going to make what we refer to as "my thing," which is basically a quesadilla with turkey and some kind of salsa inside. I'm not at all claiming that I created this, it's just that I have it often enough that I can say I'm making "my thing" and my wife will know what I mean. Anyway, I decided to use some Havarti we had left over instead of the standard cheddar. I put some Tapatio on it to add a little kick, and then for some reason, a few drops of soy sauce.
Then I realized what I was doing. You see, I was turning my stomach into the cultural salad bowl, and I was damn proud. Here I had good ole American turkey breast, Danish cheese, Mexican sauce, and Japanese sauce all in one meal. I quickly surveyed my options to see how multi-national I could make this dish if I chose. Is the parmesan cheese really Italian like it's pretending to be? The olive oil probably is. Do we have any French or Russian dressing in the fridge? We have curry - is it Thai curry or Indian curry though? Could english muffins really be English muffins? Would the Quaker guy who makes oatmeal count as another one?
Even though I could've made my stomach a kick-ass cultural salad bowl, I ultimately remembered that I was making this snack because I wanted it to taste good. Any addition could've jeopardized the mission, so I stopped at four cultures. I also felt like I was getting into "quota" territory, and that was far from my intention.
Regardless, it was a tasty snack. If it asked for a review, I'd have to say, "Good job blending the different tastes together - my stomach will really appreciate that. One note here, maybe next time you can try a little less Havarti since it's a stronger taste than the cheddar I'm used to. Overall though, great execution and I'm sure I'll be seeing you again in the future."
Happy Monday, everyone.
3 comments:
Congratulations on leaving the sickeningly sweet, easy on the ego, culturally correct University mentality and entering the real world. When something is wrong in the real world (corporate or otherwise) it's ok to say it's wrong without the sugar coating.
Also, melting pot is vastly superior description of what the United States used to be and what it is now. Culture diverity is ok within the family structure to keep heritage alive, but as far as the country as a whole it's much better that we all be as homogeneous and proud of being "Americans" as possible. OK..off my soapbox. Sorry. Paul
Paul,
First of all, thanks for the comment - they always help me connect better with my audience. Just a note here, you may want to tone down the serious political commentary - it'll kill the buzz of my hippy fans. Overall though, good job posting and thanks for bookmarking UOPTA!
Oh Peter, very funny. ;)
Though I happen to agree about the melting pot....esp. if we're talking about the restaurant...yum!
dms
Post a Comment