an e-newsletter

If you would like to receive Reflections, which is published no more often than weekly, please send an e-mail to janet@janetmccallen.com and put Reflections in the subject.

2005

2004

Reflections on Scottie

June 18, 2006
Dear Friends,

 

A really good friend died last night – a border collie named Scottie.  I don’t know what he died of; he was only 9, and he’d been not feeling great… then seeming okay again, for the past few weeks.  His breathing grew labored, and he just expired in a short time.  I hope it was painless – he deserved painless.  I was literally sick when I heard he was gone.

 

Scottie had one of those charmed – and yet not so charmed – lives.  He was beloved by the family with whom he’d lived since he was a puppy.  But he had a couple of medical problems early on, hard to identify and resolve, and partially as a result, he was really skittish around strangers.  Guess one too many vets had done things that hurt. 

 

Scottie, like most border collies, had to have a job.  His first choice for jobs was to fetch the ball (the slimy wet ball) that he would keep putting into your hand or on your lap.  If that duty got rejected (or when whomever inevitably got tired), then he’d be happy to guard the truck.  Ferociously, I might add.  Woe be to whomever might get near that truck!

 

Our Jenny (the Kerry Blue Terrorist) shamelessly took advantage of Scottie’s good nature, taking his toys, despite weighing quite a bit less.  Scottie was ever the gentleman, saying “Hey, Jenny, if you want that toy, you can have it.”  And he followed her into the lake, swimming with her as monkey in the middle when the football was thrown.  Both Rory and Jenny perked up when Scottie’s boat came near; they knew their friend was close by. 

 

Yesterday we had fun on the lake.  Scottie was on his float, and Jenny fetched the water toy.  Then Scottie fetched the toy and took it back to his float, where he proceeded to tear it to pieces – usually what Jenny does to toys (Rory observed calmly from the boat).  Jenny’s torn up quite a few of Scottie’s toys, so I watched with amusement as Scottie had his fun. 

 

At one point in Jenny’s swimming, she got close to Scottie’s float and climbed aboard.  Like the gentleman he always was, he let her, and they shared the float until her highness’s desire to swim prompted her to jump in again.

 

Later, I was floating, and Scottie’s float came alongside.  I reached out to give him a scratch, and he licked my hand.  In light of what happened last night, that was quite a benediction.  He was quite a dog.  And he will be sorely missed.  Good-bye, dear friend.

 

Wishing you the blessings of pets you love,

Janet 

Reflections on Swirls

June 11, 2005
Dear Friends,

 

I was watching the mist on the lake one morning recently, fascinated.  We get mist when the temperature at night falls below the temperature of the lake (which is almost 80 degrees now!).  Usually the mist moves along in one direction or another, blown by the breeze, or following the current.  But for some reason this particular morning, it was swirling in circles.  Big circles and little circles, swirling and coming full circle.

 

I’m honored that you’ve allowed me to reach out to you weekly for the past few years with my Reflections.  I’ve enjoyed writing them, and many of you have written to tell me that you’ve enjoyed reading them.  This isn’t to say that I won’t ever send out Reflections again, but it is to say that they will probably be less frequent, at least for a while.  Other things are swirling in my life, and I am drawn to explore them.  As I find insights worth sharing, I’ll continue to send out periodic Reflections.

 

Wishing you new adventures to keep you young,

Janet

Reflections on Cesar's Way

May 28, 2006
Dear Friends,

 

Those of you who know me know that we have two wonderful, intelligent, loving, and very stubborn dogs – Jenny and Rory.  They are Kerry Blue Terriers – or, as is sometimes more accurate, Kerry Blue Terrorists.  Owning such strong-willed dogs is an enormous responsibility, requiring us to constantly demonstrate that we are the pack leaders – because either will sense any vacuum in leadership and rush in to fill it. 

 

For example, Jenny always rushed past us on the stairs, getting to the top (or the bottom) first.  I’ve learned that that’s not “cute” – it’s a sign she feels she is the leader.  So I’m usually careful these days to command “Wait!” and insist that she wait until I’m up (or down) before she follows.  Rory learned early on to wait for me, and even if he runs up behind me, he’ll stop himself until I am off the stairs.  He’s the easier of the two to train.

 

So when Cesar's Way hit the best seller list, I was intrigued.  Then a customer recommended it to Pat, so I ordered the unabridged CD version.  Wow!  I had never seen Cesar Milan’s “The Dog Whisperer” on the National Geographic Channel, but I was quickly drawn into his story.  (He reads the book himself for the audio version). 

 

The revelation that the book held for me is that he believes that most dogs need to be walked at least 90 minutes a day.  Letting them out in the yard to run is no substitute, Cesar says, for walking with their pack leader.  He claims that many behavioral problems our pets exhibit are due to too little exercise – thus, the dogs have nervous energy to burn, and they do.  Also, a dog who’s reminded of who the pack leader is for 90 minutes a day has an easier time of remembering it during times of stress, like when that nasty UPS man comes to the door. 

 

If you own a dog, or ever think you might, I highly recommend Cesar's Way.  And besides, the additional exercise isn’t bad for me, either!

 

Wishing you the joy of a canine companion,

Janet

Reflections on Building

May 21, 2006

Dear Friends,

 

As I was walking around our yard-to-be with a fencing contractor, planning how to fence a yard so that Jenny and Rory can run and play, he commented on how building a house is the closest most couples come to getting a divorce.  I looked up in surprise, since I’ve enjoyed this process.  I mean, at this point it feels like being 7½ months pregnant – I’m ready to be moved in, and we’re still more than a month away. 

 

So I reflected on why so many couples find building a painful, conflict-producing process – and why we haven’t. 

 

And what popped in my mind was a scene from the original “Yours, Mine and Ours.”  The one starring Lucille Ball and Henry Fonda.  Near the end, when they’re adopting each other’s children, the judge says “How do you feed and clothe and keep 18 children clean?  My wife’s got full time help and only one child, and she can’t get dinner on the table half the time.”  Lucille Ball smiles sweetly, and replies:  “Well, it takes a lot of love, and hard work… and a husband who doesn’t criticize!” 

 

Oh, and our builder’s been great, moving windows and walls after they’d been built, providing good advice.  And I really get a kick out of seeing things get built that I had imagined:  the niche for the phone in the kitchen, for instance, or the arch over the pantry.

 

But our secret, I think, is that the only thing Pat’s offered has been praise for the choices I’ve made.  If he thinks any of them were less than optimal, he’s keeping that to himself, and he makes me feel good about the home we’re building.

 

That reminds me of the definition of a nurturing person:  someone whose eyes light up when you enter a room, and who has few – if any – plans for your improvement.

 

Wishing you many nurturing people around you,
Janet

Reflections on Mother's Day

May 14, 2006
Dear Friends,

 

My Mother just turned 80, and that’s pretty special.  To make it even better, this summer when we move into the house we’re building, she’s buying our townhouse and moving up here to Hiawassee.  It will be great to have her close by.

 

My Mother has taught me a lot of wonderful lessons.  I could not catalogue them all, but I’ll share a couple:

 

- We do what needs doing, using the skills we have.  After Daddy’s stroke, Mother (who had always kept the books for Daddy’s businesses) took a more active role.  When he died, he left a big hole – but the business kept on just fine, thanks to Mother’s oversight. 

 

- It’s never too late for an adventure.  Mother cruised to Antarctica in January of this year.  My role model!

 

- Family is very important, and you nurture those relationships by loving acceptance, and by not criticizing.  That way, everyone is happy to see you!

 

Mother’s Day is a reminder to stop and remember how blessed we have been.  Whatever the stresses that may have been in your relationship with your Mother, I’m sure there’s some sweet, loving memory that makes you smile.  If she’s still alive, share that with her.  And if she’s not, give thanks and share the story. 

 

Wishing you the blessing of unconditional love,
Janet

Reflections on The Tipping Point

Reflections on Check-In, Again

April 24, 2006
Dear Friends,

 

I’ve been reading Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point.”  I know, it’s not a new book.  But I didn’t read it when it came out, and a friend invited me to go to a local book club meeting, with “The Tipping Point” as this month’s book.  So I ordered it, and have really enjoyed it.  I may write about it in a week or so.

 

What sparked my Reflections today was a passage about “effective institutional transactive memory.”  Gladwell is explaining about how and why Gore and Associates limits its plant sizes to 150 people.  “How” is that they put 150 spaces in the parking lot.  When people start parking on the grass, they build a new plant.  “Why” is because they can operate a flat organization, with little bureaucracy, with 150 or fewer folks, because people know each other. 

 

Here’s how Gladwell paraphrases one associate (everyone’s title at Gore) as describing it:  “…it’s knowing someone well enough to know what they know, and knowing them well enough so that you can trust them to know things in their specialty.  It’s the re-creation, on an organization-wide level, of the kind of intimacy and trust that exists in a family.”

 

I highlighted this passage (thanks, Mark, I’m still using that Levenger highlighter!), and wrote in the margin:  check-in and check-out.

 

That’s what regular check-in and check-out does for a group:  helps build effective institutional transactive memory.   As people reveal more and more about themselves as fallible, hopeful individuals, we are more and more likely to trust them.  To attribute to them good intentions, to give them the benefit of the doubt. 

 

And that’s very important, since we tend to judge ourselves by our intentions, and to judge others by their actions.  If we are suspicious of “the other,” we will attribute ill intentions to their actions.  If we know and care for “the other,” we will tend to attribute good intentions – to the same actions. 

 

And here's something important:  in an atmosphere of caring and mutual support, most of us will tend to behave with more integrity and commitment to purpose than we would in an atmosphere of suspicion and back-biting. 

 

So by using a practice like check-in and check-out, we can help to create the situation we want:  commitment to purpose and integrity in those with whom we associate.

 

Wishing you integrity in those with whom you associate,

Janet

Reflections on Good to Great

April 16, 2006

Dear Friends,

 

I came late to the appreciation of Jim Collins.  A friend gave me Good to Great and I started it reluctantly, resisting one more book crammed with business success stories.  Good to Great is research-based, but that wasn’t a selling point for me – it just meant more business data – which doesn’t always translate well to voluntary organizations.

 

But I got sucked in and sold.  The principles Collins developed about how some businesses go from good to great (and others don’t) were sometimes counter-intuitive, but once I read them, they all rang true to me.  And so, before Collins spoke to a Financial Planning Association convention (and spent some time with the FPA Board), I also read his first book, Built to Last.  It was also excellent.  In working with associations, though, I found a few of Collins’ principles that I felt needed tweaking.  Here’s a summary:  Good to Great:  Janet’s Thoughts.

 

Fast forward a few years.  Collins has been working with the ASAE Foundation on applying his principles to not-for-profit organizations.  The research isn’t finished, but he’s thought enough about it that he wrote and published a monograph to help voluntary organization leaders apply Good to Great principles to their organizations:  Good to Great and the Social Sectors.  It was given to me by the very same, very good friend who originally gave me Good to Great.  Predictably, I put off reading it until recently. 

 

All I have to say is – Wow!  Every tax-exempt organization leader should read it.  If you haven’t read Good to Great, it contains enough of an explanation of the principles that you can understand it – and you’ll probably want to read Good to Great next, because you’ll be hooked.  If you have, you’ll really appreciate the thought and the examples that Collins brings.

 

He offers some valuable thoughts on applying the Hedgehog concept (especially economic drivers) to voluntary organizations.  He maintains “first who, then what.”  I’m not sure I’m convinced, but it would make a great conversation for thoughtful folks. 

 

And best of all – it’s quite short, and an easy read.  I highly recommend it. 

 

Wishing you the blessing of a great organization for which to work,
Janet

Reflections on How Boards Work - Beginnings

April 1, 2006
Dear Friends,

 

In addition to the introductory items I wrote about last week, there are a couple of additional items you should consider for the beginning of your board meetings. 

 

The first is an elaboration of my remark last week that if you can tie your brief review of the agenda to your strategic plan, and illustrate how each item on the agenda supports one of your strategic goals, the value of the agenda review will increase by a power of ten.  So this suggestion is that you explicitly review your mission and strategic goals at the beginning of the meeting, and show how your agenda advances them.

 

Some of you may be reflecting on your recent agendas, realizing that many items on your agenda do not directly support your strategic goals.  So why are those items on your agenda?  One example is the proposal by another organization that yours join it in doing so-and-so.  Most precisely because it doesn’t fit in your strategic goals, the staff or executive committee has no way easy way to make a decision about it, so it goes on the board agenda.  And if it goes early on the board agenda, it may eat up precious board time.  But if you follow the discipline of organizing your board agenda around your strategic goals, it will be obvious that this doesn’t fit.  So if it goes on the board agenda at all, it should go near the end, when it will likely be given less time – which it probably deserves.  If this sort of proposal is approved, it frequently leads to “mission creep” – the organization doing lots of things not precisely mission-oriented, because someone else suggested it.  This is especially easy to slip into if there is a grant or other financial support involved.  So guard your agenda with your strategic goals. 

 

The second suggestion is an inspirational reading.  Before each meeting, ask someone to volunteer to bring a brief inspirational meeting to share with the group.  This need not take more than 1-2 minutes, and in my experience it’s often uncanny how the reading selected will illuminate some board conversation, providing additional depth.  Plus, having the group focus on something inspirational (in the broad sense of the word) helps elevate the tone of the meeting.  It reminds us that we aspire to do and be good, in the world and in this meeting.

 

My third suggestion will come as no surprise to those of you who’ve been in a meeting I’ve facilitated:  that you begin each meeting with a check-in.  I’ve written on check-in before (The Practice of Check-In and Check-Out).  Check-in is simply a practice of going around the room (you are all seated so that you can see each other, aren’t you?), with each person sharing whatever they feel important about what’s going on with them, especially as it relates to the meeting.  For a more complete explanation, please see The Practice of Check-In and Check-Out.  

 

Although it initially is time-consuming, groups soon learn to self-monitor and keep the time reasonable in relationship to the length of the meeting.  And the reason it is initially time-consuming is that most people have a great unmet need to be heard.

 

Groups who regularly practice check-in find that their trust level in each other goes up dramatically.  The group makes better decisions, because the conversations are deeper and more perceptive – because the people know each other better.  Does it take time?  Yes.  But it leads to increasing effectiveness as a board.

 

Wishing you participation in effective groups,

Janet

Reflections on How Boards Work - Introductory Items

March 26, 2006
Dear Friends,

 

How do you start your board meetings?  This Reflections is about those introductory items that set the tone for your meeting.

 

First, of course (and maybe most important) is that you start on time.  If your meeting is scheduled to start at 2pm, start at 2pm.  If you don’t, if you wait for those who haven’t gotten there yet, you “train” everyone to come late, because you will not start on time anyway.  Don’t be rude to those who showed up on time in order to be polite to those who didn’t.  Set the tone for integrity, for doing what you say, by starting on time.

 

Next, welcome and thank everyone for coming.  Those who serve on nonprofit boards do so because they want to contribute to making the world a better place.  They have displaced family, work, and other obligations to be there.  Thank them.

 

Review the agenda for the meeting and ask for any concerns (see Reflection on How Boards Work - Agendas).   The Board should concur that the agenda is appropriate, that nothing urgent has been omitted.  If it has, add it, at the appropriate place.

 

This review is more powerful by a factor of ten if you can tie it to the purpose and goals of the organization.  Explain how the agenda items relate directly to your strategic objectives.  Keep reiterating your purpose, your values, and how you are bringing them to life by the conversations you’ve planned.

 

Ask if there are any corrections to the minutes of the last meeting – which you will assume that everyone has read.  If you do, everyone will have read them.  At least the next time.

 

What does not belong at the beginning of the meeting?  Announcements.  Do not use up the precious beginning of the meeting, when everyone should be most focused on the big issues and long term interests of the group, to remind members of upcoming events, etc.  If there are announcements that must be made verbally, do them right before the group breaks for lunch, or right before the meeting adjourns.

 

Review any ground rules that are important to the group.  Generally speaking, ground rules need to be reviewed until the group has so internalized them that it will enforce them without prompting if they are ever violated.  Some examples of ground rules:

·         We will disagree in our meeting, but once a decision is made, the entire board supports it.

·         Disagreements are about issues, not about people.

What ground rules are important to your group?

 

Launch into the most important topic on your agenda, and enjoy the conversation!

 

Next week:  some ideas to add to the beginning of your meetings.

 

Wishing you meetings worthy of your time,
Janet

Reflection on How Boards Work - Agendas

March 19, 2006
Dear Friends,

 

Who sets the agenda for your board?  Last week I explained why I think the order of business as set down in most rules of order will lead most boards to sub‑optimize, to fail to live up to their potential to help their organization achieve its objectives.

 

But if you don’t follow that order of business, what should be on your agenda?  And who decides?

 

Unfortunately, many organizations with paid staff expect the chief staff officer to prepare the agenda.  This leads to agendas where the board primarily responds to staff initiatives and staff needs.  And that’s not what boards are for, responding to staff needs.  Boards are to lead, to govern, to set direction.  (If your organization doesn’t have staff, boards may also do a lot of the work and need an “unpaid staff meeting”, but that’s a separate responsibility.)

 

If your board intends to lead, to govern, to set direction, who is responsible for its agenda?  Why the board itself.  Of course, I’m not recommending that everyone show up without an agenda and then spend the first part of your meeting creating one.  But I am recommending that at the end of each meeting, there be a time when the board is asked what it would like to have on its next agenda. 

 

So the board chair would take this input, along with input from the chief staff officer, and create an agenda.  One of the most ubiquitous problems I see is too much on an agenda, leaving little time to deal with any one issue.  If the issues aren’t important enough for some real conversation among the board (and if they are, 15-20 people can’t talk about them in 5 -10 minutes!), what are they doing on the agenda anyway?

 

Then there’s the question of what order topics should be on the agenda.  Generally speaking, in order of importance, since boards will tend to “dig in” and talk at length about the first substantive topic they come to.  That way, if some topics get short shrift, or even get postponed to the next meeting, they will be topics of lesser importance.  

 

Where do reports belong on the agenda?  As I said last week, reports should be sent out ahead of time, and the board should behave as if everyone has read them.  If the board does this consistently, everyone will develop the habit of reading them.  So the agenda should include, very near the end, an item of questions on reports.  If there’s not a question, no need to talk about them.

 

And finally, one of the introductory items (more on those next week) should be a brief conversation about the agenda.  The chair should review it briefly, and ask for any concerns.  It’s not necessary for the board to formally approve the agenda, but this brief conversation allows any board member who feels something important was omitted to ask for it to be included.

 

Wishing you substantive agendas worthy of your time,
Janet

Reflections on How Boards Work, II

March 12, 2006

Dear Friends,

 

More this week on how boards work.  Again, I want to start with affirming that Rules of Order (whether Robert’s or Sturgis) can have an important role in large assemblies, especially to protect the rights of the minority.  And again, I’ll contend that their use in boards of 20 or fewer members can sub-optimize the board’s ability to help the organization achieve its goals.

 

Specifically, let’s talk order of business.  Here is what www.rulesonline.com has to say:

 

Order of Business. It is customary for every society having a permanent existence to adopt an order of business for its meetings. When no rule has been adopted, the following is the order:

(1) Reading the Minutes of the previous meeting [and their approval].

(2) Reports of Boards and Standing Committees.

(3) Reports of Special (Select) Committees.

(4) Special Orders.

(5) Unfinished Business and General Orders

(6) New Business.

 

Robert’s Rules of Order were (was?) written around the time of the Civil War, well before mimeograph or photocopiers, much less ubiquitous e-mail.  At that time, the only way to provide the minutes and committee reports to everyone was to read them.  Out loud.  But I can’t think of a worse use of a board’s precious time today than having minutes read, or reports given verbally to the entire group. 

 

A board’s time should be reserved for conversation about important issues.  It should not be used to hear reports.  Reports (and minutes) should be written and sent ahead of time to the members, and members should be expected to have read them.  If the board acts as if everyone has read the reports, everyone will develop the habit of reading the reports ahead of time.

 

But the most important point I want to make about the order of business is this:  most groups gather with an instinctual desire to get involved in a substantive conversation.  They will engage in a “substantive” conversation (unless they’re frustrated by an authoritarian chair) on the first opportunity.  That second substantive is in quotes because if the group follows the order of business in Robert’s, the first topic is unlikely to be substantive.  But that won’t stop the members of the board from having opinions, and questions, and other opinions, and offering experiences, and disagreeing with each other, and generally getting into a tangle of discussion, using up precious board meeting time.

 

How to avoid using up precious board meeting time on relatively unimportant issues?  The simple answer is to order the agenda according to the relative importance of the issues.  The most important issue should be the first substantive item on the agenda, after the introductory items.  That way, when the board dives in and gets engaged on that issue, it will be a good use of the group’s time.

 

More next week on the order of business.

 

Wishing you boards that use your time well,
Janet

Reflections on How Boards Work

March 5, 2006
Dear Friends:

 

In his seminal work Boards That Make a Difference, John Carver talks about how incredible it is that most boards are made up of really bright, capable, dedicated people, who, when on a board, act in ways that waste time, frustrate themselves and each other, and sub-optimize the organization’s chance of achieving its objectives.  (If many of my books weren’t packed away until our house is built, I’d give you Carver’s exact quote.)  Why is it that bright people come together on a board and then act dumb?  Essentially, Carver’s answer is that the traditional way most boards work doesn’t work.  At least not well.  And he offers the prescription of Policy Governance, which is a radical departure from the way most boards work.

 

My intent today isn’t to summarize Carver for you (the link above will take you to a description of his book on Amazon.com), though I might do that later if there’s interest.  My intent over the next few weeks is to talk about some the assumptions many of us have about how boards are supposed to work – and to question some of those assumptions.

 

Many of these false assumptions come from one of the most venerated books of all time.  No, not the Bible, but Robert's Rules of Order.  Now Robert’s (and Sturgis, which I happen to prefer when I need rules of order) can serve a real purpose, if you have a cantankerous group in which one faction is prone to run roughshod over another.  It is a system for protecting the rights of the minority, and is probably essential if you’re conducting a business meeting with several hundred people.

 

But if the board or committee you’re on includes fewer than 20 (and I hope it does!), then following Robert’s is not only probably unnecessary most of the time, but leads to sub‑optimization.  Here’s one example:  according to Robert’s, there is no discussion unless there’s a motion on the floor.  So a group shouldn’t surface a problem and explore it verbally together, searching for a solution that feels right to most of the participants.  Instead, someone is supposed to decide what the solution should be and propose that to the group in a motion.  If someone else agrees with him/her, they second the motion, and only then can discussion of the topic take place.

 

And I’m using the word “discussion” deliberately.  I’m not talking about dialogue here, since dialogue is effectively prohibited by rules or order (whether Robert’s or Sturgis).  This is discussion plain and simple, because (other than questions), each person who speaks to a motion should state up front whether they are “for” or “against” the motion.  In other words, make up your mind before you listen to anyone else. 

 

Does this sound like it promotes good decision-making?  I don’t think so. 

 

I think good decisions come out of asking questions, and wondering, and exploring, and listening intently to each other and what is and is not said.  Good decisions come out of knowledge and sensitivity.  Good group decisions require allowing for the possibility that we will learn from each other, that by being open to new perspectives we might be able to create a better solution together than any of us could conceive by ourselves. 

 

Wishing you groups that are open to learning,

Janet

Reflections on Fresh Eyes, II

February 26, 2006
Dear Friends,

 

Last week’s Reflections on Fresh Eyes wasn’t really about word games.  It was about how our brains take clues and organize them into patterns based on what we expect to see.  For another example, read this excerpt that Don Pitti sent me:

 

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg

 

The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt

 

Fascinating, isn’t it?  Your brain can decode it because it uses patterns it’s previously learned. 

 

But I’m less interested in how to get better at word games than I am fascinated by my brain taking a few clues and producing a meaning, a “truth” for me.  I can see that if I’ve previously felt (decided?) that someone is arrogant and pigheaded, in my next encounter with them, it wouldn’t take much for my brain to organize what I see and feel into “proof” that that person is arrogant and pigheaded.  (Or silly and self-centered…. or witty and erudite…)  My brain will pick out a few “clues,” discarding what doesn’t fit my expectations, and reinforce my previous impressions.

 

In one of my favorite quotes, Abraham Lincoln said that “Most people are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.”  If you seem to continually encounter rude, ignorant people, perhaps it’s because that’s what your brain is programmed to see.  The next time it happens, push yourself to go out of your way to treat them nicely anyway.  If saying something nice feels like a stretch, just smile.  You can smile at some nice memory of your own (somebody loves you), but share it with the other person.  You might get a smile back – and be surprised at how a smile back can change your impression of a person.

 

Wishing you fresh eyes,

Janet

Reflections on Fresh Eyes