My daughter, referred to in our family as "The Perfect Jennifer", is very smart. Today, I was discussing with her a question I have been wrestling with, that of being generous as a board president versus having the courage and honesty to remove people from positions when they are really not the right people. I asked,
Jennifer said,
[If you didn't know what a putz is, I wasn't sure either. I had to look it up. It is a yiddish word for an ignorant person, a person with poor judgment, a fool.]
So, I think there is your line. If this person is not damaging to the organization but is just critical of you personally, even if you think the criticism is unfair, let it go. Listen. There may be an element of truth in it. Respond kindly as best you can. If your opponent is being critical and negative because she or he feels hurt and not listened to, kindness is needed and warranted. Even if the person is being critical out of a general miserable, bitter personality, that's not the kind of person you want to be and so you don't want to respond in kind.
As with most ethical decisions, one of the main beneficiaries will probably be you. After all, wouldn't you rather fill your days with listening, generosity and kindness than the reverse?
"Where do you draw the line between being generous and just using generosity as an excuse not to make the hard decisions? I know people who say they are trying to build bridges with the opposition when I am pretty sure they are just too cowardly to face the conflict that would come up as a result.
On the other hand, I don't want to take it out on people just because they backed the other side in an election. It's like that blog I read the other day, talking about generosity of spirit, where she said that she resolved to try to understand other people's intentions and to realize that people on the opposite side may feel hurt and unhappy over conflict, too...
But, then, some people really DON'T have the best interests of the organization at heart, really do have selfish agendas. "
Jennifer said,
"You know, Mom, it sounds like you are trying to say where is the difference between generosity and being a putz. I say it is this... if what the person is doing is going to harm you personally or harm the organization, then they have to go. If it is just annoying, nagging at you, complaining or whining about your policies, and they happened to be on the side that voted against you, then you need to just let it go."
[If you didn't know what a putz is, I wasn't sure either. I had to look it up. It is a yiddish word for an ignorant person, a person with poor judgment, a fool.]
So, I think there is your line. If this person is not damaging to the organization but is just critical of you personally, even if you think the criticism is unfair, let it go. Listen. There may be an element of truth in it. Respond kindly as best you can. If your opponent is being critical and negative because she or he feels hurt and not listened to, kindness is needed and warranted. Even if the person is being critical out of a general miserable, bitter personality, that's not the kind of person you want to be and so you don't want to respond in kind.
As with most ethical decisions, one of the main beneficiaries will probably be you. After all, wouldn't you rather fill your days with listening, generosity and kindness than the reverse?
Leave a comment