Interaction
 
|
|
Points of View Interaction-Interaction descriptions The best way to interact with others would be by educating everyone as to point of view differences, desires for treatment and the need to treat others in the way they wish to be treated.
However, when this is not possible, it helps to know how points of view interact. Some points of view complement each other; others clash dramatically. Knowing how two points of view interact can help you avoid bringing together two people who will clash. It can also help you arbitrate disputes between two people, since your point of view knowledge gives you insight into what conflict is probably about to occur.
Knowledge of how your point of view interacts with another can help you to form a team that will best achieve some common external goal.
Where interaction toward a common goal is desired, first ascertain your own point of view. Ascertaining your own point of view is simply a matter of applying the steps you use on others to yourself. Then ascertain the other person's point of view; then look to the following to discover how your two points of view toward the desired goal will coincide or collide.
It might be supposed that people who have an identical point of view toward life in general, or something in particular, will get along fabulously. This is, however, not always the case. People with immediate points of view toward the same things, do, in fact, get along very well. There is a union of minds. Two people with the microscopic point of view can get along very well IF both parties are focusing on the same goal. People with outward points of view will find compatibility if their goal is the same. However, if they disagree, the conflict will be very great. For example, if you take two people with the outward point of view and give them some money to use for charitable purposes, you may find you have created a great conflict over where the money should go. People with telescopic points of view often do not get along well since they each strive for control of the situation. People with inward points of view will get along very well if they can establish communication. The problem when two people with the inward point of view get together is finding someone who will take the initiative to create a knowledge of the other person's values and ideas. These two points of view may get along well, simply because the person with the suspicious point of view likes to make decisions and the person with the immediate point of view does not. If the person with the suspicious point of view is in authority, the only danger is that the person with the immediate point of view may not perceive, or receive, fair play. If the person with the suspicious point of view practices fair play, it is an ideal situation. If both points of view are equal in authority, obviously the person with the suspicious point of view will dominate. If the person with the immediate point of view is in authority, look for trouble. Both will feel frustrated; the person with the suspicious point of view will resist. Since both these points of view are rule oriented, they have a great common bond of agreement. Both believe in following procedures although the microscopic person may become frustrated by the immediate person's insistence on oral instructions, and the immediate person may become equally frustrated by the microscopic person's tendency to issue instructions via memo. Thus, a communication problem may occur. Neither of these points of view feels really comfortable in a decision making role. Which ever is in authority, the previously state problem is likely to occur. If they are thrown into a situation as equals, the individual with the strongest personality will doubtless take charge; but after a time, due to the microscopic's detail orientation, authority will ultimately rest with him. If the telescopic is calling the shots, things can be great. A problem may arise if the telescopic person forgets to constantly evaluate and reinforce the immediate person. Otherwise, it is a perfect match up of decision maker and decision taker. If brought together as equals in authority, it will take the telescopic no time at all to take charge. If a situation should occur in which a person with an immediate point of view is in authority over a person with a telescopic point of view, the ensuing frustration will erupt and destroy any productivity. The person with the immediate point of view will be frustrated by the telescopic's constant breaking of the rules and the telescopic will be frustrated by the immediate's lack of vision and inability to make a swift decision. Conflict usually results at all levels. The outward person dislikes immediates because of almost total lack of social consciousness. The immediate person dislikes the outward's constant equating of his personal problems with bigger issues. The outward person can be in authority over the immediate person if the outward has feeling for individuals as individuals, rather than individuals as faces in the crowd, all motivated by the same things. Remember that for a person with the immediate point of view, immediate problems are of major concern, while many people with the outward point of view concentrate on long range problems like hunger and pollution, rather than such things as shoes for the kids, or a new roof for the house. Where the immediate person is supervising the outward, expect nothing but conflict. People with an immediate point of view and people with an inward point of view toward the same subject usually get along poorly when either one is in a supervisory capacity, but do well as equals in authority. This is because when the person with the immediate point of view is in authority, he irritates the person who is inward in his point of view with constant progress checks. Likewise, the person with the inward point of view supervising a person with an immediate point of view irritates the latter by not evaluating progress and the finished product enough. Conflict! If the microscopic is in authority, he will try to eliminate the person with the suspicious point of view. If the suspicious person is in authority, he will probably recognize his need for the person with the microscopic point of view (since he tends to be poor at work involving detail) but will alienate the person who is microscopic by his notorious tendency to break the rules as it suits him. It is a conflict of rulebreaker against rule obeyer. Whenever the suspicious point of view is involved, some conflict is bound to occur. The best place for a person with the suspicious point of view is in the presence of someone with a telescopic point of view. If anyone can persuade the suspicious point of view, it is someone who holds a telescopic point of view. The telescopic point of viewer is every bit the decision maker the suspicious point of viewer is. The suspicious person will try to dominate as he always does, only this time he fails. The telescopic person can dominate the suspicious person if he approaches him with a strong enough initial benefit for his participation. Since telescopics deal in initial benefits, statements to motivate this may occur. A person with the suspicious point of view believes in putting himself first. A person with the outward point of view believes in putting the group first. Result: Sheer disaster, no matter what the interrelationship. Almost as bad as the interrelationships of people with suspicious and outward points of view. People with the suspicious point of view are usually very blunt. People with an inward point of view dislike bluntness, perceive it as vulgar. Many other obvious conflicts may result. You might think that the telescopic's lack of detail orientation and the microscopic's concern for detail would create constant conflict. Where the microscopic is working in a position of authority or as a partner, this does happen; but often the conflicts are readily solvable. This is even more the case where the person who is telescopic is in control. It's as if each recognizes what he lacks exists in the other. Together, a microscopic and a telescopic make a formidable team, canceling out many of each other's weaknesses. While conflict will often occur, the telescopic individual usually has the vision to come up with a workable compromise or a totally new approach that is satisfactory to all. Very unpredictable. If the person with the outward point of view acts in a manner that the person who is microscopic perceives as fair, he may agree to fall into the decision making orb of the outward. If the person who is microscopic is in control, he is apt to become irritated by the outward's constant attention to the problems of others at the expense of the established goal. Thus, if the established goal is one the outward approves of, compatibility is likely. If not, look for conflict. Not the most ideal combination. Conflict arises from the fact that a person with a microscopic point of view sees a person with the inward point of view as lackadaisical, while the person with the inward point of view sees the person with the microscopic point of view as nitpicky. Big trouble here since the person with the outward point of view is likely to see the person with the telescopic point of view as materialistic, putting things ahead of people, while the person with the telescopic point of view sees the person with the outward point of view as idealistic and impractical. It is interesting to note that many business executives approach their businesses with a telescopic point of view, while many labor leaders approach the same businesses with an outward point of view. Often conflict will result from the telescopic tendency toward excitement and bold speaking. This clashes with the inward's desire for calm analysis and respect for subtleties. Perhaps the biggest single source of conflict is that the person with the inward point of view does not like exaggerations and the telescopic point of view is prone toward them. If, however, these relatively minor conflicts are overlooked (or better still, avoided), this is a combination that can work well together, mainly because each point of viewer likes to work with a minimum of hassle and supervision and treats the other accordingly. The conflict in this interrelationship lies mainly in the outward's perception of the inward person as aloof and lackadaisical. Because they do not like to get into conflicts, people with an inward point of view often appear to be aloof by standing aside from a conflict. This is, in fact, more of a desire to "live and let live" than it is snobbishness. And since people with the outward point of view tend to jump feet first into controversies, people with the inward point of view perceive them as generators of conflict, to be avoided if possible.
Return to Points of View Content Return to Index
|
|
|
