by : lacylit10 Life Lessons

Support.

Support is defined as “bear all or part of the weight of” and “give assistance to.” Support. requires. action. So why do so many people think that simply saying, “I support you” is supportive? 😒 Then have you ever had someone support you with actual help in a task, and then they ask, “What more do you want from me?” when you feel the supportive action wasn’t enough?

Here is how I picture it:

Each person is a railroad engineer. All of your forward progression adds another rail car, whether it be home responsibilities, work tasks, familial obligations, and even hobbies (because sometimes those become obligations when you are feeling overwhelmed). Some people can sustain hauling that weight for long periods of time, others need rest stops or a tow once in a while. The problem is that no one can see how long the train is except for the person who is hauling the load.

Some have better engines. Some are better engineers. Some can haul more weight. Some are carrying heavier loads in less cars. Sometimes external factors change the environment that affect the performance, and sometimes adding one more rail car can break. the. train. down.

Paul Zak says that what we do at work and at home feedback on each other, and we shouldn’t pretend that it doesn’t. Using our railroad analogy, we cannot unhinge a work car from in between a family car and a health car while sitting on a single track.

If our natural inclination is to serve others before self, then why is offering support something that does not seem to come naturally? Sometimes offering support doesn’t even come in the form of work. Sometimes, it’s just being empathetic and compassionate, making that person feel seen and heard. Support can be simple gestures of appreciation. Support looks different to different people, but it all requires action.

by : lacylit10 Leadership, Life Lessons

Fine Lines.

I find it ironic that it’s sometimes the people who are against talking about feelings or self-reflecting that are the most emotional.  In business, it can be challenging for subordinates or colleagues to approach these people with constructive feedback.  It’s waiting until that person is in the right mood, reading the situation, treading lightly, and being deliberate with the words you say.  While this typically applies in any situation, some (people and situations) are more sensitive than others. 

When developing new relationships, personally or professionally, the same approach applies.  We walk fine lines.  It’s not until a level of trust builds that we can be more direct.  We often don’t really care so much about hurting a family member’s feelings.  We will “tell them like it is” because sometimes “the truth hurts” and “it has to be said.”

Everyone has a different communication style, and there are 4 specific ones that most people refer to (information is readily available with a Google search):

  1. Passive – Indifferent, yielding to others; fail to express feelings or needs, allowing others to express themselves, lack of eye contact.
    • “It doesn’t matter.”
  2. Aggressive – Emphasized by speaking in a loud and demanding voice, intense eye contact; issue demands and rudely ask questions; fails to listen to others.
    • “I’m right, and you’re wrong.”
  3. Passive-Aggressive – Passive on the surface but may fill powerless or stuck within, building up resentment; do not confront a person or issue; difficulty acknowledging their anger; may give silent treatment or talk about someone behind their back.
    • “That’s fine, but don’t be surprised if someone else isn’t okay with it.”
  4. Assertive – Open communication without being overbearing; can express own needs and desire while considering others; aim for a win/win situation.
    • “Agree to disagree.”

I think we all use these different communication styles depending on the situation, but we definitely have a preferred style.  Several years ago, I probably would have been a passive communicator and preferred to be communicated with in any style but aggressive.  Today, I’m much more of an assertive communicator and prefer to be communicated with in an assertive style.  I like expectations to be laid out upfront.  I want to understand the purpose of the conversation, and the intent of the person speaking.  

I was reading a book awhile back that talked about romance, specifically, how courtship has shifted.  Today, when we court someone, communication is usually via text and asking someone on a date is more “Wanna hang out?” Well, “Wanna hang out?” can mean any sorts of things to many different people.  It’s a very passive invitation.  

Courtship used to mean calling a landline, maybe even leaving a message 😱, and asking someone out on a date, specifically for the purpose of dating.  You walk a fine line when getting to know someone as it is.  You want to be forthcoming but not too forward.  You want to be inquisitive but not intrusive.  You want to be supportive but not clingy.  There are so many uncertainties during this phase of courtship.  We make it more complicated by passively putting ourselves out there verses assertively putting ourselves out there.  We’ve stopped actually putting our heart on that fine line we’re walking.

We are constantly walking a fine line, both in our personal and our professional lives.  Because either way, you are developing a relationship.  As I said, some people and some situations are more sensitive than others.  Whether a person is emotional or not, how we approach a situation and the words we choose can dramatically affect the message and the impact of a conversation.  It’s not just what we say, but how we say it.

The medium is the message.

Marshall McLuhan

Perhaps, this is why I’m so judgmental when a guy texts me before calling. A passive “We should hang out.” text message is far less impressive than an assertive in-person “Would you like to go on a date?” Expectation is clear, and intent is clear.

I feel like you have a better chance of not being rejected in-person, because you have all the non-verbal cues to know whether that person is interested or not. But I understand the vulnerability that comes with taking that chance in-person. It’s my head and my heart coming from two different places. But the only way to not set myself up for disappointment is to lay them both on the line.

by : lacylit10 Leadership, Life Lessons

Trust.

I once saw a meme that said, “Dating is getting to know someone until you realize you don’t like that person anymore.”  I mean, how true is that statement though? 😬 It’s kind of sad when you really think about it.  You invest time, energy, and emotion in someone until you ultimately discover that person is not worth your time, energy, and emotion.

There are a lot of great things about being single, don’t get me wrong.  The freedom is undeniably one of the best aspects of it.  But the dating part is hard.

First, choosing the person you want to date.  Not just anyone will set off the “cascade of hormones and neurotransmitters that accompanies the exciting first phase of love.  The person we select has to smell right, feel right, look right, and be just right in our arms.  Then, and only then, will the cascade get started.” – John Gottman, Ph.D

Once we choose that person (which I think is a conscious and subconscious decision), our brain releases several chemicals that have enormous influence on our judgment and affection.  These chemicals include a natural form of amphetamine, dopamine, pheromones, and oxytocin.  Psychologist Dorothy Tennov coined this phase of love as “limerence”.  Limerence is a state of infatuation or obsession typically experienced by an involuntary strong desire for reciprocation of one’s feelings.

It is our biological makeup that reacts to the people we are attracted to.  We cannot control the release of these chemicals, which is what makes the initial phase of relationships so intoxicating and exciting.  Then we enter the make it or break it phase of the relationship: Building Trust. 

This is where we discover we may not really like that person after all.  Some of those feel good chemicals have worn off, our blinders are no longer up, and we start to see this person for who they really are.

As we navigate through learning whether or not our partner can be trusted, we experience feelings of frustration, disappointment, sadness, and exasperation.  If healthy, positive conflict discussions ensue, the relationship has a better likelihood of working.  If blaming arguments occur, well, it’s the opposite. 

In animal research, scientists found that oxytocin and vasopressin are two chemicals associated with lifelong pair-bonding among prairie voles.  Prairie voles have high levels of oxytocin; they mate for life.  In a study, when scientists blocked the oxytocin receptors, the animals no longer formed monogamous bonds and tended to roam.

Oxytocin has been called “the love hormone” or “the cuddle hormone” because it plays an important role in forming attachments.  Our style of attachment (secure or insecure) as adults is rooted in how we bonded with caregivers as infants and children, namely our mother.  When you hold an infant, they wiggle in your arms to find comfort.  Once they find it, they put the whole weight of their body on you.  They give you com.plete. trust. with their being.  They feel safe and secure.

The building of trust is about having your partner’s best interests in mind and at heart.

John Gottman

In Trust Factor: The Science of Creating High-Performance Companies, Paul Zak describes the chemical reactions in our brains on how we respond to challenges and how trust is created.  In rodents, oxytocin has been shown to signal that another animal was safe to approach.  In an experiment conducted by Zak’s team, they found that oxytocin tended to reduce the fear of trusting a stranger.

Challenge stresses, (a difficult but achievable task), releases oxytocin and adrenocorticotropin.  Chemicals that intensify your focus and strengthen social connections.  In dating, this would probably be “the chase”.

Ultimately, you cultivate trust by setting a clear direction, giving people what they need to see it through, and getting out of their way.

Paul Zak

This comes down to expectations, communication, and feedback.  Not only are these typically weak areas in businesses, but also just in day-to-day relationships with coworkers, friends, family, and romantic partners.  

What’s interesting to me about all of this is that it goes to show that whether you are in a romantic or professional relationship with someone, our chemical reactions to building trust are essentially the same.  Healthy and positive conflict discussions in either type of relationship will see more success.

by : lacylit10 Farming

Where Food Grows.

I was talking to a friend awhile back about educating consumers on where their food comes from. Based on what we see online, it seems that consumers have an interest in learning about it. They are vocal about non-GMO, organic, antibiotic-free, free-range, fresh, and local produce. They get up-in-arms any time there is a recall or outbreak. They like farmer’s markets where they can see and meet the farmer. They like U-Pick stands where they can set foot on the farms themselves. It seems there is opportunity to bridge the gap between producers and consumers.

But then my friend asked, “But do they really care?”

This question has been swirling around in my brain for almost a year. I can’t shake it, because I think his implication is right. I think people want to want to learn about where their food comes from, but they don’t want to put in the work to do it. They seek out easy online resources, listen to non-credible people, and jump to their own misinformed conclusions. They find sources that align with their preconceived bias, closing them in an echo chamber of inaccuracy.

I experience this from my own friends and social network who ask me questions about what I do. Let’s take the ever popular organic argument as an example:

I tell them organic uses pesticides and chemicals that are of naturally-derived materials. Their food is fertilized with chicken shit and ground up fish turned into liquid. They look at me in disgust, then continue to swear that organic is healthier, even though there is no scientific evidence to prove organic produce holds more nutritional value than conventional produce. They continue to believe the carefully curated marketing campaigns of companies who are making loads of money off their naivety. They believe all of this over the knowledge and experience of someone they know and trust who manages crop inputs and oversees the safe production of their food.

Theoretically, people want to know where their food comes from, but they don’t want to know the nitty-gritty.

They don’t want to know that sometimes you have to spray organic twice as much, because the natural chemicals don’t work as well at controlling pests and diseases. They don’t want to know about the multitude of competing regulations that we are navigating between. They don’t want to understand nitrogen uptake and pH levels. They don’t want to learn about crop rotations and organic matter. They don’t want to hear that markets can drive decisions, because they simply see themselves as the end-user.

A.G. Kawamura is a third generation farmer and former secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. He wrote an op-ed for Agri-Pulse around this time last year. In it, he says what has become one of my favorite quotes on agriculture in recent times:

Most assuredly we will remember why agriculture is important the day we return to a world of scarcity.

We are so fortunate to live in a country of abundance! We can be picky, because we have so. many. choices. Those who are hungry and are given a meal never question if the produce is organic. They are happy to have food in their stomachs.

For every ten people that say they have an interest in learning about where their food comes from, I bet there’s probably only two who legitimately care. So to my friend, here’s what I say: Those two are two more than we had before.