I had a heated debate with a friend, today, about the silliest thing in the world.
No, really.
There's a sign on the freeway, right on top of the entrance of a long underpass tunnel, that instructs car drivers to turn on the headlamps while inside the tunnel. The argument started when I commented on another car with hazard lamps instead of the headlamps. Of course I turned on my headlamp first to avoid a 'touche' moment. I said, "Those fools, they are supposed to turn on the headlamps!" Of course it was with a sense of humor, it wasn't really a rant. But my friend may have taken it seriously, and said, "what's wrong with it? You're the one who's supposed to follow them. That was a stupid sign, anyway, why would you have to turn on your headlamps in broad daylight? You can see it doesn't even have any effect whether or not you turn on your headlamps. See?" She pointed at the front of the car.
I then explained it to her that the purpose of turning on the headlamps in that particular tunnel is to give light to the driver IN FRONT of us, to make them aware of our presence behind them, not to provide light for ourselves. It's to improve safety, that when a driver wants to switch to the fast lane, the driver can see whether or not there's a car already in the fast lane. "so, you see, it's not that we need light in that dark, long tunnel, it's for the driver in front of us to see us on his tail".
Then the debate extended to some kind of a newly-approved international regulation about having a system to blink / roll the cars tail lamps to increase drivers' awareness of the vehicle in front of them . . . which I obviously never heard of, because I responded with a softened "bullshit", and the debate continued. It's resolved with an apology and a coffee session at the Starbucks. No damage done.
Maybe she snapped because she also turns on the hazard lamps whenever she enters the tunnel when driving. But my point is, we were having a problem caused by different perspectives, which in this case, the function of the headlamps. To me, the car's headlamps are not merely used to provide light to ourselves so that we can see what's going on in front of us. The other use of the headlamps is demonstrated in that long, dark tunnel, through the instructions on the sign above the tunnel's entrance. On the other hand, my friend only knew the first - and primary - use of the headlamps. I'm a bit ashamed, knowing that I should have known better, that not everyone thinks like me. In fact, we ALL have our own unique ways in understanding something. What I can do better is to propose an idea about the function of the headlamps in the tunnel. She might also not accept it right away, but this way my chance in explaining it further to her is bigger, not to mention avoiding a pointless debate that may cause our friendship to suffer.
At work, we may encounter the same case with different perspectives. As a manager - or superior - we might possess a broader point of view compared to our subordinates. We as superiors sometimes whine about how ignorant our subordinates are, because they won't understand what we tell them about cutting cost in purchasing material that may be the cause of a harder handling and making the goods. Subordinates sometimes also whine about how ignorant the superiors are because they just won't listen to their ideas about the current situation on the production floor that may make their work easier and give more benefits, though need a little more budget.
Difference in perspectives can be reconciled with a simple two-ways communication. One might want to refrain from saying something as fact, and try to submit an idea which ends with an open question. Showing openness may stimulate others' curiosity, willingness to share more ideas, and may lead to a situation where people can enrich others with each others' ideas. Of course this is not easy, it needs practice and willingness from both sides. But, as long as we base it on goodwill, do it.
No, really.
There's a sign on the freeway, right on top of the entrance of a long underpass tunnel, that instructs car drivers to turn on the headlamps while inside the tunnel. The argument started when I commented on another car with hazard lamps instead of the headlamps. Of course I turned on my headlamp first to avoid a 'touche' moment. I said, "Those fools, they are supposed to turn on the headlamps!" Of course it was with a sense of humor, it wasn't really a rant. But my friend may have taken it seriously, and said, "what's wrong with it? You're the one who's supposed to follow them. That was a stupid sign, anyway, why would you have to turn on your headlamps in broad daylight? You can see it doesn't even have any effect whether or not you turn on your headlamps. See?" She pointed at the front of the car.
I then explained it to her that the purpose of turning on the headlamps in that particular tunnel is to give light to the driver IN FRONT of us, to make them aware of our presence behind them, not to provide light for ourselves. It's to improve safety, that when a driver wants to switch to the fast lane, the driver can see whether or not there's a car already in the fast lane. "so, you see, it's not that we need light in that dark, long tunnel, it's for the driver in front of us to see us on his tail".
Then the debate extended to some kind of a newly-approved international regulation about having a system to blink / roll the cars tail lamps to increase drivers' awareness of the vehicle in front of them . . . which I obviously never heard of, because I responded with a softened "bullshit", and the debate continued. It's resolved with an apology and a coffee session at the Starbucks. No damage done.
Maybe she snapped because she also turns on the hazard lamps whenever she enters the tunnel when driving. But my point is, we were having a problem caused by different perspectives, which in this case, the function of the headlamps. To me, the car's headlamps are not merely used to provide light to ourselves so that we can see what's going on in front of us. The other use of the headlamps is demonstrated in that long, dark tunnel, through the instructions on the sign above the tunnel's entrance. On the other hand, my friend only knew the first - and primary - use of the headlamps. I'm a bit ashamed, knowing that I should have known better, that not everyone thinks like me. In fact, we ALL have our own unique ways in understanding something. What I can do better is to propose an idea about the function of the headlamps in the tunnel. She might also not accept it right away, but this way my chance in explaining it further to her is bigger, not to mention avoiding a pointless debate that may cause our friendship to suffer.
At work, we may encounter the same case with different perspectives. As a manager - or superior - we might possess a broader point of view compared to our subordinates. We as superiors sometimes whine about how ignorant our subordinates are, because they won't understand what we tell them about cutting cost in purchasing material that may be the cause of a harder handling and making the goods. Subordinates sometimes also whine about how ignorant the superiors are because they just won't listen to their ideas about the current situation on the production floor that may make their work easier and give more benefits, though need a little more budget.
Difference in perspectives can be reconciled with a simple two-ways communication. One might want to refrain from saying something as fact, and try to submit an idea which ends with an open question. Showing openness may stimulate others' curiosity, willingness to share more ideas, and may lead to a situation where people can enrich others with each others' ideas. Of course this is not easy, it needs practice and willingness from both sides. But, as long as we base it on goodwill, do it.
