I recently took a training course on conversational skills. The presenter, Paul Axtell, tried to explain how we could objectify conversations and intrapersonal contact. Doing so would allow us to maximize our day-to-day interactions and maintain better relationships at work and in our personal lives.

Paul was a chemical engineer for 20 something years. Therefore, I did not find it very surprising that Paul was trying to objectify and rationalize conversation.

To his credit, he did not try to give us the “for-sure, heal-all” equation for how to interact with people. Instead, he tried to give us a different perspective on what our interactions with people actually are. Based on our improved perspectives we could then grow, learn, and refine our methods in order to improve our relationships through our conversation skills.

To a certain extent, I agreed with his theory — our relationships are indeed a series of conversations. Without knowing it I have actually approached relationships this way for a long time.

I recognize my relationships are perpetuated by conversations, and the ones I value I keep alive by checking in once in a while on a personal level. I call someone to say hi, or I drop them an email to say hi. I talk to them for no reason but to let them know that I think about them.

Then there are special relationships where bonds are so strong that it doesn’t take conversations to keep them going. You know who you are. <3

On the other hand, there are those relationships I don’t value as much, and those are ones that I do not nurture. They lack conversation. They are utilitarian. If I do not talk to these people for a long time, I am perfectly fine. I don’t worry about them at all until I need something from them.

If you know me, I’m the guy who gets annoyed when people ask me how I am doing when I know they don’t give a shit. I don’t particularly like small talk, although I recognize that it is important to establishing comfort and familiarity, it just seems so vaporous. Well, small talk is white noise — and Paul touched on this when he said that a relationship based on just small talk is not really a relationship at all.

But it takes two people to step beyond sports and the weather. You can’t have a meaningful conversation when one person is mentally disengaged. Each half shares equal ownership of each conversation — each half of the relationship.

And so I started to think that maybe these people don’t give a shit because I never stop to talk to them — not the other way around. So next time someone asks me how I am, I might just stop and tell them.

If you look at it a different way, it is them giving you a chance to speak. And your chance to speak is a great opportunity to say something much more meaningful than “Hi” or “Good” or “Fine”. Everytime you answer with one word like that you fail to create a connection. Imagine if you went the rest of your life like this.

Paul did say that you should not ignore your goals and committments. Of course, if you talked to everyone all the time you would never get shit done. Plus, some people are fricking annoying and they’d keep you in that hallway for over half an hour as they rambled about their bathroom remodelling or how their dogs like to eat their own shit. They should be skipped.

As for the people you don’t know about, stop and talk for a minute or two. You’d be surprised at what they have to say.

The American Dream is in danger. With each passing day, I see the system repeatedly failing to reward honorable, competent people who are accountable for their actions and deserve better.

In the corporate world, there are winners and losers. The losers pack up their shit and go home. They find another job, or they get unemployment. But sooner than later management recognizes they are holding the company back.

The winners are rewarded with job security, stock options, profit sharing, promotions and relative prosperity. They get what they deserve.

In the system, government employees do not answer to such requirements. The process for holding workers accountable for what they do is a long and arduous one, due partly to restrictive union rules to prevent abuse or unfair labor practices but mostly because the system repetatively rewards people for being good at the system, not how well they can do their job.

It is a top-down disease. I don’t blame government employees, I blame ineffective management. Middle management in the government system is comprised largely of people who worked their way up the chain. They did not receive proper training or experience before assuming authoritative roles. This is a large generalization, but bear with me.

In the system, the first thing that contradicts our meritocracy is the inability of middle managers to enforce position description requirements in accordance with union regulations. They are given the power to hold people accountable, but for whatever reason they avoid conflict and do not properly document worker incompetence, insubordination, or lack of productivity.

Some of this is due to the superlative maze of red tape linked to almost any government transaction. But the root of it is a deep-seeded inability to face conflict, deal with a difficult situation, and do what is best for the team even if it is unpopular or not well received. Nobody likes to rock the boat. That is a huge problem.

On the worker level, this creates an environment where someone can work hard enough not to get fired, and still work their way up the chain. The system fails these workers because it leads them to believe that incompetance is the norm; that a lack of productivity and a lower standard are acceptable.

Fast forward a few years. New management comes in, they restructure. We mix workers schooled by an old system with workers that are energetic, productive, and more inline with the typical darwinist meritocracy so closely tied to the American Dream. We have a serious problem.

You end up with people who get something for nothing. And, in some cases, they actually get more for nothing, depending on seniority. To them, it is their entitlement, because they were not ever told it was wrong. Again, I blame shitty middle management spawned from the same flawed mindset. The workers, old and new alike, are all the victims.

New management, competent or not, is left powerless to change things for lack of precedents that would allow them to hold the old schoolers accountable for past flaws. New management is now forced to retro-actively set precedents to make up for the shortcomings of previous management. In a sense, they have to clean up someone else’s mess. In the meantime, the good workers deal with all of the side effects.

So the department suffers. The organization suffers. The old schoolers stay, they ride it out as long as they can because the system affords them that right. The new people, who can easily make it anywhere else, find better paying jobs that offer proper compensation. Because of an inability to keep and reward good workers, the system is diluted, which only perpetuates it’s self-destruction … because guess who’s going to be manager next.

The solution seems pretty simple; people should be held accountable for what they do. But it is no surprise to me that our country, with our President, our Secretary of Defense and our Senate Majority Leader leading the pack, lacks accountability.

We need to offer better education for managers in government agencies. Encourange worker accountability, and offer training for all levels of government in the area of conflict resolution and the ability to handle difficult speech. This empowers workers and managers alike to honor a higher standard that is not conducive to the old status quo.

Resolving conflicts today, no matter how difficult, will prevent catastrophes later on.