Interesting / Losers

I. "the maddeningly unteachable gift of being interesting"

--On writer Hilary Mantel, from James Wood's book review "Invitation to a Beheading: The Thomas Cromwell novels of Hilary Mantel"

Wouldn't that description be better, stronger, without maddeningly:
She has "the unteachable gift of being interesting"?

It may be unteachable, but is that maddening? 
To James Wood it is, I guess, and to others who may wish we were more interesting.
The word smears the description with envy. I'd cut it.

Hey, this could be a 'How to Improve Writing' post, like Orange Crate Art posts.
But I mention the sentence here because I liked it, it's so exactly true about Mantel. I'm reading a collection of her short stories, The Assassination of Margaret Thatcher, and the stories about nothing happening (a man comes to visit, and then doesn't) are as interesting as the ones when something interesting happens (a woman witnesses preparations for the assassination of Thatcher).

Also I'd been thinking about how some people are just not interesting, no matter what they try or do:
I have a coffee date coming up with such a one--a pleasant and kind person I see once or twice a year. I dread it each time because although they do interesting work and travel to interesting places, they themselves are as painfully boring as the lobby of a travel agency. (Remember those?)

I read the first two of Mantel's three Cromwell novels.
Excellent, but a little remote to me, who only knows anything about the Tudors from watching  the BBC's Six Wives of Henry VIII when I was ... nine (1970); and full of sticky horrors, like the fatty ashes of people burned at the stake.
Also, heavy books to read in bed.

I couldn't face the third, though I did read the end.

Mantel's short novel Fludd is one of my favorite books though.
It's about--huh, come to think of it, it's about an interesting young woman, a girl really, smothered in an uninteresting life and how she escapes with a little supernatural assistance.

When I read Mantel's memoir Giving Up the Ghost, I realized Fludd is autobiographical. You could see the mysterious character Fludd (who may or may not be the devil) as a manifestation of the young woman's own inherent, unlearned interestingness.

Maybe being interesting is the work of the devil?
He always seems more interesting than God, right?

If you can't learn to be interesting, can you learn to be good?

II. Professor Conflict

Big Boss addressed me in an email today as "Professor".
He meant it affectionately, I think. I'm not 100% sure.

Recently he'd seen me reading a business book, The Five Dysfunctions of Teams, and so he'd asked me to talk about team-building at our staff meeting yesterday.

I agreed, but then I was stumped about what to say. We have all five dysfunctions, but we don't have a team.

Example: staff meetings. Big Boss calls them at random every few weeks, so they're mostly pointless. We're like a sports team that practices once or twice a season. When we go out on the field, we wing it, each according to their gifts.

What helpful things could I say? I was wondering if I could back out...
Then last week--a gift to my talk's lack of focus--we had another mad, sad, bad customer, who threatened Ass't Man.

I've told Big Boss we need training on dealing with difficult customers (and coworkers!). After a crazed customer threw a stapler at our mildest cashier this winter, I even sent him some youtube video trainings on it.
But, nothing.
So here was my chance.
One of the five dysfunctions is an inability to handle conflict.

Two years ago after police murdered George Floyd, people broke into the store, smashing windows and wrecking stuff.
Tensions were high among staff restoring things inside the boarded up store. Sometimes we had fun, sometimes we flared up.

I found help in the negotiation/conflict resolution videos by former FBI hostage negotiator, Chris Voss.
His 12-min TED talk, Never Split the Difference.

He's all about emotional intelligence--developing it and using it.
It's teachable (to some). You can learn it!
"The key to success, especially in very dangerous negotiations, is tactical empathy, which Voss describes as emotional intelligence on steroids."

I talked about three points at the 20-minute staff meeting:

1. See the problem/challenge as being the SITUATION, not the other person. All parties want a successful resolution to the situation.
Drop your ego and work toward that.

2.  Shut up & listen. That is your killer skill.

3. Show the other person you heard their point of view: repeat two or three of the last or the key words they said.

Yesterday's toy arrangement at the store by me. Friends or foes?

We talked about the recent scary customer, and A.M. kept trying to come up with a way that he could have won on his terms, using the tips I'd presented.*

Finally Big Boss said, "You weren't going to get your way, and it wasn't worth the risk. Your pride wanted to win, but you have to get good at losing."

GET GOOD AT LOSING.
Isn't that great?
That's it, exactly.

Let your ego drop around your ankles like underpants whose elastic is shot.
I read this advice once about what to do if your underpants drop off in public (an old-fashioned problem):
Step out of them and walk on as if nothing happened.

I didn't say that at the meeting.

AM told me afterward the Voss perspective was very helpful, and Big Boss said I did a good job. 

But what's this "professor" label? Is it tinged with resentment? I kinda feel it is... Or am I being too suspicious?
Well, whatever I was, it was worth it to help make the store a little safer from conflict escalation.

__________________________

*What had resolved the conflict between Asst Man & the dangerous customer was the intervention of Mr Furniture--he is a calm and kind negotiator--and he'd told the customer it wasn't worth ruining his life to hurt A.M. [I have to laugh], and he should walk away. Which the customer did.