[NB: This post has been significantly edited, twice. It was almost abandoned [see this post for some context]. It is not meant to be harsh, nor personal, but I think it needs to be addressed. I also want to say at the outset that I respect Ryan and the things he writes. Follow to through the end and hopefully that will be clear.]
OK, I’ll bite. I’ve been “harsh” before.
But if I was your “harshest critic” then you were lucky. And, if you also mean that I was harsh then you have a lot of living to do.
On 12 April I made a comment on a post at Life As I Know It. Jennifer Macaulay, in a post entitled, “Just Say Yes To Technology?“, was commenting on a post by Ryan Deschamps, The Other Librarian, entitled, “What the Library 2.0 Crowd is Trying to Say about Technology.” Ryan also commented there, seemingly taking a bit of minor offense at Jennifer’s and my questioning attitude. Jennifer responded, and due to being the end of the semester I failed to go back and check in.
This morning [yesterday now] Ryan posted a follow-up on his own blog, “Yes, I will Learn with you…“.
If you actually care about any of this, I suggest you go read Ryan’s original post, then Jennifer’s post in response along with the comments, and then Ryan’s follow-up in which I am labeled his “harshest critic.”
Now that that is done, I want to say that although I stand by every word I wrote on Jennifer’s post, Ryan managed to ignore the nice thing I said about him. Maybe that didn’t serve his purpose in labeling me. It might be hard to single someone out as the “bad guy” when they started out with “Well said, Jennifer! I, too, enjoyed Ryan’s post and only had a problem with the same thing as you” (emphasis not in original).
Let me also state that I generally enjoy the things Ryan writes. While my tastes are not exactly the same as his, he often writes things I find interesting. He also generally writes in a far more nuanced way than many others; something I greatly appreciate!
I clearly was short in my comment at Jennifer’s; school and work lives are hectic and time is short. My reply was not exactly nuanced but was an attempt (clumsy perhaps) to add a bit of nuance and perhaps to get some from Ryan.
For the record, here is my entire comment:
Well said, Jennifer! I, too, enjoyed Ryan’s post and only had a problem with the same thing as you. You, though, said what I would have liked to but with kindness and some detail. My rather simplistic critique would basically have been that saying Yes before even asking any questions is stupid; not a good way to start a conversation.
I understood his point to be “Minimize the obstacles, ask only necessary questions, and empower people,” or something like that. But what he actually said about saying yes immediately is extremely simplistic and also ill-advised from a managerial perspective. Do anyone want a manager who immediately says yes to things and then after asking a few questions retracts that yes? Does anyone want to be that manager?
Ryan was frustrated with my synopsis of his point, which I admit is a bit simplistic (see comment re time above) but it was not meant to be dismissive. (Part of) Ryan’s response:
I said technology ought to *begin* with a “yes.” By that, I meant to say “yes, now go get me a business plan.” or “yes, now where does this fit into our priorities and/or strategic plan.” And no, don’t want managers to reduce the questions — I said ask *hard* questions. But say “yes” first. Or, (if I can change my tune just a bit) at least as often as we say “yes” first to a whole slate of other activities.
The point is less about reneging on the need for planning and/or alternative actions and/or critical thinking and more about engaging techies in the discussions that already get a “yes” before ever asking any questions (which I agree is stupid, if by that you mean going into the implementation stage without anything resembling a plan).
In an additional comment he added:
… I’m just a little concerned that the headline and Mark’s read could give the wrong impression if someone didn’t actually read what I wrote. That’s what comments are for anyway right? To clarify, add, participate etc.
Another point here is the need for playspace — namely access to a test server, with all sorts of bells and whistles, including a test copy of the ILS if possible. It’s really hard for people to demo tech projects when people can’t see the possibilities. And out-of-the-box products, especially open source ones, don’t really show well to people who don’t know how something works.
Well, Ryan, I apologize if I gave anyone the wrong impression. Sincerely, I do. But that is perhaps why I prefaced my comment with the fact that I enjoyed your post but only disagreed with one thing. Maybe not very explicit but it seems to be to be an implicit endorsement of people reading your post. Jennifer also linked to your post, as I have done above. I don’t want to turn this into a “he said, he said” thing but think about your complaint for a second. From Jennifer’s post and, thus, my comment on it, and from this post, your exact and entire words—in context—can be found. Did you give anyone that opportunity regarding my words in your post this [yesterday] morning, sir?
I fully support your statement re “playspace” or sand boxes or what have you. And that doesn’t just go for the “techies,” it also applies for the non-systems folks who have responsibility for major systems where perhaps running new and complex reports might crash an ILS or playing with non-standard bib records that do not need to be exposed to “the world.” Been there, done that.
You know what? This is getting tedious. And re-reading Ryan’s post from this morning it is pretty clear that I must not be of “the generation of librarians coming up,” nor do I understand change, and so on.
I’m going to be simple here and even, perhaps, harsh. Ryan, you are seriously oversimplifying this whole issue. It is not only “techies” who get told “No” as you allude. I doubt you mean it, but my minor disagreement seems to have irked you enough that your powers of nuance are escaping you. I never, in any way, was saying the answer should be “No.”
You have turned this into another “us vs. them” dichotomy of which I am very tired. I happen to be on everyone’s side. That is, the side of fulfilling the actual mission of libraries. Having lived a bit longer than you, I’ve seen far too many of these “us vs. them” dichotomies and pretty much everyone of them is bullshit. You started out trying to help bridge one and now, in fact, have helped cement one (or more).
I have tried to get some nuance from this and you have said things a couple of different ways but, nonetheless, still seem to be saying the same thing, much of which I agree with, such as, give people the benefit of the doubt, say yes when you can, prioritize, ….
[cut]
==== new ===
Although the entirety of Ryan’s comments, including his newest post from yesterday, do not support this statement from one of his comments [more above] I am going to focus on it in the spirit of giving him the best interpretation:
Or, (if I can change my tune just a bit) at least as often as we say “yes” first to a whole slate of other activities.
OK, I’m fully in agreement with that. I just don’t think all the nuance he has tried to add begins to point to this. To me, he seems to be claiming something significantly different. And that something I have real issues with.
=========
End the end, I’m giving Ryan the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think he really and truly means what he says to be taken across the board. Maybe he’s in an environment where his employees only bring him well-formed and well thought out ideas that they can defend. Maybe only “techies” get told “No” where he is. Or maybe he’s just trying to defend the finer points of his discussion, which, I maintain, are well worth defending. But the world isn’t this way everywhere else.
And, by the way, I absolutely adore “Yes, I will learn with you…”. That is the right attitude.
[For the record: I am of "the generation of librarians coming up." And as far as change management goes, I may not be the best theorist, but having spent over 20 years in the Army being forced to change jobs every 12 months to 3 years, generally maintaining 4-5 jobs at the same time due to "additional duties," none of which you were ever adequately prepared for, and leaving one as soon as you became proficient in it, I think I am fully immersed in the experiential aspect of change management. I have also lived through 2 new ILS implementations, including being responsible for a significant piece of one. Thus, I'd put my skills in that department up against any of whomever your idea of "the generation of librarians coming up" are.]
I sincerely apologize if anyone takes any of this as “harsh.” That is not my purpose, nor my desire. I was only trying to be supportive of the vast majority of Ryan’s points—and still am—
====new===
but Ryan seems to have taken my minor disagreement personal and made it so in reply. Maybe that wasn’t his intention, but seeing as he complained about possible misconstrual of his words in a venue where all of his words could be traced in context and then used [some of] mine slightly out of context with no chance for the reader to see where they came from he did, in fact, do so.
Ryan, I truly don’t want this to be personal. There is no need for that. I fully respect your opinion and agree almost entirely. If what you are doing works for you—and it seems to be—then by all means ignore what I say. I have stripped a lot regarding what I actually think you have said in over 95% of your words on this topic because I think you really meant what you said in one sentence in a comment. I just don’t feel that that is what actually came through from most of your words. Seeing as that is how I am now choosing to interpret your thoughts on the matter the rest of my critique is not important or necessary.
I will assume that your overlooking the possibility of linking to my comment in context was simply that, an oversight. If not, then I ask you to rethink your earlier complaint about Jennifer and my critiques where your words were fully accessible. I see from your About page that one of your main interests is ethics. Thus, I assume you can reason your way through this one.
Ryan, I think you do good work at your blog. Please keep it up!
Sincerely,
Mark