[Opinion] The Infrastructure of Our Assumptions

The infrastructure underlying our assumptions about work, the material world, and the digital world, and even how people get paid for work, have to change.

One assumption people still struggle with accepting is: If it’s not physical, then it’s not worth paying for.

Another assumption people struggle to change is: If I can’t see you physically doing the work, you must not be actually creating anything of value.

And yet another assumption people struggle to change in the face of shifting technology is: If it’s in the digital world (work, products, infrastructure, etc.) then there must be a physical corollary or else it’s not “real.”

All of these assumptions are being upended, moment-by-moment, bit-by-bit, by software companies (Google, Facebook, etc.) product companies (Tesla Motors), and digital goods companies (Amazon, Zappos, Netflix, etc.) and there are no signs of slowing down. Meanwhile, in the “real” world, the debates that rage in our public discourse are over basic income, wealth distribution, race and gender, and the nature of public policy, regulation, and laws in the face of rapid change.

We insist on using 20^th century language and 20^th century approaches to resolve 21^st century problems. The solution to this is not to slow down, change, or push back machine learning, software development, or even physical and digital integration. Instead, the solution to this comes right out of the world of conflict resolution: Developing and sustaining the environments that will allow people to be creative, be generous, be courageous, and be truthful in a world that will increasingly reward by revenues of connection, referral, and relationship, those people who can successfully relationally connect with other people.

Rebuilding and reimagining the educational, social, and community infrastructures that will empower people to be their best, most ethical selves over the long stretch of their lives and creating and sustaining the systems to reward that growth—that’s the hard work.

Assumptions undergird work and the value of human labor. Assumptions undergird emotional labor and the value of that labor. Assumptions undergird adoption of technology, systems, and even the design of physical infrastructures.

But, the thing about assumptions is that human being make them.

Which means, with courage, and without apathy or defeatism, they can be unmade.

Even in the face of conflicts over change.

-Peace Be With You All-

Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principal Conflict Engagement Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Email HSCT: jsorrells@hsconsultingandtraining.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HSConsultingandTraining
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

HIT Piece 4.19.2016

There are people whose viewpoints I disagree with, but their principles are in the right place.

This seems counterintuitive to write, to say, and to act upon, but in reality, it is the only way to proceed in a world, seemingly bent on separation, isolation, and increasingly elevating short-term symbolism over long-term substance.

This also seems counterintuitive if you have connected with other people, collaborated on projects, or move forward with initiatives based in shared positions and common interests. The thing about positions is that they shift, and interests align only temporarily, but principles are forever.

This also makes me careful about with who I align, because the seductive beauty of a temporary positon interests me just about as little as the fleeting joy of shared interests. Principles are enduring and deep. Which means, that by the time I’ve discovered what your principles are, we already know that the other two areas—positions and interests—will align as well.

I told someone the other day, I am in a search for a moral man, or woman.

I’m actually in a search, not only for a moral woman, or man, but also a collaborator with whom my principles align.

It’s ok.

I’ve got a few years left yet.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] The Project Work Trap II

In order to effectively scale such transitive and necessary products as peace, honesty, good faith and courage, project work—freelancing—has to serve as the next step up from the typical minimal viable product, an entrepreneur might focus on developing.

A blog (not a pretty website) may be the minimal viable product for the beginning peace builder, but the way to scale from that is to be clear about developing project work through freelancing. The trap of project work though, is that it can lead to the peace builder developing a “feast-or-famine” mentality. This mentality is the jaws of the project work trap.

Developing books, developing processes, developing software applications, developing “train the trainer” processes and more are ways around, through and over the project work trap. Product development such as this is the path to entrepreneurial ways out of the project work trap. Developing product that makes money for the peace builder while she sleeps is the entrepreneurial goal.

The gap between freelancing and entrepreneurship is consulting. Consulting is the linchpin between project work and entrepreneurial growth. It serves as the lever at the top of the triangle between work that can be done by the peace builder and the outcomes that may need to occur to develop peace.

And the savvy peace builder knows this…

-Peace Be With You All-

[Strategy] Committing to Intentionality

Even as blogs, video, audio, memes, and gifs penetrate the public consciousness via personalized mobile phone ubiquity, companies and organizations still pay a premium for physical billboards alongside our national highways and roads.

Why is this?

Well, part of the the reason was revealed through a statement that a former CEO of Mercedes Benz made at one point many years ago: “If I wanted to sell you a Mercedes, I couldn’t do it by blasting you with an advertisement two days before you wanted to buy one. I have to advertising Mercedes to you from the day that you were born until the day you decide to buy one.”

In other words, billboards, television commercials, and newspaper ads (even in an age of declining readership and growing lack of interest in written advertising copy) still matter, because they serve as a “top-of-the-mind” way to get attention for, and place (or anchor) a, product, service, or process in a potential customer’s mind.

All these forms of advertisement are about increasing the consumer attention in a product, service, or process intentionally. In the same vein, intentionality should be the watchword of any effort, training program, or even new discipline that any person–or organization–embarks on towards change.

Think about it: Without “top-of-the-mind” intentionality to change, without support and encouragement from others, and without feedback that is appropriate, well-timed, and relevant, all the classes, training programs, and efforts that organizations undertake to develop employees, supervisors, or managers, fall on fallow ground.

Intentionality is at the core of follow-up. It’s at the core of how training is designed. It’s even at the core of how people are engaged in a face-to-face training situation.

Intentionality is often avoided, discounted, or not considered, because there are assumptions organizations and individuals make, about the motives of people who assume authoritarian positions, heavy with positional power. People in those positions are assumed to have good intentions; but good intentions do not equate to following through intentionally with new information, approaches, and philosophies that much of training will stir up.

And then there are the situations where what’s ““top-of-the-mind” for the supervisor may not be what’s “top-of-the-mind” for the supervisee. This disconnect happens more often that you would imagine in organizations. And the commitment to actually, meaningfully, changing organizational culture dies in the ditch of the gap between a supervisor’s “top-of-the-mind” and a supervisee’s “top-of-the-mind.”

The digital billboards in Times Square cost around $3.5 million per month per billboard to rent for a promotional message. That’s a lot of money to get the valuable attention of 8 million people, the vast majority of whom are now captivated by personalized digital experiences.

But organizations still look at advertising via billboard in Times Square as a sunk cost. They value the “top-of-the-mind” placement in Time Square more than they value the money they spend, and they are intentional about the advertisements they create and run.

Imagine the organizational outcomes if, for $300,000 worth of organizational training, organizations were as intentional about following up with that spend as they are with advertising a product for one month.

-Peace Be With You All-

HIT Piece 3.29.2016

If Bob feels as though he got screwed in his last mediation session out of assets like a boat or a pile of money, his world view of the mediation process is different than that of his ex-wife.

If Ann feels that her job in human resources is for determining policy and keeping people in line, she’s going to take a different view of conflict management training than Jill who sees her job in human resources as being an agent of change in the organization.

If Dave feels his role at a church is being a person who keeps the boat from tipping over rather than as a person who is there to lead a flock to Christ, his approach to internal church conflict is going to be different than Melinda, who sees her role as a Deacon as one who is there to lead people to a relationship rather than through religion.

The worldviews of your clients (and how they feel about those worldviews) around conflict matter. And if you haven’t bothered to explore their worldviews as you champion peace, then all your selling won’t matter a hill of beans.

[Advice] It’s Easy Not To Notice…

When adults meet each other at parties, they typically ask the banal question: “What do you do?” Sometimes, if one of the adults is really insightful, they’ll ask “What do you do for a living?”

And most (if not a majority) of adults will respond by saying something equally banal (y’know…small talk…), mentioning their job title, their tasks at work, or something else that seems socially acceptable.

But, what if instead of asking—and answering—such questions with banalities, we answered with what really has value for us, what really makes a difference, what the places are where we stand up with courage and actually make something that matters?

The reason we don’t do that, and the reason that we respond with banalities to a banal question is two-fold:

The question asker really doesn’t want to know what we do. It’s a polite shorthand of trying to cram the other party in a tiny hole, make assumptions about them, their worth, and their work, and then forget about it.

The question answerer really doesn’t want to respond with vulnerability. It’s really hard to be vulnerable with a person you just met five seconds ago. It’s just easier to let them categorize you—even as you categorize them—and make assumptions, and move onto the remainder of the interaction.

It’s easy not to notice these small things; the impact of greasing the social wheels so that there is as little squeaking as possible; so that the social group gets along, knows who’s “in” and who’s “out” and so that categorization can happen in an easier fashion in a world that seems chaotic and noisy.

But the ways that we have developed to handle a complicated world, don’t really assist us that well anymore, and it’s easier not to notice that the banalities lead to cruft, and that the cruft builds up over time into plaque, and the plaque cakes over the substance of our relationships with people, until conflicts become the only vehicle for meaningful changes.

Going past banalities at the beginning of a relationship, and going toward what matters with people, is at the core of managing and engaging with conflicts that matter. The next time you’re asked “What do you do?” respond by talking about what matters—not your job title, not your tasks you get paid for, but what really matters.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] Philosophical, Strategic, Practical

There are three conversations that you can have at any given time.

Philosophical—This is the 50,000-foot, “big idea” conversation. Not many people are capable of connecting together big ideas. Nor is everybody capable of (or interested in) exploring the ramifications of the implementation of those big ideas to their lives, either at work or at home. Many people would rather not think (or talk) in 50,000-foot terms and instead would rather seal off the considerations, thoughts, and even ideas, that a 50,000-foot philosophical conversation brings up, and never think about them ever again.

Strategic—These are the 10,000-foot conversations that occur every day between members of middle management inside of organizations. These are the conversations people think they are having inside of brainstorming sessions at work. These conversations are about ideas (ostensibly) but they quickly move to being about people (gossip) or about repeating a personal story as if it were a public truism (storytelling). Many people like the feel and the tenor of a strategic conversation, because conversations like these usually wind up with someone else doing the hard work of formulating a plan, developing next steps, and implementing a policy or a change.

Practical—These are the “How do I deal with what’s 5 inches in front of my face?” conversations. Practical conversations are about getting to the point, getting past the “fluff,” disengaging with emotion (if at all possible) and making a point forcefully and persuasively. Practical conversations don’t typically involve discussing facts—just impressions that the facts left behind as they floated up into the strategic conversation realm. Most people enjoy practical conversations because they allow for a focus on “getting things done.”

The three conversations—just like the three feedback conversations—happen almost simultaneously in meetings, face-to-face interactions, and most notably, in conflict communication scenarios.

If you want to communicate beautifully, know which conversation you’re having with which audience.

-Peace Be With You All-

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!

HIT Piece 4.12.2016

In my life as an entrepreneur, consultant, and freelancer, perfect is the enemy of good.

Chasing perfectionism—in a project, a blog post, a speech, a podcast episode, or even in a formalized training scenario—is a sign that I’m focusing on the work that doesn’t matter, so that I can hide from making decisions to do work that does matter.

Hiding comes in chasing perfectionism, both launching and addressing the market, allowing my critics to give me shame in their efforts to give me feedback, and allowing myself to become bogged down in considering what I didn’t do well.

So, if perfect is the enemy of good, getting to good—actually doing the work—is the only way to get to great. But even great is a term loaded with assumptions, expectations, and desires that can never be met. See, great (and perfect) are all impulses that come out of human desires and emotions.

Going toward greatness—without the humility that comes from walking through good first—breeds a species of hubris and arrogance. Focusing on perfect—at the expense of making the choice that “good enough is ok”—breeds a species of fear and hiding.

Hubris and arrogance.

Fear and hiding.

Telling the truth, making a ruckus, providing hope, staying humble, giving credit when it’s due, accepting criticism—but not shame—and being informative; these are the areas that more, and more, I’m intentionally chasing.

Moment-by-moment, step-by-step, day-by-day, drip-by-drip.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Advice] How We Talk About What Matters…

There’s no other way to sell peace to a conflict comfortable public, than for a peace builder to be champion and a linchpin.

There are two ways to become a champion:

Only talk about what matters.
Constantly iterate and reiterate your minimal viable product, which in this case turns out to be your words and your perspective. This strategy does not eliminate having principles (they are bedrock and don’t change) it does however eliminate meaningless discussion, advocacy, and negotiation around principles.

By only talking about what matters (and constantly iterating and reiterating on the how) you are opening up yourself to doing the hard, champion level work, of actually negotiation with others of good conscience and moral fiber around positions.

You are also opening yourself up to the ideas and possibilities that knowing other people’s interests (not values (which equate with principles) or positions) but interests: the “what” and the “why” underneath the how.

When you do this intentionally and deliberately over a long enough period of time, drip-by-drip, you begin to persuade people of the value of what you are selling (a perspective, process, service, or product of peace) and begin to move them away from the resistance to it.

This moving, this drip-by-drip, is how you become a peace building linchpin: A person who, if they were gone, we all would have to invent.

A person who broke the mold, even before they walked into the room and convinced you.

-Peace Be With You All-