[Opinion] Listening When You Don’t Care

Listening when you don’t care is hard, because of four reasons:

We want things to be easy—The word “easy” just means that, on our terms, the interaction of listening, requires nothing of us—or the minimal amount of emotional labor possible.

We want things to be our way—we are selfish. There’s nothing surprising about this. But what is surprising is the number of different covers we place on top of our selfish tendencies, in an attempt to conform to whatever behavior the social group demands.

We want interactions to be friction-free—this just means that, the more direct the communication—or the more direct we think the communication is—the easier it seems for us to engage in. And by the way, this also means that, as long as people agree with us, and things are our way, we have stasis and security.

We want to be right—this is the other part of selfishness in our communications, and like most parts of our interpersonal communications, it’s deeply internal.

Then there’re the adoption curve:

On any distribution for anything in the material world, or in the human experience, there are people who are early adopters (easily understood and understanding) there are people who are late adopters (barely understood, and barely understanding) and then there’s the vast bulge of people in the middle.

The people in the middle are those people who don’t really care if things are easy to understand, or hard to understand, they just want the communication to work, preferably for them, or their situation.

The trouble with the middle is that it’s where everyone believes that they are. In reality the bulge is heavy at the left side of the curve. Many of us are not really listening at all, because we’re not really caring at all…

At the heart of listening—rather than not listening, or only listening long enough to find out when we can jump in to refute whatever is being said—is emotional labor: caring unselfishly, delaying the gratification that comes from stating our point, engaging with the friction rather than seeking to reduce it, and abandoning the impulse to be right.

-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: www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

[Advice] On Focus Past the TL;DR World

In a world of seven second attention spans, and stimulus reward systems based in electronic tools that update with vibrations, beeps and blinking lights, believing in the efficacy of the multitasking myth is mentally and emotionally deadly.

The organizations, teams, and even individuals who will “win” the future, who will be the most successful in the long-term, will be those that can focus on one thing at a time. They will also be the ones that allow their employees the ability to mindfully focus on tasks to accomplish goals and reduce the friction engendered by interruption, conflict, and poor communication. This is the place where our new tools can take us, such as artificial intelligence, data analytics, and even the internet everywhere and in every physical thing.

It’s going to take more than a few new tools to reverse the evolution of the human brain: A brain wired for stimulus, reaction, giving into impulse, and desiring the illusion of safety and stasis at the expense of everything else. Sure, mental and tool-based “short hand” may fool our brains into thinking that we are avoiding chaos and indecision, and encouraging stasis and security, but in a world where the short-hand for absorbing ideas we’re too impatient to deal with is “too long; didn’t read” we need more focus, not less.

-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/

[Opinion] On Being Definite

Being definite, being brusque, being impatient, and being in a hurry are all ways to hide from things–and information–we’d rather not consider.

Being definite typically shows up in the ways in which we only want to talk about the tasks at hand, in order to avoid talking about the things that matter—the emotional stuff.

Being brusque means engaging only at the surface level, a step below merely being definite, but a step above the emotional engagement. Being brusque mostly happens out of the mouth, but behind the eyes lies the truth in a communication interaction.

Being impatient is the root of both being definite and being brusque. Being impatient is all about us and about how we’re in a hurry. About how we don’t have time. Being impatient is typically blamed on other people and situations, but it’s mostly about us.

Being in a hurry (as many of us are) is a way for us to hide away from difficult areas (emotional, psychological, spiritual) that we’d sometimes rather not address. Being in a hurry is encouraged through “snackable” content, short-form videos in our social media feeds, and the sound-bite culture that breeds the short-hand of TL;DR.

Being Definite + Being Brusque + Being Impatient + Being in a Hurry = Being Disengaged on Our Terms

Ironically enough though, because the world serves us exactly the reality we prepare ourselves for, this means that we get the outcomes we want, even though our mouths may say something else.

It’s no wonder that we have conflicts at work, at home, at school, or even at church. Because, while all of this may be interaction on our terms, there is no such thing as an inconsequential action, an inconsequential behavior, or an inconsequential response.

Getting to the heart of engagement (both inside and outside of conflict) requires us to get comfortable with ambiguity, getting comfortable with long-form emotions, getting patient with other people’s stories that we really don’t care about, and slowing down the hurry to a mindful crawl.

-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/

[Opinion] Edges of the Universe

There is the edge and the long tail.

From the work of Chris Anderson, the idea of the long tail is that the world of “hits” (television shows, Top 40 music, etc.) is gone and the world of “niches” (Twitter users, YouTube video consumers, etc.) is here and is growing exponentially, year-on-year, as the cost of creating, developing, or doing, in general, drops to almost $0.

For peace builders looking to make money, get attention, gain credibility, or grow a practice, the “hits” are jobs in academia, working with NGO’s, or becoming lawyers who do peace building (i.e. mediation, negotiation, arbitration) on the side. The “niches” are where I am with this blog, launching a new podcast, or even trying to leap into live video streaming of mediation, negotiation, or arbitration sessions.

So why are peace builders chasing the chunky head (“hits), rather than heading out on the exponentially longer long tail (“niches”)?

There are two answers to this question:

The long tail is a lonely place. Peace builders by nature, temperament, and training are communal people, longing to connect clients with solutions and to resolve sticky problems. It’s lonely to go out to the long tail, because professional colleagues may tell you that you’re “wrong” in your approach. Or they may not let you into the world of conferences, associations, membership groups, or other places where business gets transacted. And when you’re a peace builder looking for work that matters, it’s easier to struggle to get into the chunky head and make noise there, than to take a professional risk to venture out on the long tail.

The edges of peace building are about the unknowable and unpredictable. Resolution is the reduction, or elimination, of tension between people. Engagement is about seeking out the tension, appreciating it, and not seeking to resolve it. At the edges of peace building lie technologies and technological developments, that have made the world of communication outside of peace building more striated, more differentiated (thus the long tail) and more separated. The tension has increased with social media saturation, 24/7/365 marketing messaging, and people increasingly choosing to opt-out rather than to opt-in. These changes are creating an atmosphere that is ripe for peace builders of all backgrounds to step in and show the way to reduce tension—or at the minimum get parties to engage with it in healthier ways—using stories that resonate with the language people in conflict at the edges are using right now.

Doing work at the edges that matters, requires going to the spot on the long-tail that matches your temperament as a peace builder and then to mine that spot ruthlessly. It also requires making peace with the tension of the unpredictable, and the unknowable.

But peace builders ask their clients to do this all the time, from the mediation table to the negotiation table.

-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/

[Advice] Storytelling for the Peace Builder

It’s hard to imagine a world without stories and storytelling; after all, human beings are narrative animals. And where peace builders are concerned, it’s even harder to imagine a world without conflict.

Conflict is a process of change driven by stories. Stories that, when repeated often enough—and with enough veracity—become capital “T” truth in conflict parties’ minds, hearts and psyches.

Peace builders are experienced in hearing stories of conflict and disruption. They tease apart those narratives to move parties past “who did what to whom” and toward, resolution, reconciliation or even forgiveness.

But, when peace builders have to switch and become brand builders, sometimes they struggle with stories about their business, their peace practices and their approaches to advocating for peace in the world. This has created a space where peace builders are sometimes defined by market forces, rather than acting to create narratives that will drive the market to their door.

Go back and look at that paragraph for a minute: That set of thoughts right there is a story, full of assumptions, truths and values.

All good story making revolves around a three act structure, focused around an epic journey of some type. Any reading this who has studied the books of Joseph Campbell—or seen Star Wars—will know what I’m talking about.

The peace builder as “hero” is a tough meme to construct for many peace builders. It smacks of violating client self-determination. A narrative where the client is the hero and the peace builder fades into the background, never to be seen or heard from again, is comfortable for many peace builders. Such a construct can be seductive, because it reinforces various themes and narratives baked into the structure of many peace building efforts, from education and training to certification and publishing.

But…

The marketplace (i.e. potential clients and customers) enjoys the journey of heroes and even anti-heroes. Acknowledging this fact is not approval of it, so when constructing the story of an approach, process or philosophy, many peace builders would do well to follow three basic rules:

The brand client is always the hero—All good, memorable branding stories begin by focusing on the hero first and identifying that person and their role clearly (see the Apple campaign from 1984). When building a brand and a business, the conflicting parties are the heroes; but, they can only be heroic with a little guidance.
The brand narrative winds through every piece of content a peace builder creates—When I work with corporate training clients, the second best moment I experience is the moment when they tell me that they recognize me from my “heroic” photo, splayed “Superman-like,” across my marketing (see this here). My best moment is when all that fades as they come to realize, through instruction, training and guidance, that they have the power to succeed or fail if they want to—and on their own terms. When building business brand, images that are selected for your blog posts, your business card, and even your website and print media should all integrate and express the same narrative.
The brand narrative you want to send to clients must be consistent—The professional peace builder can send one, two or multiple messages to clients through multiple channels (see the Chipotle campaign here). And in a world with fractured and shortened attention spans—and multiple marketing niches and channels—it may be beneficial to send out multiple messages. Or, telling one story, one time, in one way may work better. Either way, the professional, savvy peace builder must decide on what the message will be—and where and how hard to promote it.

-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/

[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-

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/

[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-

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/

[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-

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/

[Advice] How Comfortable Are You…

How comfortable are you with the word “no”?

Not “maybe.”

Not “kinda.’”

Not “eeehhh…”

But “no.”

No’s seem final, door closing, and never good. We’re told to “keep our options open” in a conflict management situation, in a negotiation around topics that matter, and when we are working with people and parties to change them.

No is a word of opening. And reframing the word “no” to mean something else in YOUR mind, has to happen long before you sit down with someone else, who has a frame of reference and a worldview that you may want to say “yes” to, but to preserve your principles, may have to say “no” to.

-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/

[Advice] Getting Everyone On Board

When the internal marketing organizational change efforts doesn’t match either the lived organizational culture, or the culture that happens to be stated in quotes on the wall (or the masthead) you’ve got a problem.

The issue isn’t that executives and middle management don’t see eye-to-eye. That will happen in any organization where goals are not transparently shared. The issue isn’t that entry level/front line employees are asked to do more with less. That will happen in tough economic times, particularly if your organization is a nonprofit, or it has been a bad quarter. The issue isn’t that middle managers feel as though they are placed in positions of authority where they can always say “no” but where they can rarely say “yes.” This has been happening ever since the time of Hammurabi.

The issue is your organizational culture, your internal marketing structure (or lack thererof), and the fact that your executives are not operating inside a metric of trust and openness, but instead are measuring success one quarter at a time.

There are just as many ways out of this as there are into this bind, but here are three from a conflict engagement/management perspective that could be helpful:

Your organizational culture needs to change intentionally—I don’t hold to the idea that culture is fine and that products, services, or processes just need to be overhauled. The culture of the organization is either fragile (but believes that it is robust), is robust (but has elements of fragility in it), or is antifragile (with no elements of fragility or desire to go toward robustness). The fact of the matter is, when the culture that’s lived deviates too much from the culture on the masthead, or in the external marketing, the gap between lived reality and fantasy gets filled with competition, low morale, low motivation, high conflict, and constant storming. All of which lead to an eroding culture, as surely as rain washes away the sand.

Your internal marketing structure needs to change intentionally—How you market change efforts to the people being impacted most directly by those efforts (i.e. the employees) matters more than the efforts themselves. Without buy-in, the outside trainer, or consultant, comes in, makes recommendations for changes, and works closely with the people and hears “We don’t have the power to implement that change here.” Or, “The people who should be hearing this information and getting these recommendations are not in the room—and we can’t talk to them.” Internally marketing organizational change to the people being impacted by that change, has to go beyond a Friday afternoon/Monday morning notification email, followed up by a supervisory conversation whose tone and direction is that of a mandate.

Your executives need to “buy-in.”—Optics matters more than employees, managers, supervisors, and even executives think that it does. Role modeling may be the foundational aspect of all leadership, but if the people with positional authority aren’t actually engaging in role modeling the discrete and obvious, changes they desire to see in the people tasked with responding and reacting to their authority, then all the change talk is merely that. Talk. People follow who they see leading.

When middle managers are driven to tears, frustration, thoughts of quitting, and even more, because they feel powerless to implement the changes they can observe are desperately needed, organizations need to change their cultures, not by changing who is in positions, but by challenging the organizational process that got them to that point in the first place.

Accomplishing this takes open communication with courage, curiosity, and compassion. And those traits are what fill the gap between what’s on the masthead and what’s lived in reality.

-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/