The ultimate purpose of managing interpersonal conflict is to grow us emotionally in self-awareness, storytelling, emotional management, and moral and ethical character.
There aren’t any apps, searches, or other fancy technological shortcuts for the development of those traits in us.
The opposite of civilization is human nature.
And occasionally, regrettably, human nature finds a way to break through the behavioral, cultural, social, and even religious boundaries constructed assiduously around it.
We define this “breaking through,” as conflict, violence, and—at the nation-state level—war.
The purpose of civilization is to hold back the tides of human nature and to negotiate the consequences of human nature when it runs amok: selfishness, greed, vanity, pride, sloth, envy, and so on.
Civilization does this job through the application of social and behavioral norms that enough individuals agree to. Conflicts arise, of course, when the social and behavioral norms are no longer considered normal.
Cultural evolution is a constant. Human nature is a constant.
But civilization is precious, demanding, and worth defending.
No one will ever know what you know, in the way that you know it, as passionately as you know it, and care about it as much as you do.
So, that solution that you “know” will “work” for the office conflict that’s been going on for years?
The reason that no one is joining you, yet, in adopting your solution, is because the other parties are equally convinced that their solutions will work just as well.
And they are just as passionate as you.
And they are just as caring as you.
And they know just as much as you do about the situation.
And they know what they know in the same way that you do.
So, since all the parties involved are passionate, caring, knowledgeable, and willing to work to get to an equitable solution, why hasn’t there been a solution (yours, of course) accepted and implemented in the last few years?
A lack of desire to explore the skill set of persuasion is at the core of your problem. And the art of being persuasive (along with understanding the science of why persuasion works—or doesn’t) is a key skill set (enveloped inside storytelling) that many well-meaning, solutions-oriented people, miss.
And the art of being persuasive (along with understanding the science of why persuasion works—or doesn’t) is a key skill set (enveloped inside storytelling) that many well-meaning, solutions-oriented people, miss.
Often by a country mile.
The reason why art convinces more than science does is that persuasion is about emotional connections, rather than logical, data-driven solutions to endemic conflict problems.
So, since no one will ever know what you know, in the way that you know it, as passionately as you know it, and care about it as much as you do, then perhaps it’s worth exploring persuasion as a skillset. rather than complaining (or storytelling) more to sympathetic audiences and ears, about how “they, just don’t ‘get’ it.”
Rather than complaining (or storytelling) one more day to sympathetic audiences and ears, about how “they, just don’t ‘get’ it” down “there.”
Two things are happening simultaneously in our organizational cultures, our markets, and our personal lives.
We have established non-curiosity (“I don’t care how it works, I just want it to work”) as the new standard for engaging with the work, the ideas that interest us (or not) and the world of conflicts that inevitably surround us.
We have also decided that we don’t have the time or emotional or mental bandwidth to care deeply about a topic, person, or idea, and thus we have jettisoned that character trait (caring) as well.
At the same time, for anyone who is interested enough to look, there has been an explosion in the ways that people are explaining what they do, why they do, and—most importantly—how they do it. From videos on the Internet to long-form blog posts, to intentional curation via your email, to documentaries streaming on your over-the-top video player, there are more people taking more time, to explain what they do, to more interested (curious) and caring audiences than ever before.
These two cultural occurrences represent a split and a niching down into time, attention, caring, and curiosity that is dividing audiences, and may well portend a future of less curiosity and caring at mass, and more curation, curiosity, and even care, at the edges of the conflict universe.
The things that matter, the solutions that “stick,” the statements that are meaningful, and the audiences who will care about the impresario’s show, are not going to be found in the immediate, speed driven, bite-sized, mass market.
They will be found at the edges, slowly, over time, and they will be hungering for you to arrive, with your deeply thought out solutions to their most pressing problems.
If work isn’t ‘driving your bus,’ then what exactly is motivating you to act with purpose in a world where emotional labor matters more now than ever before.
When the answer to the question is “Nobody,” we’ve got to reexamine what the inherent messages are in the funnel of school to work.
When the answer to the question is “I already work hard enough,” we’ve got to redefine the term “hard” away from breaking concrete in the sun for 40 hours a week and move it toward breaking up other people’s emotional resistance to needed organizational change.
When the answer to the question is “I’m tired and don’t want to think about it,” then we’ve got to reexamine motivation and morale.
When the answer to the question is “Myself,” then maybe we have the beginning of creating a new paradigm of work and labor for the future.
But too often, the answers to the question are less about the question and more about the response.
No great change happens without conflict.
Not one.
And every great conflict generates resistance.
Every time.
So, since you know both things, decisions should be comparatively easy to make about change.
Right?
The disconnect between what people know about how the Internet (and by extension social media) “works” (choices, behaviors, options, etc.) and what people use the Internet (and social media) to accomplish (tasks) is underrated and massive.
Part of the disconnect comes from a lack of interest and caring about how the world of communication (and the tools in it) work, not only for the people with whom we are immediately communicating but also for the people not part of the communication.
Part of the disconnect comes from distractions that exist in the world of social interactions between people, and differing filters of awareness and attention. Individuals pay attention to all kinds of things that other individuals believe are unnecessary, irrelevant, uninteresting, or even unknowable. And then, because the human mind seeks order out of chaos, individuals, make judgments, create attributions, and create frames and boxes for language and ideas that further the disconnect.
Part of the disconnect comes from a lack of curiosity and even a lack of education about what to pay attention to. Lack of curiosity is endemic in discussion around the Internet (and social media) because our communication tools have prioritized lack of curiosity as the “new normal” in social interactions. Lack of education comes about when the market responds to a lack of curiosity as a new standard, and then complies by providing less nourishing meat (education) and more easily digestible milk (displays where people advance by how well they kiss).
The disconnect is massive and troubling, for two reasons:
In the market’s breakneck race to monetize every human interaction and behavior, combined with the alarming reduction in human economic productivity, we have a recipe for a society and culture where the very tools of educating, enlightening and uplifting are being monetized and controlled by a select few individuals—or organizations.
Which would be fine if those individuals and organizations were angels, but like most people, they’re just people.
The second reason is economic in that we have prioritized facility and adaptation as ways to get ahead in a world of Internet-based (and social media based) communications where competition for attention and awareness is fiercer than ever. But if the average individual is non-curious (or too disinterested or disconnected to care) about where their future dollars to pay their future electric bills are going to come from, then we have opened society to the wavering whims of every political, social, cultural, and economic demagogue (both individual and organizational) promising to make such important decisions “simple.”
“Simple” of course meaning, “Simple in a way that works for me, my power base, and my tribe, and creates distractions, confusion, disillusionment, and disengagement, for you, your power base, and your tribe.”
Which would be fine if those individuals and organizations were angels, but like most people, they’re just people.
A standard of anti-intellectualism comes from a standard of non-curiosity, which combined with the disconnect between people and how they use their new communications tools, leads to the creation of a world of communication, rhetoric, persuasion, and power, we should all be wary of.
To resist the new standard, we need to fight to establish access to education about how to use our new social tools across the disconnect, eliminate distractions as a way to encourage disillusionment and disengagement, and re-establish curiosity about the unknown (or about blind spots) as an alternative “normal.”
Otherwise, the conflict outcomes could be disastrous for everyone.
Fear of not connecting with another person, fear of not making an impact, fear of speaking and having no one listen, is the old resistance, dressed up in a new outfit.
It’s really just another form of hiding.
Attempt to connect.
Fulfill your promises.
Try to make an impact.
Speak whether anyone listens or not.
By the time you’re done fighting the resistance, you’ll care so much about the connections you do have, that hiding from doing the hard work of connecting, impacting, and speaking, will be dwarfed.
You don’t have to own all the corners. Just a few.
![[Podcast] Earbud_U, Season Five, Episode #7 - Eddie Thomason](https://www.hsconsultingandtraining.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Podcast-Earbud_U-Season-Five-Episode-7-Eddie-Thomason.jpg)
[powerpress]
The fact is, entrepreneurship might be interesting and hot right now, but it wasn’t always this way.
The fact is, being a rapper or a hip-hop musician was seen as being the way to success, not that long ago.
The fact is, becoming an athlete (particularly an elite one) is still viewed as a path to success for many people.
The fact is that these are all narrow doors.
It’s never mentioned (or rarely mentioned) in breathless articles in Inc., or Fast Company, but the vast majority of entrepreneurs would be far happier aiming at making a living creating $3 million dollars in value for clients and the market per year, than they would trying to win the start-up lottery.
The vast majority of entrepreneurs fail; the vast majority of freelancers go back to working regular jobs; and, the vast majority of people are perfectly happy being employees.
But…
If you get your head right about what exactly is on offer, and what exactly it’s going to take to attain and grow your entrepreneurial dreams, then you can stare all kinds of events, people, and incidents in the face and never blink.
Listen to the interview with Eddie and connect with him in all the ways that you can below.
And start the process of staring your dreams in the face.
Connect with Eddie all the ways that you can below:
Eddie’s Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/unlockyourselfU/
Eddie’s YouTube: https://youtu.be/rxfnHLrv2s8
Eddie’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/unlockyourselfu