[Strategy] Selling for the Peace Builder I

The sales process for a peace builder in the open market is wrapped up with impressions, ideas, concepts, and intuition that the peacebuilder has in their head about every sales film, sales call, and selling situation they’ve ever been involved with.

But, in order to be successful in the open market, where noise and multiple messages reign, the peacebuilder must become comfortable with establishing their value in the market early—which is the first step in starting the sales process. The struggle for the savvy peace builder is how to find clients who will pay (marketing) and then how to “close” them ethically (sales). The only way for the peace builder to sell ethically is to build a fulcrum (from Seth Godin and his 2006 book Free Prize Inside) and to become a champion for peace. Through such a process, the peacebuilder becomes the “free prize” inside the value they add to the client.

All sales are relational in nature, but, in order to “sell” and “close” on the promise of peacebuilding for clients in conflict, the peace builder must become a champion of peace. This requires a changing in the thinking of the peace builder around the sales process.

The second step after marketing then becomes, not the “ask,” but the process of building a fulcrum to demonstrate value and become a champion, and then leveraging that value and championing to grow the revenues of relationship, trust, and money.

The practical steps in building a sales fulcrum involve:

Determining if the customer you’re selling to as a peace builder thinks the work of building peace is worth doing.
Determining if the customer you’re selling to as a peace builder thinks that you are the person to build that peace.
Determining if the customer you’re selling to as a peace builder believes that the outcomes of work of building peace are actually an added benefit to them, their organization, or their lives.

[Strategy] Selling for the Peace Builder I

By definition, all of these practical steps are hard for the peace builder to answer, because they are based in assumptions, ideas, and a worldview that is unproveable, unknowable, and unquantifiable, until after the work of building peace is already in progress—or already completed.

This is why building the fulcrum should be front and center of any peace builder’s sales process. Too many peace builders get caught up in the easy part (creating the product (i.e. early, mid, or late stage intervention) that the client in conflict can use); or get focused on talking about the unpleasant part (entering structures (i.e. families, companies, schools) from the outside w/no leverage or trust to build a fulcrum); while avoiding the hard part entirely (building a fulcrum in spite of rejection, hopelessness, or the inability of clients to close).

All of peace building, from negotiation to mediation and every intervention at every stage in between, is built on needing other people to act.

When you need other people, you must leverage them.

What they think matters.

What they think about you matters.

What they think about peace and peace building 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] The Candy Coated World 2

Advice based on principles is the chocolate candy missing underneath much of the candy coated knowledge and information on the Internet these days.

Principles aren’t really that compelling though, and talking about them leaves no room for entertainment, spectacle, or fame.

Positions are much more compelling, because they can shift with mores, styles, and trends. Talking about positions is entertaining, but not really relevant.

I keep pressing this point in various ways: Wisdom cannot be distilled into just one blog post, one podcast interview, one live streaming video feed, one impermanent interaction at a time. Wisdom comes from developing relationships, but it seems that our human tendency on the Internet to favor our dessert over our vegetables has begun to creep into our real-time, real-world interactions.

Advice based in principles, relationships, lived experiences, as well as theories and ideas, leads to innovation, progress, and development. But it can all seem like gossamer when your relationships with other people don’t work out like they seem to via your social media platform of choice.

There are ways to accumulate this advice: solitude, mindfulness, focus, respect, deep thinking, writing, and listening without arguing in your head with the person speaking are the tools (in the Frederick Winslow Taylor mode, they are the 22lb shovel) you can use to acquire wisdom.

Style over substance used to be a negative, but that era is long since passed. And in our rush to get to the next innovative hill, we forget the time tested tools, insights, and advice that come from hard-won wisdom.

And we risk being increasingly unfulfilled by a candy-coated shell.

-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/

[Opinion] The Part of Belief We Don’t Talk About

Belief—insane, determined, focused, irrational belief—is sometimes the difference between a successful entrepreneur and a failed entrepreneur.

Having such belief in the accomplishing of “big, hairy” ideas, is often lauded as the only way forward in order to build projects, scale them, employ people in them, and then sell them to the highest bidder and go off to make trouble elsewhere.

Having such belief is the benchmark of successful professional entrepreneurs who consistently develop “crazy” schemes and seem to have the Midas touch when it comes to developing business ideas in spaces that other people, without such belief, dismiss out of hand.

But belief is a tricky proposition.

It can come from the entrepreneur, or project builder; from their internal drive to impose their vision on the world through personal force of will.

It can come from the world, reinforcing that the imposed vision is indeed a well-accepted one and that it is profitable as well.

Both of these visions of belief are human focused, and when successful, are lauded as being “lucky” both by people who supported the entrepreneur in their vision, and by people who detracted from that vision. Both perspectives on the power of belief can lead to developing myopia on one hand and hubris on the other.

Faith is almost never addressed in the entrepreneurial community, except when it is noted in passing. If insane, irrational, determined, and focused belief is the difference between success and failure for the entrepreneur, then faith—in a power greater than themselves that’s moving through this world and their lives—must be a huge part of that difference.

Faith is too often wrapped up with religious practice, which blinds rational people to the power of relational interactions, the impact of serendipity, the importance of preparation, and the limits of personal, individual power.

Faith is the thing that brings genuine humility to the project builder, because it opens their mind to the reality that while their belief may be the most powerful force they have ever wielded, it is not nearly the most powerful force in the world, operating on their behalf.

More talk about faith as a deep driver for entrepreneurial success—not wrapped in religious language, imagery, and symbolism—would go a long way toward deflating the arrogance, hubris, and endless calls for “hustle” that surround many entrepreneurship conversations, happening in the world today.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Advice] Letting Go Of What Got You Here

Engaging with gossip and backbiting got you here.

Telling the wrong story to yourself, to other people, and to the world around you got you here.

Building a myth about what your role was (or wasn’t) and then building an emotional, psychological, and behavioral shrine to that myth got you here.

Being intentional with your own incompetency and fear and choosing the way of escape and comfort, rather than the way of engagement and discomfort got you here.

Choosing a narrow focus and not choosing a wider view got you here.

In the fields of business development, sales, and motivational speaking, the old idea gets bandied about, and the following line gets thrown off with ease quite regularly “what got you to here isn’t going to get you to there.”

Knowing where you want to go in a conflict (beginning engagement—or resolution—with the end in mind) seems obvious. And that’s why the line works. But it’s one that has been repeated so many times, that it has crossed from the obvious into the realm of the cliché.

Taking a hard look at what got you to where you are in your relationships can make “getting there” daunting. It’s easy to say nice, throwaway lines, and they look pithy in Tweets, Facebook posts, and on T-Shirts. But in reality, many of us never look back with a critical perspective. Instead, if we look back at all, it’s with shame, blame, and negativity.

And sometimes, we don’t look back, because we genuinely believe in our minds that we’ve let go of a situation, a person, or a behavior that caused us a difficulty, generated a confrontation, or that lead to a conflict. However, our behavior that got us there, doesn’t change dramatically, we don’t get 1% better every day, and we pass through relationships frustrated, disappointed, and disheartened.

Letting go of what got you here means letting go of your old self. The person you were before you got here. It means letting go of the myths, legends, stories, emotional shrines, connections, and in some cases, relationships, that defined who you used to be. It means having the courage and wisdom of an adult, with the compassion and empathy of a child—and the brilliance to know the difference between the two.

In the long run of your life, it’s better to be surrounded by the courageous, than the cowardly, and the childlike, rather than the childish.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Strategy] Simple But Not Easy

Conflict represents the apex of our emotional tower as a human species: Conflict, no matter how rationally we attempt to approach it, write about it or think about, is a deeply emotional process.

Too many of us are unwilling to engage in the emotional hard work that we don’t get immediate gratification for, that will lead to ascending higher in the emotional tower, rather than descending lower.

Conflict as a process represents the best hope that humanity has of getting us through the hardest questions that seem to bedevil us constantly. Those questions are made of words; and those words that surround conflict—both stated and unstated–have meaning, and language is triggered by emotions.

But approaching conflict from relationship, rather than from religion, and engaging in emotional labor with a desire to grapple with being consciously uncomfortable, and through having our blind spots examined by others, is the only way to de-escalate the most consistently bedeviling public–and private–questions of our day.

Courage.

Labor.

Engagement.

Relationship.

Conscious discomfort.

Educating, advocating, and encouraging people to ascend the emotional tower of conflict with these rhetorical, and actual, tools is not sexy, not flashy, and not celebrated often enough.

It’s simple. But it’s not easy.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Advice] The Life Long Learning Myth…Busted

Implementation, coaching, mentoring, and supporting through experiences matters more to adult learning in a corporate setting, than sitting in a room for four hours listening to a facilitator.

The drop-off in retention after such an experience is 50% after participants leave the room, and without immediate changes, immediate implementation of the learning outcomes, coaching along the path of uncomfortability, and supervisory mentoring through the tough times, the retention drop-off is 75%.

So why do many organizations still offer corporate training opportunities in all kinds of topical areas, within a formalized “sit down, and absorb” learning structure, syllabi, certificates, and experienced trainers and facilitators who drone on and on for—at most—half a day?

There are three reasons:

Most organizations—whether corporations, training organizations, or higher education institutions—are unwilling (and many times unable) to do the hard work of challenging, breaking, and remaking the foundation of learning established through the last 150 years of K-12 schooling. Schooling which was designed in conjunction with corporate leaders and influencers, and codified with the support of intellectuals and educators, to produce compliant workers, who would sit (or stand) all day and do widget based, industrial work, while leaving the thinking and innovating to others up the chain. The kind of work that was hollowed out by those same individuals starting 40 years ago and now no longer matters much in America.

Many supervisors, managers, bosses, CEO’s, COO’s, and others in the hierarchical structure of many organizations, have come from a background of schooling that they either internally rejected because it was too rigid, or found comforting and conformed too. Such engrained mindsets around the value of learning (and education) do not advance and innovate organizations. Instead, they continue to produce leaders who believe that training (and life-long learning) is either a “nice to have” (rejection mindset) or a “necessary evil” (acceptance mindset). Either way, the mentality shaped through that rejection or acceptance, is reflected in buying, internally developing, or advocating for models of learning for employees based in an Industrial Revolution K-12 schooling model.

Trainers, facilitators, consultants, and others in the wide and deep field of corporate training (myself included) aren’t doing enough of the hard work, often enough, of breaking our own mindsets of how information, experiences, and content is delivered to audiences (online, F2F, etc.). We also aren’t engaging with the hard work of breaking institutional, corporate mindsets from the outside by creating offerings and client deliverables that will transcend the dying model of K-12 education. This means having the courage to stick to our principles around peer-to-peer learning, advocating to organizations that we serve for mentoring and coaching for our learners, encouraging accountability, and at the furthest end, treating adult learners like adults in the training room, rather than continuing to train them (i.e. treat them) in the K-12 learning mold they’re familiar with.

The feedback I always get when I write (or talk) in these three areas typically focuses around the inability of organizations to change, the unwillingness of employees to actually be motivated to do the hard work of working on things that are hard (i.e. engaging with emotional labor) and the inability of trainers, consultants, and others to feed their families based on selling what the market is not progressive enough to demand.

These are all legitimate concerns, but the facts of the 21^st century are clear for anyone with two eyes to see:

The workplace, jobs, labor, and other tasks that people need to be organized into groups to accomplish, must still be done, or else there will be chaos in the world. Hard work—manufacturing work, “blue collar” work, etc.—will still be done in the world, but increasingly due to automation and algorithms, that work will be either outsourced or done by machines. And when it’s not, the people who will do it, will charge an even higher premium for it, to support their continued learning to become better artisans.

An acknowledgement that work matters, that tasks should be meaningful, rather than meaningless, and that employees should be treated like adults rather than like children in the workplace, is growing rather than going away. Calls from researchers, thought leaders, influencers, advocates, and others for more pay transparency, flexible family leave policies, and “flat” hierarchical structures, are only the tip of the iceberg.

The rewards to organizations in terms of prestige (Top 10 Best Places to Work), revenues (The World’s First $2 Billion Company), and public goodwill (Anyone See What Apple Made Today) in America, are drivers for success (or determinants of failure in a transparent media market) more now than ever. And these drivers become outsized to organizations that are willing to take risks, to supervisors that are willing to challenge the status quo, and to vendors who are willing to sell with courage.

Unrest will continue among employees who believe that they are not getting paid what they are worth, are increasingly mobile, and are calling the bluff of the industrialist mindset that has dominated every sector of life for over a century now. This unrest will grow in continued calls for a basic income, the cries against income inequality, and the accusations of a new “Gilded Age” of wealth and prosperity for some.

Wihout meaningful changes the conflicts that will arise if life-long, continuing, robust education is not increasingly, innovatively, and creatively integrated into the work lives of employees in all organizations in all sectors (from small businesses to the Fortune 1,000 companies), will be massive and unmanageable.

And bosses, managers, supervisors, shareholders, CEO’s, CFO’s, communities, civic leaders, politicians, business owners, corporate training organizations, and others will have to explain in plain terms to their constituencies, employees, followers, and others, the reasons (and their mindsets) for why they rejected or ignored the golden opportunity to implement, coach, mentor, and support in order to transform corporate learning into something meaningful and valuable, in the early 21^st century.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] The Confusion of Trust

People sometimes say (or think) in an interaction “I don’t trust you.”

And then they go and order a book, a magazine, a car, or even a living space (hotel room) online without much of a thought about who is on the other end of the transaction.

Transactional trust is at the core of most messaging and is the vehicle for the virus of conflicts when the transaction is proven to be not worthwhile, too expensive, or requiring too much emotional involvement.

Transactional trust is what organizational leaders use to ensure that their expectations (and sometimes ours) get met, and the organization moves forward a smoothly as possible. When the trust breaks down however, their expectations (and ours) around sacrifice, loyalty, and expectation shift. And it’s usually a long way back to the original formulation once it’s gone.

In most conflicts, there is a loss of transactional trust, and the message that conflict participants want to send to each other is drowned out by their internal voices, clanging along, declaring quite loudly “I don’t trust you.”

And if the most important thing is sending a message, what do you do when no one is using the same medium that you are, in order to hear the message, you want to send in the first place?

This is the trouble that leads to polarization in modern communications, as well as increases in conflict. It’s not about everybody speaking the same language, it’s about everybody communicating using different mediums.

And when my medium of choice for delivering (or receiving) a message of choice, is not your medium of choice for receiving (or delivering) a message you think that I need to hear, then conflicts, confusion, and escalation are bound to increase, not decrease.

This real confusion around medium, message, and transactional trust has three potential outcomes:

The person sending the message and the person receiving it on the other end now have the option to turn off the other person completely and will exercise the option when the interaction becomes uncomfortable or too demanding, because the bar of trust is way higher and the social penalty for not trusting is way lower.
Both people in the conflict are now comfortable in turning each other off, and are increasingly ensconced inside medium based echo chambers where the same message reverberates from the “tribe” that already supported their initial decision to disengage.
Immoral, unethical, and incompetent “bad” actors now don’t have to encourage followers to seek resolution, collaboration, or even speak a common language. Instead, all they have to do is the easy work of reaffirming fear based transactions that grow trust between them and their “tribe,” trapped in echo chambers of their own making.

The irrationality of our decision-making process served us well in smaller communities, but as interactions that have meaning and mattering begin to scale to global levels, the frictions between our innate irrationality and our need for the security of transactional trust, will only increase.

H/T Seth Godin.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Advice] No More Looking…Just Leap…

Looking before you leap is the message of the world.

We tell our children to “be careful.” We reprimand and lecture people on “their tone.” And we subtly and nonverbally sanction those who get out of line, get off the train, or go in a different direction.

This tendency to caution people before they act on a different choice, shows the power of social proofing—we do what other people do because they do it—and it reinforces the negative tendency of bystander behavior—standing around when something goes wrong—and being unable to innovate when external factors demand a change. Stagnation, bystander behavior, and social proofing work in all organizations, whether they are small (four or fewer people) or large (nation-states).

Look before you leap.

The question on Leap Day is not: “What happens if I do leap?”

The question isn’t even: “What happens if I don’t leap?”

The question is: “Do I have the courage to leap?”

Having the courage to make a change, take an action, do something generous, collaborative, or outrageous, and to do in spite of the dominant culture of your organization is the essence of Leap Day. This courage has nothing to do with looking (you’ve already spent an inordinate amount of time looking already) and has everything to do with stepping out and saying: “I made this.”

There are always two objections to leaping:

What will happen if I am rejected? The answer to that question is: “So what.” Rejection—emotionally, psychologically, socially, or even materially—hurts, and human beings go out of their way to avoid it. Rejection comes in the form of refusing to acknowledge the difficulty of the action, criticizing the process and the outcome, and reacting rather than responding. The power in taking a “so what” stance, comes from knowing that the leap is the correct thing to do, and then doing it while saying to the people who reject the leap: “It’s ok. It’s not for you.”

What will happen if I am accepted? The answer to that question is: “Leap again.” Acceptance—emotionally, psychologically, socially, or even materially—feels safe, and human beings are driven to seek and establish safety at all costs. Safety comes in the form of acceptance, relief that the response to the process, or choice, wasn’t “that bad,” and with a feeling of calm. The power in “leaping again” comes from looking ahead, rather than resting, and in agitating to go deeper into relationship, rather than reaction.

This Leap Day, you’ve hid long enough, looking for a way past, a way over, or a way out.

Leap.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] The Future of the MBA

Most MBA program curriculums educate students in the parts of managing, analyzing, and operating an organization that organizations have deemed important: accounting, finance, managerial economics, operations, strategy, and information technology.

All of these are great areas of focus, as well as areas of specialization, but with 4,000 programs at 454 institutions, graduating 157,000 students per year, you would think that all of the MBA programs (or at least a majority) would feature some sort of conflict resolution/conflict management concentration as part of their curriculums.

You’d be wrong.

The average cost of and MBA program is $7,400 per year. The job titles many MBA graduates end up with, vary from Senior Financial Analyst to Vice President of Operations to Marketing Director. But no matter if the average salary upon graduation is $89,000 per year or $150,000 per year, each job title is really focused on dealing with people, to get job tasks accomplished, and move organizational goals forward.

But the vast majority of MBA programs don’t feature negotiation, conflict management, conflict resolution, dispute resolution, peace studies, or any other type of alternative dispute resolution training for dealing with people in organizations. Even more striking, of the top 50 business schools in the United States, only around 5 to 10 of those institutions feature MS or MA programs in negotiation, conflict management, conflict resolution, dispute resolution, or peace studies in other areas, such as the social sciences or the law.

Which means that if you are an enterprising and energetic MBA student, and you are counseled appropriately that emotional labor and “soft” skills will matter more in that senior VP position you are seeking after graduation, than the spreadsheets you will be tasked with developing, you might head over to the social sciences department of your institution and sign on to another master’s program.

But, that’s doubtful.

The future MBA in America should begin featuring courses, specializations, and concentrations, for students in the areas of negotiation, conflict management, conflict resolution, dispute resolution, or peace studies.

The reasons for this assertion are endless, but the top three are:

The prestige of the MBA degree (in spite of its growing ubiquity among business students) has held up, unlike a law degree. Over time that prestige may fade (and that may already be starting), and the way to ensure that it doesn’t is to get the graduates of those programs focused on doing the only work that matters for the long-term sustainability of organizations of all sizes—emotional labor.

The Fortune 1,000 companies (from Google to Ingram Micro) that are fiefdoms and kingdoms the size of small countries, will need more competent and skilled negotiators, conflict professionals, and more alternatives to litigation if they are to survive, grow, and thrive for the remainder of this century. I know that the shareholders, VP’s, Presidents, CEOs, and CFOs, of those organizations don’t believe it now (or quarterly), but the coterie of lawyers they regularly employ to lobby governments and to write regulations, will fade in importance over the next 100 years. MBA graduates in high positions who understand and value a future of business, profit, and peace will guide them to success more often than the 40 to 100 corporate lawyers on retainer.

The MBA graduates are the ones who can save the business world. Arguments for engaging with conflict in healthy ways can be made from outside the walls of institutions (I make them all the time on this blog), influencers can go to fancy conferences and do TED talks that “go viral,” about the power of treating employees like adults rather than children, and books and articles can be penned about how to negotiate and communicate better (or about how to manipulate employees in savvier ways). But at the end of the day, the MBA graduate with a focus in engaging with conflict effectively, hired into a Senior VP position, will do more to advance the cause of peace and prosperity than all of those resources combined. And that leader will do it ethically, on a daily basis, while moving the organization forward and saving the world at the same time.

The unenviable task of academic peacebuilders in the 8,400 professional programs in this country that focus on negotiation, conflict management, conflict resolution, dispute resolution, or peace studies, is to do the hard work of convincing their academic colleagues in the business schools to unite with them to create sustainable, economic futures for their graduates.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Strategy] “Bold Colors, No Pastels.”

I never had a color day when I went to school.

But my kids do. It’s a day at school when anyone can wear an outfit featuring a part of (or dominated by) their favorite color.

Conflicts create opportunities to stand up, stand out, and to show your colors. But many people (my children included) would rather wear their favorite color all the time. Or even worse, attempt to blend in to the background by sporting the pastels of “going along to get along,” or through displaying violent colors by creating negative strife, drama, and needless confusion.

My tagline in my Twitter bio (and you can follow me @Sorrells79 on Twitter) is “Bold colors. No pastels.” We all have a choice to make about how we engage with conflicts, disagreements, disputes, fights, and “differences of opinion” in our lives.

When we choose to engage boldly, with an understanding of where our ethics, values, and moral core comes from, then we avoid the pretty—but functionally useless—pastels of disengagement, as well as the sexy—but ultimately useless—violent colors, of conflict.

Instead we take the opportunity to go boldly forward and to role model for others the same principle.

And then, everyday becomes a color day.

-Peace Be With You All-