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.
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.
There is value is putting on a show for some audiences.
Without the show, there is no connection. Without the show, there is no invitation to participation. Without the show, there is no permission to be vulnerable in ways that will create value and impact.
Connection.
Permission.
Participation.
Vulnerability.
These are the ingredients for the show to work. The dilemma of the impresario is that she must perform a sacrifice of herself every time she steps up to put on the show.
Without the impresario, there is no show. Without the impresario, there is no opportunity to become a sacrifice for the audience. Without the impresario, there is no on to take responsibility and to be accountable in the event the performance fails.
Opportunity.
Sacrifice.
Responsibility.
Accountability.
The path to becoming an impresario looks wide, but it is really narrow. The road to putting on the show looks easy but is in actuality quite difficult.
Many of us are watching many others put on a show, be impresarios, and then wondering, if only for a brief moment, why we can’t do the same thing.
The path to being an impresario is open and the road to the show is available to any and everybody.
But you have to commit to the work.
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.
This post may not apply to you, but consider it a warning:
It doesn’t matter how well-meaning you are.
It doesn’t matter how intentional you are.
It doesn’t matter if, after saying what you said, you respond to another person by saying “Well, you have to understand, that wasn’t what I meant.”
It doesn’t matter if the room and audience you said it in front of, applauded when they heard it because it resonated with them.
It doesn’t matter how much you think you were really talking about something else.
When you publicly recommend a reckoning for transgressions that have been long publicly litigated and litigated to a conclusion that merely “is” (rather than a conclusion that may be considered “just” by any modern conception of resolution), then you might as well bring in the heavy equipment.
Because, invariably, you are going to have to oversee the digging of multiple graves.
Be careful when demanding a reckoning to get to justice.
Making noise, making a point, and making a difference are different actions.
Where we run into trouble is when we conflate the results of all three and then use those results (and that conflation) to determine what our story will be to the market.
Telling a story to the market that resonates with certain individuals in the market requires three acts:
The first act is to be intentional. Just as we are intentional with our peacebuilding efforts, we should be intentional with our storytelling efforts.
The second act is to be incisive. Being incisive requires being self-aware enough about our own story to do some critical surgery and to cut out what doesn’t matter so that we can focus on what does matter—for the audience hearing the story.
The third act is to be persuasive for others rather than to be persuasive enough to convince ourselves that we’re right and the market is the thing that needs to change. Being persuasive is hard because it’s a skill that requires empathy (which is underrated), self-awareness, and intentionality to be operating all together at the same time.
There are more opportunities than ever for people to make noise.
There are fewer meaningful opportunities for people to make a point.
There are the same number of opportunities there always were for people to make a difference, though not always at scale.
We should be sure we what story we are telling, to whom and why.