Feedback You Let In

There are two kinds of feedback: constructive and negative.

Constructive feedback serves to grow another human being. Constructive feedback serves to provide examples and metaphors that tell a story that can resonate with another party.

Negative feedback serves to limit growth, hem in development, and ensure that the status quo doesn’t change too much. Negative feedback employs snark and cynicism to score rhetorical points but not to tell a story that resonates with the person hearing the feedback.

Negative feedback takes the posture and attitude that a relationship is merely transactional and that neither party owes each other much more than maybe a good time.

Constructive feedback is always oriented toward tomorrow; oriented toward realigning minds and growth toward relationship and development.

Be careful which form of feedback you’re encouraging on your team.

And which form of feedback you’re allowing in your mind and heart.

Systems Unravel

Human beings built many (if not all) of the systems we are surrounded by every day.

Flawed, replaceable, myopic, visionary, human beings.

Language systems.

Monetary systems.

Housing systems.

Legal systems.

Travel systems.

Resource allocation systems.

Organizational systems.

Cultural systems.

Religious systems.

There’s nothing inherent in our DNA that drives us to organize into groups, create systems, and slowly, over time, glacially chip away at an issue or concern until; it is rendered irrelevant or impotent.

And since there’s nothing inherent in our DNA about any of the design or architecting of any of these systems, it should be easy for us to replace them with something else.

After all, human beings made the systems, human beings should be able to unmake them.

But individuals often get into internal conflicts with ourselves when there is friction between the systems we serve in (and have built on) and our inner desires, drives, and motivations.

And when enough individuals experience enough internal friction, all that is required to spark the change that we need to replace these seemingly irreplaceable systems, is someone bravely asserting that:

“Human beings made these systems. Human beings can unmake them.”

Belief and hope battle with the need for security and the fear of the unknown in the dark heart of man. When our systems are viewed as sacrosanct, we are unable to ask the hard questions of them, and we are unable to instigate the hard conflicts that are necessary to make the changes that need to happen.

Systems only seem Teutonic until they are unmade by the very same human hands that built them in the first place.

Adding Value

Value is a loaded term.

What do you value?
Why do you value it?
What does the person next to you value?
Why do they value what they value?

When we aren’t curious about the answers to those questions, we stymie (and in some cases, block totally) our efforts to manage conflicts effectively.

We also stymie (and in some cases, block totally) our efforts to connect with others through the process of conflict.

Both acts—the management and the connection—matter more for getting to an outcome that you want due to embarking upon the process of conflict than anything else you might do.

By the way, managing values-based conflicts is hard (think the Israelis and the Palestinians, or the IRA and the British) but it is not impossible—if you unload the term value and ask some serious questions.

And then respect, and act on, the answers.

What is the Work

Generating the courage to confront someone else’s bad behavior is tough.

But it’s not the work.

Creating a plan to confront someone’s bad behavior, rather than confronting and hoping that the act of doing so will be enough to create the change you want, is difficult.

But it’s not the work.

Confronting the person who has behaved badly, executing your plan, and then watching their reactions—and responding accordingly—is hard.

But it’s not the work.

All those actions are part of the process of getting to the goal of growing our courage to confront bad behavior.

The process is not the work.

The work is going through the process, getting to the goal (your goal, not the goal of the other party), getting knowledge from that experience, integrating that learning into what your actions, behaviors, and responses will be the next time a similar situation arises in the future, and then letting the moment go.

That’s the work.

By the way, the work is the thing that’s always on the line. Not us.

Three Places to Thrash

When faced with a project there are three places to thrash:

Early—before the project begins.

Middle—as the project is proceeding.

Late—as the project ends.

When you (or your team) thrashes early, brainstorming becomes a way to develop new ideas. Speed and immediacy become the primary goals of early thrashing: Speed to actionable ideas and immediacy to the implementation of action, moving toward accomplishing end-of-project goals.

When you (or your team) thrashes in the middle of a project, brainstorming becomes a place to hide. Hiding emotionally, “getting to know your team,” or struggling to decide about the efficacy or practicality of an idea, become the unstated, primary goals. Speed becomes less important than looking good to peers, and groupthink really kicks in at this point, bogging down the implementation process.

When you (or your team) thrashes at the end of a project, brainstorming becomes a place of panic, anxiety, and on some teams (or with you) a place of abject fear. The combination of pressure to ship something out the door encourages a mindset and attitude focused around speed (but for negative reasons) and impatience with people and processes. The implementation process recedes in the face of the attitude of “just get it done.”

Thrashing—that is brainstorming a direction, deciding on an approach, planning a process, managing opinions and conflicts, and implementing a plan for action—should be done early, rather than late if you’re really interested (or your team is really interested) in shipping a product, idea, or service out the door and direct to the market.

Stay In Your Lane

When we tell someone to “stay in their lane.”

When we say to a group of people, “your people have never done that before.”

When we tell an individual that, “people like you don’t do things like that.”

When we say, “we don’t want that idea here.”

When we assert, “that will never work.”

When we give the old comeback of, “we’ve always done it this way.”

When we say, “who are you to come over here and tell us differently.”

We take the organizational and individual, posture, of disbelief, distrust, and even disapproval. When we take that posture, we create a place of expectation that leads to people doing exactly what it is that we want them to do:

Preserve the status quo.

Stay in their lane.

Don’t rock the boat.

Be safe and compliant.

Go along to get along.

Avoid (or surrender) in the face of conflict that might lead to change.

Expectations and assumptions are the fuel of success. They are also the fuel of failure. What we give language too, what we encourage more of through our social cueing, we get more of. What we give lip service too, what we don’t talk about; what we let live in silence, we get less of.

Until the organization, individual, or society, gives up, returns to stasis and stops making waves.

Leave your lane.

If I Have A Dollar More Than You…

If I have a dollar more in my pocket than you do in your pocket at this moment, by all modern monetary conceptions of wealth, I’m richer than you.

If I have a dollar less in my pocket than you do in your pocket at his moment, by all modern monetary conceptions of wealth, I’m poorer than you.

If I add a dollar more of value to the economy through the writing of this blog post, and you gain more than a dollars’ worth of value from reading this post, then who is richer and who is poorer?

Value is hard to quantify (it always has been) but if the market doesn’t figure out a way for more people to add more value in ways that dovetail with their innate talents and skills (that may never have been valued before) then we’re all in a lot of trouble.

Courage in the “Ah-Ha” Moment

The moment when your mind opens, a new idea resonates with you at an emotional frequency you didn’t know you possessed; this is the “A-HA” moment.

Dismissing an idea that doesn’t open your mind, that doesn’t resonate with you at any emotional frequency, actively rejecting the effort of the other party to convince or persuade you; this is a form of hiding.

Chasing the moment when the idea opens your mind, chasing that moment of resonance above all other moments in an interpersonal interaction with a situation you didn’t previously understand; this is a form of hiding.

The people who chase the “A-HA” moment blindly (the dopamine high) or the people who reject the idea that might lead to the “A-HA” moment (the resistance) both need to worry less about thrashing around with dopamine or resistance, and move their emotional energy to courage.

Courage to be open.

Courage to be honest.

Courage to be clear.

Courage to know the “A-HA” moment is there, but not needing the moment to manifest immediately—or desperately.

This courage is in short supply. But it always has been.

Seeking Validation

When someone asks you for validation about their approach to managing a conflict, what they are really asking for is reassurance that they are doing the right thing.

But since validation can only come from gatekeepers, and since gatekeepers have significantly less power in the world now than they ever have before, seeking validation is really an empty pursuit.

And since there is never enough reassurance that the right path has been taken, asking for validation—but really seeking reassurance—is a recipe for hiding from making the decisions that will move a conflict forward toward management and maybe resolution.

Instead of offering validation (or reassurance) offer opportunities and challenges to those who are hiding to have the courage to come out into the light, to make a decision, and to ship a solution that will be good enough for the conflict they are in.

How Crazy Do You Want to Act to ‘Win’ at Nuclear Poker

Playing poker with another party who holds the keys to nuclear weapons (literal, metaphorical, or figurative), and has given indications based on experience that they will be willing to deploy them, is a dangerous game.

The stakes are high, but not for the obvious reasons of total physical, emotional, spiritual, or psychological annihilation.

The stakes are high for three reasons:

No one really knows another party’s motivations, needs, or interests. Unless we ask. And far too often our inherent selfishness in pursuing outcomes that benefit us exclusively, blinds us to the simple need to do some discovery about the other party.

Sometimes, only one person has cared enough to explore another party’s motivations, needs, or interests.

But then they use this knowledge cynically, to manipulate and exploit other parties who are more ignorant—and more selfish.

The far rarer case is that the party who has the knowledge and cares, shares; unselfishly, openly, and with the purpose of avoiding—or minimizing—disastrous outcomes.

Egos, self-interest, and selfishness tend to override rationality and logic in even the most innocuous negotiations. When potential destruction is the thing on offer, all bets are off.

The fact is, people at the individual level are irrational and emotional and in moments of high stress, tend to make short-cut choices that relieve tension in the amygdala, but create further problems down the road.

If the other party isn’t talking to a rational actor (such as it is) on the other side of the negotiation table, or leads with principles rather than interests, the changes of an undesirable outcome increase tremendously.

The appearance of being willing to do what the other party is either to scared, to demoralized, or to invested in alternative outcomes (their own BATNAs and WATNAs, for instance) to do, is sometimes enough to “win” the high stakes game of poker played with nuclear weapons (literal, metaphorical, or figurative).

Unfortunately, this sets a precedent in the mind and approach of the “losing” party around the potential for blackmail, coercion, or something even worse—subservience and the appearance of weakness.

The person who is willing to walk into a nuclear negotiation and deal fairly, transparently, and unselfishly with each party in the conflict is the one who wins the day today and tomorrow.

And not just a moral victory either.