Connection-as-a-Product (CAAP)

If connection is the product of the future, the problem is not going to be connecting; human beings connect naturally–and arbitrarily.

If connection is the product of the future, the problem is not going to be developing the tools and technology to mediate, facilitate, develop and encourage those connections; human innovation is already beginning to drive that development.

If connection is the product of the future, the problem is going to be determining the value of that connection.

The assumptions, decisions, and even the drivers, that encourage the development of markets, regulations, policies, and procedures, at scale are absent in the face of something ephemeral, long-term, relationally based, and seemingly arbitrary from person to person.

Here are a few questions to get you thinking about this differently:

What are we charging our customers and clients for?
What are we paid to do?
What do our clients and customers believe we are paid to do?
What is the value of education about connection to our customers and clients?
What is the value of connection for our customers and clients?
What is the value of the tools around the act of connecting with our clients and customers?
What do our clients think they want from each other?
What is the market value of our network, to our customers and clients?
What is the risk profile of our market, our clients, and our organization?

Answering these questions, along with carefully considering the inherent (and growing) value of storytelling, self-awareness, and conflict management (not resolution—that requires skillsets you might not want to acquire) will open the door to creating a macroculture of connection.

Avoiding these hard questions and hoping that another innovator, entrepreneur, or visionary will come along and create the web of support that the system of connection-as-the-economy requires, is foolhardy and dangerous.

If connection is the product of the future, the problem is going to be answering the questions, in brave ways and then acting on the scary answers.

HIT Piece 4.25.2017

The closer we get to the truth of an issue, which typically lies at the center of a universe of distortions, fabrications, and sometimes outright lies, the more difficult our conversations with all the other parties involved, become.

The way to resolve this tension is not through avoiding difficult conversations and difficult parties.

The solution is to recognize the tension and dance with the fear that we have of outcomes that hew close to the truth of an issue.

Avoidance is fine as a temporary tactic, but as a long-term strategy to get to the truth of a conflict; well, no one ever avoided their way to an uncomfortable—but necessary—truth.

Exchanging the Truth for a Lie

The second most compelling question after “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is “What is truth?”

When we fail to do the hard work of renewing our behavior and changing our mindsets, we exchange the pursuit of the truth for the lie of preserving the status quo.

Science cannot tell us what truth is. Only what the facts of the matter are.

Art cannot tell us what truth is. Only create representations of the shadows of truth.

Philosophy cannot tell us what truth is. Only make claims about the pursuit of the truth.

Marketing cannot tell us what truth is. Only package the search for it and communicate the process of getting there.

Religion cannot tell us what truth is. Only provide us with a set of rules, regulations and structures to pursue the truth, if we choose.

Governments cannot tell us what truth is. Only render consequences when violations of truth become so onerous that they cannot be ignored and call such consequences justice.

People cannot tell us what truth is. Only tell the stories of their pursuits—and successes and failures.

So: What is truth?

If renewing your mind to get to the answer to this cornerstone question of existence were easy, then everyone would do it.

And conflicts—mismatches in frames, perspectives, and behaviors—would disappear just as quickly.

Do the hard work first of pursuing the answer, and the Truth will find you.

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.

HIT Piece 4.18.2017

No matter how rationally argued, if what the presenter, lecturer, teacher, trainer, or interpreter is saying doesn’t resonate with you at an emotional level, you will reject it out of hand.

And you’ll do it in microseconds of microseconds.

Resonance in storytelling is something we know happens with impact at scale, but engagement and decision making at the individual level still matter.

On your part.

Believe or don’t believe.

Buy-in to the idea or buy-out.

But either way, decide.

And by doing so, give the presenter, lecturer, teacher, trainer, or interpreter a break so that they can move on (sometimes rhetorically, sometimes metaphorically, and sometimes physically) to delivering their message to an audience with who it will resonate.

It stops the deliverer from dominating your time and attention as well.

Negotiation What Ifs

If most negotiations are about whose version of reality will win, who decides what reality is?

If many negotiations result in win-lose outcomes, are the “losers” as committed to the ultimate agreement as the “winners” are?

If some negotiations happen because either party doesn’t ask the “right” questions, then what are the “right” questions, what are the “wrong” questions, and who gets to tell the difference?

If negotiations are a form of communication, then why are there so many miscommunications in negotiations?

There are a ton of “what ifs” about the nature of negotiation. Many of the process “what ifs” have been answered for at least the last thirty years. So why is it so hard to get the result we want for ourselves (and the other party) so often in a negotiation?

Conversations are the beginning of a negotiation.

Most everything can be negotiated.

Except when most everything can’t be negotiated.

Which, if you answer the “what ifs” with some clarity, candor and courage, become the linchpins around which negotiations can truly begin as a communication process.

Asking is a Part of Negotiation

Most negotiations don’t happen because many people lack the curiosity to ask for what else might be on offer.

When you have the courage to ask the other party—and open a negotiation—you gain the power to get more.

You also grow the opportunity to move beyond mere transaction to something approaching a relationship.

When the pain points are highly painful (i.e. divorce, threat of imprisonment, illness, personal trauma, etc.) having the courage to ask for more allows the other party to move past their own objections—reasonable and otherwise.

But only if they want to.

When you don’t ask, you can’t receive.

Avoidance is a Worthwhile Strategy for Addressing Conflict

Avoiding a conflict is sometimes a strategic move.

We avoid conflicts for the obvious reasons that dealing with them makes us scared, threatens our sense of security, or we feel as though we don’t have the competency to address them in a way where the outcome will work for us.

But, then there are the non-obvious reasons to avoid conflicts.

One of which is to have the conflict in another way, in another way, with a party that has already been weakened emotionally by engaging in a previous conflict.

This is practicing avoidance as a negotiation strategy.

Another non-obvious reason to avoid conflict is that telling the story of avoidance has more resonance with another party we are currently embroiled with, rather than telling a story of resolution and success.

This is practicing avoidance as a storytelling strategy.

Still, another reason to avoid a conflict is that we don’t care how the conflict works out because the conflict “working out” is a short-term strategy that changes the balance of power for the other party in the conflict. And quite frankly, we don’t really care about how they work out their problems.

This is practicing avoidance as a long-game, future-oriented strategy.

The non-obvious strategies matter more in the long run than the short-term reasons we articulate, defend, and promote to other people, the other party, or even quietly to ourselves.

More deliberation—and articulation—of the long-term impact of avoiding a conflict as a strategic move, will serve to move the use of avoidance from a tactic we’re embarrassed to employ and lack the appropriate level of self-awareness to explain, to a strategy that has real benefits for ourselves and others.

Change One Percent at a Time if You…

…don’t have the courage to confront the ongoing, unresolved cultural conflicts and frictions in your organization.

…if the resistance to change at scale from the organization and even individuals is too hard to address.

…if your fellow employees who should be your allies, cannot be motivated because of internal, intrinsic factors that you can neither understand nor appreciate.

…if you are struggling with explaining to yourself how you continue to “fit” in the culture you’ve become used .

…if you attend in-person trainings, read books, try new methods and techniques, and still nothing changes.

…if you think that you have been patient long enough for change.

…if you have given up on changes happening and are now comfortable and familiar with the lip service that the overall organizational culture pays to change.

Then, you might be ready to take the courageous, risky step of changing the culture that you are in one percent at a time.

Change, driven internally by friction and conflict, always happens slowly at first (sometimes taking years) but then arrives all at once, to everyone’s surprise in your culture.

Scale Problems

Teutonic organizations believe that size makes up for persuasion.

Small organizations believe that persuasion makes up for size.

The problem in both organizations is scale, not properly understood.

Because your organization, your team, your personality, or your project is large, that doesn’t mean that persuasion is something to be abandoned. Persuasion at scale to get me to follow the rules, be compliant, or go along with the program, must not be abandoned in favor of the use of power and authority.

Because your organization, your team, your personality, or your project is small, that doesn’t mean that persuasion is the only thing to consider. Appealing to power or authority to get me to follow the rules, be compliant, or go along with the program, is sometimes a tool that works to ensure future engagement.

Be sure of three things to determine the balance in your organization:

Be sure of how your size (small or large) is perceived by others in the market.
Be sure of how your persuasion tactics have been effective (or haven’t been effective) in the past.
Be sure of how you have used (or misused or failed to use) power and authority in the past, and in the present, to move the market.

Otherwise, when your organization follows a rule or regulation to the letter, creates a method of persuasion that falls on deaf ears, or makes a move that benefits the organization but not your customers or fans, don’t be surprised when the push back is unexpected.