www.nowtalking.nl

I’m really happy with it.

Often I see people having the former kind of conversation, the kind with two separate discussions.  Each side ends up with a bunch of facts about the other, but they’re never really on the same page.  The discussion would be so much more fruitful if each participant were instead making a model of the big picture, and assimilating facts and ideas into that, and testing it by asking questions or presenting hypothetical situations.

It’s important to invite engagement from others.  I’ll explain what I mean…

I just sketched a diagram of two different kinds of discussion on some post-it notes.  The first represents two parties with their different agendas, and how they are exchanging information.  The second represents two parties with their ideas and intentions out in the open for direct inspection and contribution.  The third represents a synthesis of the ideas that can come about from direct inspection, which would be difficult if the interaction were stuck in the first mode.

I read something in The New Yorker recently.  It was about “engagement diplomacy”.

The goal of Engagement is to change the other country’s perception of its own interests and realistic options and, hence, to modify its policies and behavior.

So, in our discussions with companies that have particular expertise in a domain that we don’t, we want them to engage with us so that their goal becomes to change our perception of our own interests and realistic options.

I think this is something strong managers and leaders often don’t appreciate; so often they want engagement, but get stuck on the idea that their company should be the thought leaders who motivate change in other projects and companies.  But there is also power in inviting engagement from others.  This takes work and creativity… a certain vulnerability alongside bold vision and strong direction.