This post is a public service announcement for newsletter readers. I did post normal fair yesterday, but that posted triggered a series of events we should discuss. Yesterday evening, I spent hours chatting with a frequent newsletter reader. Apparently, they had forwarded the newsletter to a coworker, and this had set off a series of not-good events. Our discussion brought up a lot of thoughts and personal reflection.
One could expand this advice to the wider political spectrum, in recent times the amount of partisanship in public discourse and within organisations is very high. As you advise it is much better to demonstrate through action, bitesizing change vs trying to somehow convince people through discussion. Not only does that reduce the chance of a potential culture war, it also gives you space to get native with whatever you are recommending. People today have very little in the debate tank these days on all sides, so much better to look for common ground and demonstrate value in a respectful but quietly forceful way. I think we also need to be aware of actors who will look to profit by taking a radical potentially divisive idea and using it to stoke division for another agenda. The political discourse globally and almost war like stance on a wide range of issues means that you are already entering a hostile environment with any change.
I completely get the point of the PSA. I have loved this newsletter ever since I discovered it, but I have restrained from sharing it with anyone but a couple of like-minded folks who also find similar discussions liberating.
Hey John, agree that the Trojan Horse is a good approach. Tried it out thrice already before, was successful implementing the change twice. Even with resistance takes over and people realise what they have lost, the context has already changed and the new status quo will be the current one.
One thing that makes sense, is identity what looks like common sense or win for the primary decision makers and trigger those points.
I've made this mistake in the past too. I thought that by sharing my sources of interesting reflection about how we work (like, for instance, this newsletter), I could share as well a path towards reflection and change. It was the exact opposite. People not initiated in these topics saw an attack rather than a helpful message. They saw themselves depicted in the stories that tell how things are NOT to be done. And indeed, it set back my agenda.
Quoting from the article: "there is a lot to lose and often little to gain by discussing things as systemic issues".
Respect and trust are two extremely important factors in any relationship, and the same goes for co-worker relationships. Only https://fnafpro.io when you respect and trust your colleagues can you receive those things in return. Therefore, always respect and trust your colleagues.
I have a Substack precisely to say the things that I cannot say in a work environment. That is important for my sanity. Some additional comments:
- Fully Trojan Horse your ideas by aligning with with existing frameworks that are popular in the organization. "This <revolutionary thing> is 90% like this <conservative thing> that you know and love, just with a little 10% extra. Nothing to see here folks"
- There are a small number of people who you find who love the same crazy shit as you. It's like finding a member of Resistance under Occupation. Treasure them.
- Different frameworks with resonate with different people. Scatter your seed with the knowledge that most of it will not take. It is a numbers game.
- I tend to offer up things with a deliberately downplaying: "Hey, I don't know much but I thought X was really interesting. You're more of an expert, what do you think?"
What ensures a potentially enlightening and powerful conversation about beliefs / behaviours / assumptions does not become destructive? I am guessing the following, but in what order?
- Level of emotional intelligence among participants
- Level of psychological safety in the environment
One could expand this advice to the wider political spectrum, in recent times the amount of partisanship in public discourse and within organisations is very high. As you advise it is much better to demonstrate through action, bitesizing change vs trying to somehow convince people through discussion. Not only does that reduce the chance of a potential culture war, it also gives you space to get native with whatever you are recommending. People today have very little in the debate tank these days on all sides, so much better to look for common ground and demonstrate value in a respectful but quietly forceful way. I think we also need to be aware of actors who will look to profit by taking a radical potentially divisive idea and using it to stoke division for another agenda. The political discourse globally and almost war like stance on a wide range of issues means that you are already entering a hostile environment with any change.
It’s a good point. Blogging about something and talking about it in meetings at work are two completely different things.
I completely get the point of the PSA. I have loved this newsletter ever since I discovered it, but I have restrained from sharing it with anyone but a couple of like-minded folks who also find similar discussions liberating.
Hey John, agree that the Trojan Horse is a good approach. Tried it out thrice already before, was successful implementing the change twice. Even with resistance takes over and people realise what they have lost, the context has already changed and the new status quo will be the current one.
One thing that makes sense, is identity what looks like common sense or win for the primary decision makers and trigger those points.
I've made this mistake in the past too. I thought that by sharing my sources of interesting reflection about how we work (like, for instance, this newsletter), I could share as well a path towards reflection and change. It was the exact opposite. People not initiated in these topics saw an attack rather than a helpful message. They saw themselves depicted in the stories that tell how things are NOT to be done. And indeed, it set back my agenda.
Quoting from the article: "there is a lot to lose and often little to gain by discussing things as systemic issues".
And thanks for the Trojan Horse advice.
Respect and trust are two extremely important factors in any relationship, and the same goes for co-worker relationships. Only https://fnafpro.io when you respect and trust your colleagues can you receive those things in return. Therefore, always respect and trust your colleagues.
I have a Substack precisely to say the things that I cannot say in a work environment. That is important for my sanity. Some additional comments:
- Fully Trojan Horse your ideas by aligning with with existing frameworks that are popular in the organization. "This <revolutionary thing> is 90% like this <conservative thing> that you know and love, just with a little 10% extra. Nothing to see here folks"
- There are a small number of people who you find who love the same crazy shit as you. It's like finding a member of Resistance under Occupation. Treasure them.
- Different frameworks with resonate with different people. Scatter your seed with the knowledge that most of it will not take. It is a numbers game.
- I tend to offer up things with a deliberately downplaying: "Hey, I don't know much but I thought X was really interesting. You're more of an expert, what do you think?"
What ensures a potentially enlightening and powerful conversation about beliefs / behaviours / assumptions does not become destructive? I am guessing the following, but in what order?
- Level of emotional intelligence among participants
- Level of psychological safety in the environment
- Level of experience in such discussions
- ...
Things can get personal quicker than is necessary, appropriate or desirable. Always best to start with something possible and more technical.