On Wed, 13 Dec 1995 BIRRED@dnr.state.wi.us wrote:
> You bet this looks manipulative. Yes, you want people to have insights,
> and you want people to think, as it says in the Tao Te Ching, "we did it
> ourselves". But you have to start with the idea that you don't know any
> more than they do; otherwise you're setting youself above them in some way
> and closing yourself off to having insights of your own. If your
> "customers" pick up the condescension that I'm sensing here, they will see
> that their relationship with you is based not on trust but on inequality.
Well, most of how I "manipulate" at this stage is content free. The basic
tools I use are questions to set the direction of thought. I don't know
the answers to many of those questions so I _try_ to stay open. But it's
extremely difficult to stay external to the process when you are involved
as a partner. Maybe consultants have it easier because they have no vested
interest in the company. It's very tricky.
Most of the condescension I have is based on a seeming lack of a win/win
orientation, so when I hear answers to my questions that highlight this,
it really get's me mad.
This whole process is sort of great because one of the other partners is
implicitly learning the questions I'm asking and is beginning to ask those
questions too. The problem is that questions aren't enough. Sometimes
people aren't willing to give the answers directly so it takes precision
listening to get the answers to the questions.
For instance, one partner said, "I'm an American. We're cutthroat." That
belief was operating in the contexts of his relation to competitors. I
wouldn't directly ask the question, "Can I trust you," but how do I know
that this person's belief doesn't apply in the context of his relation to
his partners? It's a warning sign to me.
> And lest you be offended, let me say that I'm coming from long experience
> at being the condescending one, until the final brick hit me in the head
> and I realized that I was stupider than I was smart. Only then did I have
> a chance to begin to learn.
>
> When IBM decided to survive by getting away from mainframes and meeting
> customer needs, it first had to overcome the arrogance that characterized
> "Big Blue". I recommend the same thing for anyone who thinks they know
> what others are supposed to do, and I sincerely hope that this LO network
> can serve as a forum for developing ways of doing that in the many
> contexts in which we live and work.
Like I wrote, it's very difficult to stay external to the process you are
using.
That arrogance is called positioning, and it's part of what enabled Big
Blue to charge Big Bucks. It's very tricky for me because I have to
position myself to my partners so that I maximize their perception of the
value of my contribution, set a direction through content free
interventions and help build a base for win-win orientation. It's almost a
catch-22.
Part of the problem is that one of the partners is a person I've been
friends with for a long time so I have to keep things very, very well
defined, otherwise our friendship will self-destruct. I'm probably in a
catch-22 right now. I used to say, "hey, I learned how to do this...."
but I'm beginning to realize that I can't because everything I learn how
to do that is part of the skills that this partner is contributing takes
away from that partner's ability to position.
Maybe the solution is to back out. Another solution is to split up the
partnership and get each partner to set up a corporation and then do
joint ventures between corporations. It's going to be tricky because
we're bootstrapping at very low cost.
Anyways, thanks for an honest assessment. I hope all 1000 people enjoyed
reading this. I hope I can stay comfortable with what I've written here.
Andrew Moreno
-- Andrew Moreno <amoreno@broken.ranch.org>