Helpfulness is the strongest currency of credibility you can build in an organization
This is a foundational principle of our field: there is no such thing as a neutral, objective researcher. You cannot study culture without changing it.
We can do cultural engineering openly, ethically, and sustainably
While much of this article is fantastic reading, there was a nugget of a thread in there by Michael Smith
Objectivity is not a key property of science. Staying objective just keeps social loopiness out of our attempts to understand physical systems. That’s REALLY GOOD for objective science! But science is about seeking good explanations, not about pretending everything is objective.
I am not a scientific researcher. However, I often find myself drawn to purity arguments quite easily. This is likely because of a natural inclination to understand systems. However, as I grow older, this is the one area that I have changed my viewpoint the most in. Life’s really complicated – there’s value in understanding systems in isolation, however, the practical value and the ability to predict outcomes always relies in the ability to seek good explanations, almost rejecting that everything can be objective.
Now, on to the more interesting parts of the article. I’ll admit that the next bits are going to sound nearly insane in its context. Here’s the position:
https://twitter.com/DefenderOfBasic/status/1771171097733439761
My recommendation is not to try this on twitter / any other medium, although you absolutely should if you want practice. However, let’s shift context into work: there are going to be moments where you have to bring stakeholders into consensus. One of the oft repeated hairy discussions are – differences in priorities of work tasks between dependent teams. I’m often brought into these conversations to resolve the situation. Whenever it’s a new team that sees me in action, they balk at my approach – I go fully open minded and curious that our position might be wrong. This is not for a lack of resolve. However, my default state is to be helpful. Being helpful in these situations often means clarifying positions for both parties and it really helps when you don’t have to defend a position. When you don’t have a strong position, you don’t have to spend cycles trying to defend.
It allows you open run on understanding the other team’s territory. It allows you to truly understand their priorities – their incentives, their constraints. It allows you to empathize, even if it’s a very laboratory version of empathy. However, in that moment you connect and that human connection has worked 90% of the time to provide a context to make it a safe space for the other team to change their mind. To be clear, it also creates a space for your team to change their mind too.
However, when people are willing to change their mind, their discussions also change. It becomes one where you are trying to find compromise and not be constantly defensive or protective.
This was the secret to convince contentious partners to agree to a common vision in video codecs; this was the secret to winning over highly contentious parties in W3C conversations; this was the secret to bringing differing priorities in OKR conversations.
This isn’t easy. However, once you start practicing this – you start to build a reputation as being someone helpful. Being helpful can be a powerful currency of credibility in many types of conversations.
There’s a risk of a bad faith player to this and how to handle that situation – but that’s a story for another day.
#defender #empathy #negotiations #openMemeticResearch #socialMedia
