Substantive Conversations - an “easy” how-to
At a conversation today at the Centre for Social Innovation with Member of Parliament Danielle Martin, I noted the term “substantial conversations” and how they are important to navigating our collective way forward. CSI provides an environment for such conversations, and the “where” will be important. This also got me thinking of the “how” part of the mix.
The recipe for a “good meeting” is akin to that of “being healthy.” The latter simply involves adequate doses of water, nutrients, and sleep, while controlling for stress, genetics and cultural differences. (Easy enough, yes? Actually, no!)
Here is that list for meetings:
Have an objective.
Craft and share an agenda that aligns with your objective.
Share any background information that participants will need, plus provide sufficient time for them to digest and absorb.
Allot sufficient time for the meeting, making sure to build time to review background and context (and allow for anyone who could not “do the homework” in time).
Invite (only?) the right people and be clear about (1) why you need them there, and (2) in what capacity.
NOTE: Although the above may be sound in thinking, it is far from straightforward in practice.
If I had to create the “easy recipe” for “substantial conversations,” it would look something like this:
Assemble a range of people: Include those who are passionate for any related cause, as well as those who have gained expertise in the fundamental forces at play. Those forces will include policy constraints, and unwritten rules, as well as political, practical, and scientific realities.
Encourage all to assume positive intent: Any reason to be there is “the right reason,” but to help maintain both the conversation and the substance remind people of some helpful approaches:
We are exploring, not advocating.
NOTE: Should slip into advocating, we immediately invite concern, query, and opposition. (Like the Toronto Blue Jay in the post-win interview with Hazel Mae, we welcome the cold liquid poured over us and any recent tirade.)
We are listening to understand, not to respond.
NOTE: When we do respond, we start with our reflection of what we heard. (Rather than showing you a mirror, I am turning my screen toward you so you can see the picture that my brain took of what you shared, including the context and background that surrounded and framed your thoughts.)
We all want to increase our understanding of the many things at play and of the possibilities we face.
Such substantive conversations can spur further conversations that may help to:
Flesh out a potential way forward more fully;
Craft specific requests for specific actors; or
Engage with specific groups to better factor their opposition into a constructive way forward.
The issues we face are exhaustingly vast. Substantive conversations can both energize and begin to narrow the focus.