Minallah Samar Khan, the feminist Pakistani anthropologist and filmmaker,
was enraged. Local tribal leaders were trading little girls as
compensation for their male family members’ crimes.
These leaders, responsible for settling legal disputes in their
villages, act as local judges. A longstanding practice was to address
major crimes by “compensating” a harmed family with a daughter of the
family doing the harm. The guilty father or uncle was then considered
“free” and the village was told this issue was “resolved.”
Samar thought
this tradition, called swara, was horrendous — it forever changed a
young girl’s life, through no fault of her own. But although she was
angry, she realized she’d never get to the outcome she wanted if she led
with that anger.
So she tried something else. First, she listened more than she
talked. She listened to the religious (male) leaders explain the use of
swara, and its benefits, and she asked how that tradition would have
been interpreted by the Prophet Mohammad. She listened to the fathers
and uncles who allowed their crimes to be expiated this way. And by
listening, Samar learned so much that it enabled her to bridge a
seemingly unbridgeable chasm of difference.
Samar had first assumed that the fathers whose crimes were being
forgiven this way were happy to let their daughters suffer for their
crimes, but when she listened to them, she heard that they were not.
They wanted another way. She heard from local leaders that they placed
an extremely high value on tradition. She heard from religious Muslim
legal scholars that swara was a form of “vicarious liability,” which is
not allowed in Islam. And finally, she heard that in earlier times,
disputes were also resolved by sending a girl to an enemy’s family, but
she didn’t stay there permanently; instead, she would be given gifts and
then sent back to her parents’ home. All of this, she taped.
She convened local communities to watch these videos and talk with
each other about the tradition and its implications. One by one, local
tribal leaders changed what they considered true justice. They decided
that swara could be replaced by monetary compensation. Samar created
change not by selling her idea, but creating a way for everyone arrive at a new idea, together.
What Samar did was to ask people to share their perspective, without
trying to convince them of hers. It sounds like something for a movie
script, not necessarily practical advice for business leaders. But maybe
it should be.
I found myself thinking, somewhat wistfully, of Samar the other day
during a terrible, but not unusual, meeting. A leader had asked 30 of
his best and the brightest to gather so that he could hear their input
on what he perceived as a marketing gap. But the very design of the
meeting meant he would be hearing very little: The agenda called for
three hours of presentations and about 15 total minutes of Q&A (if
none of the presentations ran over, that is).
I left feeling that he didn’t really want to listen, that what he
wanted was to convince the 30 people present of his perspective so that
we could become his mouthpiece and fix his “marketing gap” for him. And
because of the format of the meeting, I left unconvinced that I wanted
to do that.
Even though it doesn’t work very well, this approach is, of course,
common — in any setting where one party is trying to convince another
party to change, whether that’s in an organization, during a political
debate, or at a contentious family dinner. Identify what key ideas
could convince them. Find persuasive facts. Enthusiastically share. Beat
their facts back with your facts.
This isn’t the way to create lasting change. The best way to sway others is not to tell them your answer, but to arrive at an answer — together. Listening is the key pathway to go from your idea to our
idea. To reshape the idea as needed, and to ultimately create the kind
of shared ownership that is needed for any idea to become a new reality.
The next time you head into a meeting where a major decision will be
made, or important issue discussed, try the following exercise I’ve used
to prepare for the workshops I run on innovation and leadership:
Find an index card or sheet of paper (a paper napkin will also do).
On one side, write key ideas that could be useful for you to share. I
say “could” because you will reevaluate any of it once you learn
more. On the other side, brainstorm questions you want to ask and things
you hope to learn.
For example, at last year’s Drucker Forum conference in Vienna, I was
part of an executive round table with John Hagel, Julia Kirby, and Hal
Gregersen to talk about “the power to innovate.” Before our session
kicked off, I jotted down a handful of questions on the back of an index
card:
- Why are these executives attending our session? What is their motivation?
- What is the core “power to innovate” problem at their firms? What does that specifically look like?
- Do they think they have enough ideas, or too many ideas, or not good quality?
- Is innovation, to them, a problem of idea selection, market connection or execution, or something else?
- Can “innovation” be discussed in general terms — without a specific context — and have it be useful?
- Who or what set of ideas are they listening to now about innovation? What is missing, or why is that idea set not working?
I didn’t end up asking all of these questions, but writing them down meant that I was primed to be curious, to listen for motivations, needs, and emotions. Developing a list of questions can help you be ready to really listen to what is actually going on.
Most of us don’t do that. Most of us listen to the degree we can
understand points of agreement or disagreement, or to prepare what to
say in response, rather than to learn. But when we do that, we’re not so
much hearing other people as we are waiting for our turn to speak.
To listen is to pay attention to. Listening means stepping outside
one’s own interests, to actually want to know more, and to care what
others’ interests are. To not just hear words, but to pay attention to
the underlying needs and frames of reference.
Which gets to why we aren’t already great listeners. We’re afraid
that if we’re listening, we’re not advocating for our own ideas and why
those ideas matter. We’re afraid we’re giving up on our convictions.
But we can all have more faith in ourselves. And each other.
BY
Nilofer Merchant
No comments:
Post a Comment