Other People’s Interests—What does this mean?
I’m sorry for my silence this last week. We have entered the stage of overlapping principles, which is a good time to renew focus on all the things we are supposed to be doing now. (And yet, the one area I still need more work on is not criticizing, condemning, or complaining! That’s the first principle!)
What does it mean to “talk in terms of other people’s interests?” There are two readings I see.
First, it means talking about things other people are interested in. This is great if you know what the other person is interested in. You can lead with a question about that subject, demostrating again that the best “meta-principle” for HTWFAIP is “Ask questions. Only ask questions.” In doing so, you will follow almost every principle. Throw some names in and smile, and you are all set! And if you don’t know what the person is interested in, questions are still the answer.
Second, in certain contexts, “interests” means “a stake, share, or involvement in an undertaking.” In a sales context, this means focusing on what the person needs and describing what you are selling in those contexts. For example, if I am selling my evaluation and research skills, I would focus not on my skills, but on the needs of the person looking for an evaluator. “What kinds of questions are you hoping to get answers to? What kinds of evaluation work do you do internally? Are there areas where you feel you excel? Where you need help?”
The second reading gives this principle a bit more panache. How can we reframe every interaction to focus on what the other person’s stakes are? For example, I am on a planning committee for a small annual conference. We expect about 100 people to attend and each to pay a small registration fee. Other members of the committee want to spend nearly half the conference budget on a keynote speaker, and I was attempting to argue against this.
How did I do? I got caught up in the moment and focused on financial prudence. “Our budget currently has a cap of $2000 for a speaker, and I think we need to stick to this. We ended last year [after paying last year’s speaker $4000] $3,800 in debt, which was generously covered by our biggest sponsor [the University]. They are unlikely to do that again. This conference has demonstrated an ability to lose thousands of dollars every year, and I would like to see us end this year in the black.”
That was a poor way to approach the problem. I think it got the message across, and the person responsible for the budget agrees with me. (She’s my colleague who couldn’t be on the planning call.) But whether others accepted my position or not, they were not excited about it. I failed to follow multiple principles.
What if I had instead focused on the interests of other committee members?
“What is our financial goal for the end of this conference?”
“Do you think we are taking a risk if we spend that much on a speaker?”
“What happens if we don’t meet our financial goal?”
“Will that speaker be available next year, when we might have a larger budget?”
These types of questions would hopefully lead us to the same conclusion as my criticisms did, but people would feel better about them.
It’s hard to talk all in questions like this. For one, it requires you to have some control in the conversation. For two, you have to think like a lawyer and try to ask only questions to which you know the answer. But it’s the best way to follow our principles and a reminder of how much work I still have to do!
