Thank you for your comments. Some clarifications below:

My goal here was to show that real engagement requires serious investment of time, energy and mindshare.

For me, engagement is simply the level of emotional connection between the parties having the conversation.

I am not suggesting that some conversations are more important than the other as much depends on the context of the conversation. One can start with conversations to initiate low level engagement and then progress towards higher levels of engagement.

Also, when you have the kind of relationship where there is higher levels of engagement, you get a license to have conversations of lower level engagement and still enjoy it.

Think about the conversations that you have with your classmates from school or friends for a long time. They seem like conversations of low level engagement (as you say in your comments) but that is life. In those relationships, spending time together is already the reward.

Thanks again.

Best,
Raj

PS:
Mark, I love your work and I hope your book will be available on Kindle soon.

Perhaps you have time to clarify? What do you mean by engagement? Why do you assume that high vs. low engagement is more important? For the either of the participants? Isn’t a lot of human life and conversation rightly low level? Doesn’t a lot of interesting stuff come out of low-level engagement? And isn’t there a real ceiling for engagement?

Thanks!

Thank you. Actually, I can’t take all the credit for the answers I posted as two of my teachers (who prefer not to be named) helped me there. But nevertheless, I am glad you liked them and my teachers will be happy.

On your question, I am not intrigued by number of “I’s” in any given conversation. I focus more on the intent than on the mechanics. There is a lot of “extra work” I have to do if I have to focus on the mechanics of things than focusing on the intent.

My $.02 of course.

Best,
Rajesh

OK, here’s my homework, as I hear you:

- I need to really understand the price/cost I am paying in always facilitating people in all these largely one-sided conversations.

- I need to find the courage in this largely narcissistic psychological climate to make that “BIG investment initially to “become” that someone who others want to “engage” with.” THAT sends chills down my spine, let me tell ya! Have you discussed anywhere (blogs, books, etc.) what that “big Investment” would look like?

- I need to be less of that type of a person who has people talking AT her all the time and more of that “someone who others would want to reach out TO.” I need to become someone who attract the givers and minimizes the impact of the takers, if I want creativity in conversation.

Piece of cake.

Hmmmmmm.

Now give ME some time to ponder that “BIG investment” I need to define and then make….

QUESTION: Are you at all intrigued by the number of “I’s” in any given conversation????

I had some time to NOT only think through your questions, I was also able to discuss this with two people that I respect. Here are my responses:

[Marilyn] QUESTION: What do you say to people who have “influential levels of engagement,” but that engagement appears to be going one way? THEIR way!

Yes, I can empathize with how you must be feeling. You are going out of the way “engage” with them on topics that relate to their concerns but they are not “engaging” with you on topics related to your concerns.

Some things to think about:
1. If this is happening as a pattern, meaning if this is happening 8 out of 10 times (across multiple meetings) then you need to look at who these people are that you are “engaging” and whether it is worth continuing to invest your time.

2. You can also think about how taking care of your concerns will move them towards taking care of their concerns. Elaborating on this – think of your requests to them. How costly is it for them to fulfill your requests? Do they move towards their goals when they are fulfilling your requests or do they move away from their goals. If it is the latter, you will have a problem getting “buy in” from them.

3. You should also re-look at your personal brand in context of where they are going. As your personal brand becomes more powerful, it will get harder for people to ignore you and/or your concerns.

[Marilyn] Here’s another QUESTION, Raj: How do you get TWO people equally engaged, genuine, caring, and thoughtful in the SAME CONVERSATION? When I ask for reciprocity of engagement in conversation, ALL the people look at me stunned, then hurt, and then they don’t call again.

[RS] I am assuming that you are talking about a group situation where three of you are talking and your question is how to engage TWO different people.

Group situations are not easy as something that is important to one person may not be very important to the other person. At that time, you can focus on “fundamental” concerns that you know will be common to both of them. For example, if they both are business people, guaranteed that both of them will have concerns about sales and marketing. If you have found a great website or article that will address these concerns, you can talk about it and offer to send them relevant links.

Remember that you don’t have to sacrifice a LOT to be of great value to them. If you are doing that, you can’t scale. People understand that you can’t give up your concerns to take care of their concerns.

Also, think about re-using and re-purposing what you already now (Refer to the concept of “knowledge arbitrage” by Gary Hamel) to reduce your costs of helping other people.

[Marilyn] Raj, QUESTION: Where do those people who practice and aspire to what you preach find conversationalists for themselves who are skilled enough to care by reciprocating? And inspire creativity?

The real question Marilyn is what you should do so that people who fit that category “find you.” It takes a BIG investment initially to “become” that someone that others want to “engage” with but it will be worth that investment.

You can “find” them or you can become that someone that others would want to reach out to you. Both of them require investments but the latter investment will give you multiple returns.

Have a great week ahead.

Best,
Raj

PS: We have Brian Clark, Tony Clark and Mark McGuinness here (all are super smart people.) If any of them have the time, I would love to hear their take on this.