Activity is not productivity – we all know that.
But why do we keep engaging in activities that are not productive?
One answer: Simply because it is easy to engage in activities that are not productive.
This is true especially when it comes to activities that are geared towards building engagement with the other person.
Sometimes, it is easy to think you are engaged when you are not even on the other person’s radar.
Here is the basic rule:
When you are engaging with your network (online or offline) who you are AND the nature and level of conversations you have will influence your level of your engagement with the other person.
The diagram above shows ONE framework that explains this relationship.
As you can see, the need for creativity goes up significantly when you need higher levels of engagement
Here are the levels:
- A. Mindless Chatter: This is basically saying whatever comes to your mind and sometimes you might get a reply (the other person may also be bored, right?) and you might think there is engagement.
- B. Inconsequential Topics: These are like ice-breakers. After you break the ice, you have to move on but many people are happy to continue those conversations forever and think they are engaged.
- C. Genuine, Caring and Thoughtful Conversations: You are genuine, caring and thoughtful about those topics you are discussing. That comes across and this is like the entry point to getting the other person engaged at a higher level. When I say this is an “entry ticket,” it means there is more work to be done. It’s not over.
- D. Immediate Relevance: From here on, you always include the previous section starting from C (Genuine, Caring and Thoughtful) as a given. You talk about things that are of immediate relevance to the other person. So you become a positive possibility for the other person right NOW.
- E. Future Relevance: You start engaging in conversations that are of immediate and future relevance to the other person. You show that you are a positive possibility for the other person now and in the future.
- F. Who You Are: This is where your personal brand kicks in. You not only show that you are a positive possibility in the immediate and future concerns of the other person in your conversations but also by showing “who you are.” The other person will make an assessment on the level of engagement based on both – what you are saying and who you are.
Think about all your conversations in the last thirty days. Where do you slot them? Are they in the right slot to elicit the right level of engagement?
If not, start unlocking your creativity to engage in higher-level conversations that will automatically lead to higher levels of engagement.
A quick note on Twitter: I included a reference to Twitter because you have an opportunity to initiate conversations with people that are loosely connected to you (meaning you are following them and they are not following you). It is easy to have a LOT of conversations on Twitter that are at best leading to moderate levels of engagement. You could, if you wish THINK and take these conversations to the next level by being thoughtful and creative. It’s your choice.
About the Author: Rajesh Setty is an entrepreneur, author and speaker based in Silicon Valley. Rajesh maintains a blog at Life Beyond Code. You can also find him on Twitter at @UpbeatNow.
View Comments (36)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »Engagement is not merely productive means to whatever end, no, engagement is an intrinsic motivation, a fundamental human need, Yet everywhere one turns, there is such apathy and malignant outright hostility towards engagement, spawning industries of travesty.
OK, here's a loooooooooooooooooong response, but it's been festeringfor a looooooooooooong while now....
Ah, Raj! You have NO IDEA how electric your article is to me right now! I have just finished off a week of “engaging with people” and spending two hours in the car with someone – and I am so frickin’ upset that I just want to scream. OK, my “personal brand” just kicked in with that wee bit of an outburst. I shall gather myself….
Here’s the issue I have with your model. In your Mindless Chatter - Who You Are continuum of conversation levels, you have used the word “you” some 18 times. I get that, as I take it you want the reader to take the responsibility in leading conversations toward deeper levels. Be intuitive. Be caring. Engage. Be relevant. Then I am to open myself up and out to my “ brand” so others can make an assessment of me and then engage back, based on the depth and authenticity of what I am saying and who I am (my brand).
In my large circle of influence I am well known for how I engage people. Chatterers and inconsequentialists flee from me pretty quick, because I HATE chatter and superficiality. I get so bored with it that I almost immediately search for the more compelling and caring questions and levels of dialogue.
So I do have a ton of people (when is a “ton” too many?) in my life who are more than willing to have me engage them in meaningful conversations.
I am told many times (when is "many" too many?) that I am genuine, caring, and thoughtful in conversations. And I don’t say that to be narcissistic; it’s just what they say.
Except, here’s where I get angry/frustrated: As long as I am talking about them, and getting them to talk about themselves, they’re ecstatic. And long as I care about them, show genuine interest in them, and care for them , asking them questions and calling forth from them intriguing thoughts and ah-ha’s, they’re satisfied – and they say they’ve had “an edifying connection” and “deep conversation” (their words) and then they ask “When can we meet again?”
I try to share something of me in all of this and whether they just gloss over the offering or not address them all, it’s as if they didn’t hear me at all. They jump right in and follow what I offer of “my brand” with that all too gag-me-with-a-spoon-already word, “I.”
And off we go, the conversation being all about them – again. No reciprocity at all for me. No creativity in it for me.
And the more caring and engaging I become at engaging people in conversations – and don’t get me wrong, often what they say IS productive and IS engaging and IS creative, but for them – the less I receive, the less creative I become, the less I am to them.
In fact, all I am is something akin of a therapist, or the old aunt stricken mute and motionless due to a stroke, and people come to “talk” with her but just blab and blab while staring out the window, with no thought of her.
You say, Raj, this is your basic rule: When you are engaging with your network (online or offline), who you are AND the nature and level of conversations you have will influence your level of your engagement with the other person.
But here’s the deal, Raj. I am tired of doing all the engaging and caring. It’s fine and dandy to write that “creativity goes up significantly when you need higher levels of engagement,” but try to find the people who have the skills to engage BACK! to care BACK enough to elicit creativity in others and not always beg/wheedle/want for someone to elicit creativity/engagement in THEM! In my world, that’s like finding the goose and the golden eggs.
QUESTION: What do you say to people who have “influential levels of engagement,” but that engagement appears to be going one way? THEIR way!
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.
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?
Sincerely,
Marilyn, a "positive possibilty" who has taken a risk and shared something heavy on her heart....
Sounds like a lack of reciprocity.
"...everywhere one turns, there is such apathy and malignant outright hostility towards engagement, spawning industries of travesty..." Aaron Aqassi
So Aaron, is the "apathy, malignant...hostility, and the spawning...of travesty" YOUR definition of lack of reciprocity in conversation? An avoidance of dignifying another's "human need"?
Actually, contempt for human needs, the active disregard characteristic of pseudo-engagement, is often reciprocal, indeed formalized and cultivated. And this is discoursed upon at some length on my website which I hope will be back online soon.
"... And this is discoursed upon at some length on my website which I hope will be back online soon."
Thank you, Aaron. I will look for your blog, but why is it I feel that your response reinforces my point so perfectly?
Marilyn,
You have asked some great questions. I will be posting responses to all three questions soon.
These are good questions and I want to think through them before responding but wanted to post this comment so that you know I am thinking about them.
Best,
Raj
Raj, I appreciate both the quick response and the "thinking through" thing. I look forward to YOUR questions, as it is my theory that deep-level conversations are more about curiosity and questions rather than opinion and that all too common follow-up-to-someone's-offerings word, "I...."
What, Marilyn, have I somehow failed reciprocoyu?
Hi Marilyn,
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.