Don't hit them with logic, but hit them anyway—Designing how to engage beyond the "Three Ones"
Introduction: The question that comes after "correctness"
In the previous article, I wrote about the "Three Ones" and the downward spiral as a structure where new businesses "correctly" fail.
Trying to do it alone
Betting on one thing
Not seeking out primary information
These were all structures that created a "closed state."
And as a countermeasure to that,
Working with others
Having multiple hypotheses
Engaging with primary information
I also conveyed that this "reversal of premises" is necessary.
Now, to realize that "open state," another important question emerges.
How should people engage with each other?
This time, I would like to think about "how to engage" as members or supporters involved in new businesses.
■ Why do discussions miss the mark?
In the field of new business development, this kind of conflict often occurs.
"We should properly clash with opinions."
"No, hitting people with logic is the worst."
Both seem correct.
However, this discussion almost never aligns.
Because,
the premise is missing.
■ The problem is not "what you say," but "when you say it"
This conflict is not a matter of
strictness or kindness
logic or empathy
it is not a problem of.
The essence is simple.
What state is the person in when you do that?
■ Look at the "state of the source," not the phase
The phase referred to here is not
stage gate
investment round
process progress stage
it is not.
What is important is
what state the main driver (source) is currently in
it is.
The source here does not refer to a leader as a role, but to the person who is carrying the "core of the will" of that project.
The source here does not refer to a leader as a role, but to the person who is carrying the "core of the will" of that project.
Even for the same person, and even for the same project,
that state is constantly fluctuating.
■ The source is between "fluctuation" and "fixation"
The state of the source is broadly divided into two.
① A state of wavering
Lacking confidence
Direction is not set
Being swayed by the evaluations of others
If you hit someone with logic in this state,
the source will either break or start acting based on someone else's answers.
On the other hand, just being received with even a little positivity, or being connected to someone else, can sometimes become the driving force to move forward.
This is an experience that has saved me many times as well.
② A state of being too rigid
Having confidence
Betting on one thing
Not seeing other possibilities
If you only provide kindness in this state,
the source will just run wild.
Overconfidence at the initial idea stage is dangerous, of course, but even after some verification has progressed, it is not uncommon for being too focused to narrow down possibilities.
That is precisely why
"Is that conviction really correct?"
being asked this can open up thinking and become a trigger for capturing new opportunities.
■ Design engagement by "going against the grain"
That is why engagement should be designed this way.
When they are wavering → Support (thorough assistance)
When they are too rigid → Shake them up (introduce a foreign element)
What is important is
to intentionally apply the opposite force to their current state
.
While enduring the wavering, you must also drive in a temporary "stake (fixation)" somewhere. This balance is the core of the design theory for engagement.
■ Logic is not "correctness" but "stimulation"
Logic itself is not bad.
Logic is
a "stimulus" that becomes poison if used in the wrong place
if it fits, it promotes evolution
if it misses, it destroys
That is precisely why "when you say it" is more important than "what you say."
■ "Engagement that looks unfair" is the most sincere
This selective approach looks unfair from the outside.
Kind to that person
Strict with this person
However, in reality,
it is just optimizing for their state
.
Just as a doctor who prescribes the same medicine to everyone is not a good doctor,
changing how you engage is not unfair, but ratherthe sincerity of individual optimization.
■ The "steering" of the source itself changes everything
Up to this point, I have discussed how to engage with those around you.
However, there is one more important perspective.
The source themselves also needs to manage this state
What veterans do unconsciously
Experienced business development professionals share a common characteristic.
That is,
When you are wavering, go to solidify yourself
When you are too solidified, go to waver yourself
They perform these movements naturally.
Principles of self-management
To put this in one phrase, it is this:
If you are wavering, go to solidify. If you have become too solidified, go to waver.
◆ When wavering
Decide on small things
Increase the amount of action
Speak in your own words
→ Regain your axis
◆ When too solidified
Intentionally incorporate dissenting opinions
Look for counter-evidence
Doubt your hypotheses
→ Shake up your thinking
What becomes important here is the DIY (Dero, Ike, Yare - Just get out there and do it) approach mentioned previously.
When wavering: Gain primary information by taking action to solidify your core
When too rigid: Expose yourself to foreign elements by going outside to shake up your hypotheses
DIY is not just a guideline for action, but also
a switch for adjusting your own state
as well.
■ "Relationship Design" in Trinity Development
This perspective also connects to "Trinity Development."
Business (Hypothesis)
Talent (Source)
Organization (Relationships)
These cannot be separated.
New business is
the endeavor of cultivating these three simultaneously
.
How you engage is not just about communication, but
It is the act of designing the relationship itself.
Conclusion: Another condition for "opening up"
In the previous article, I wrote that what is necessary for a new business is "not closing, but opening."
And this time, one way of "opening up" has become clear.
That is,
It is,
not fixing the way you engage, but changing it according to the situation.
What is important in a new business is
not a consistent attitude.
It is an adaptable relationship.
Correctness sometimes causes people to close off. However, an appropriate way of engaging opens people up.
What creates that difference
might just be a slight "assessment" and "selective use."
Is the person you are facing right now (or yourself)
currently in a state of "fluctuation"? Or are they in a state of "fixation"?
Thank you for reading until the end☆
◆◆Related Articles
◆◆I also share information on YouTube. Please take a look!!