This is the first installment of a four-part series.
At CRA, we use Aristotle’s three methods of persuasion—Ethos, Pathos, and Logos (found in his Rhetoric)—as the foundation for creating quality messages. We gloss these terms as Believe, Do, and Know. In other words, a good message makes the audience believe we are credible. It establishes a personal connection, which helps to encourage that the message is acted upon. Finally, a good message helps the audience to know something new and important by presenting reasonable and intelligent arguments.
I thought it would be useful to return to the source to help fill out these concepts a bit more. One interesting point to begin with is that there are only three ways for a person to be persuasive according to Aristotle. These can be characterized broadly in terms of: 1) the character of the speaker; 2) the emotional state of the hearer; and 3) the argument itself.
Three posts, corresponding to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos respectively, will follow this introductory post over the next three weeks. Each will include practical coaching points designed to help translate Aristotle’s observations into the practical world of business.
At a recent lunch with corporate learning & development leaders in the Philadelphia area, I was struck by how the conversation kept coming round to, well, conversation. For example, those dealing with an aging workforce found that the necessary succession planning discussions were just not happening. The challenge in this case was to arm senior managers with the means for conversation that transfers knowledge and coordinates new action.
To a large extent, leaders and managers today are paid to talk–and we believe that modern corporations are largely “networks of conversation.” So, it stands to reason that conversation is the primary vehicle for getting things done. Then, why don’t we take the time to get better at it?
A common myth says that as budgets go through ever greater scrutiny, the bulk of L&D investment will be focused on job specific, technical training. Granted, there will always be some need for this. But as the L&D leaders gathered at our lunch clearly testified, a shift is abreast–a shift in spending from traditional training programs which seldom work (see David Maister’s “Why (Most) Training is Useless”) –towards programs that build conversational and relational effectiveness.
While doing a little light reading on systems thinking, I came across a quote I really like—“Nothing inhibits future success like making procedures to formalize what generated a previous success.”
In The Art of Systems Thinking, O’Connor and McDermott remind us that what we often hail as a success was really a break-through—a new way of thinking—which comes from a change in one of our mental models. Once a break-through is formalized and institutionalized it becomes the norm—and we tend not to question it or give it any further thought. This is especially true when our organizations select people who act and think like the existing team. No one questions the norms. The risk? Nothing changes and over time the system runs down.
So, what can we do to avoid organizational decay? O’Connor and McDermott offer thoughts on two types of learning—simple learning and generative learning. Simple learning takes place when we change what we do in response to the results and feedback we get—for example, making changes to your operations based on the results of a satisfaction survey completed by your customers. It’s important to do this—and it’s a good way to get better and/or more efficient at what you already do.
However, if you’re really looking for the change, revitalization, and innovations needed to stave off decay, you need to foster generative learning. Generative learning happens when we let feedback change our mental models—that is, change our deeply rooted assumptions and our way of looking at things—an essential if you need to solve big problems and drive your business toward a changing future.
(Source: The Art of Systems Thinking, Joseph O’Connor & Ian McDermott)
