Some time ago I got to watch a great public-sector innovator in action. He told me one important principle, and showed me another.
What he showed me might be described as “polite stubbornness.” When someone whose cooperation he needed said “No,” he’d nod amiably and say something like, “Right. I see you can’t do this now.” He would then continue the conversation on the implicit assumption that his interlocutor had just agreed to do it sometime in the future, and the remaining problem was to figure out when. “So if we start this next fall … “
What he told me was even cleverer, I thought. He was (is) trying to make a basic innovation in a process involving several independent agencies and central to the work of two of them. “The problem,” he said, “is to convince people who have been doing something the same way for twenty-five years to do it your way instead, without letting them notice that they’ve been doing it wrong.”
Author: Jonathan Zasloff
Jonathan Zasloff teaches Torts, Land Use, Environmental Law, Comparative Urban Planning Law, Legal History, and Public Policy Clinic - Land Use, the Environment and Local Government. He grew up and still lives in the San Fernando Valley, about which he remains immensely proud (to the mystification of his friends and colleagues). After graduating from Yale Law School, and while clerking for a federal appeals court judge in Boston, he decided to return to Los Angeles shortly after the January 1994 Northridge earthquake, reasoning that he would gladly risk tremors in order to avoid the average New England wind chill temperature of negative 55 degrees.
Professor Zasloff has a keen interest in world politics; he holds a PhD in the history of American foreign policy from Harvard and an M.Phil. in International Relations from Cambridge University. Much of his recent work concerns the influence of lawyers and legalism in US external relations, and has published articles on these subjects in the New York University Law Review and the Yale Law Journal. More generally, his recent interests focus on the response of public institutions to social problems, and the role of ideology in framing policy responses.
Professor Zasloff has long been active in state and local politics and policy. He recently co-authored an article discussing the relationship of Proposition 13 (California's landmark tax limitation initiative) and school finance reform, and served for several years as a senior policy advisor to the Speaker of California Assembly. His practice background reflects these interests: for two years, he represented welfare recipients attempting to obtain child care benefits and microbusinesses in low income areas. He then practiced for two more years at one of Los Angeles' leading public interest environmental and land use firms, challenging poorly planned development and working to expand the network of the city's urban park system. He currently serves as a member of the boards of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (a state agency charged with purchasing and protecting open space), the Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice (the leading legal service firm for low-income clients in east Los Angeles), and Friends of Israel's Environment. Professor Zasloff's other major activity consists in explaining the Triangle Offense to his very patient wife, Kathy.
View all posts by Jonathan Zasloff
> He would then continue the conversation
> on the implicit assumption that his
> interlocutor had just agreed to do it
> sometime in the future,
I rank that right up there with the salespeople who repsond to my polite decline with an implication that I am not man enough to buy their product without "running to daddy". And I would respond to it the same way: end the conversation as soon as reasonably possible given the circumstances, and never take that person seriously on anything ever again.
Cranky
I agree with Cranky. I see nothing admirable about ignoring other people's concerns. Further, innovation is merely new, not necessarily right, so the assumption that someone else is wrong may be unwarranted. If you can't articulate why a change would be better, in a way that might convince others, there is a good chance it is not better, just different. Because there are resource costs to changing anything, I think a case needs to be made for the change before people go along with it. This evading the step of convincing others seems to me likely to be bad for an organization because the new approach might be implemented without thorough examination. Watson used to talk about people outrunning their mistakes — being promoted or changing to a new position before their chickens came home to roost and the worth of the previous ideas was demonstrated. As long as someone blithely suggests new ideas and never has to face an evaluation of their effectiveness, someone can look like a whiz kid. Good for the individual, bad for the company involved. People protect the business by being stodgy.
Some words of advice my father gave me:
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
The reaction to polite stubbornness can be polite stubbornness. This avoids the salesman effect on the buyer without buying. In any event, it is an ingenious way to start a dialog with people who have stuck to their guns for 25 years.
Cranky,
A salesman who insults you after you said no deserves no business and likely will not last any longer than the one who simply gives up on hearing no.
The goals of the salesman and politician are quite similar once someone says no. If either works for you, would you have it any other way? Their tactics are not always effective, or nice, but one thing is sure; giveing up will earn nobody anything.
Not to defend car salesmen… or salesmen in general 😉
I suspect something has been lost in translation, perhaps because of vagueness necessary to preserve the source's anonymity. The first method as expressed does sound like crude bull-rush salesmanship; perhaps it was more impressive with specific context. The second is too general to be instructive; here again, context might put it in a different light.
"Press on"? Is that like "Stay the course"?
> The goals of the salesman and politician
> are quite similar once someone says no.
> If either works for you, would you have
> it any other way?
The problem is that in both the OP and my example there is a fundamental assumption on the part of the interlocutor that I am too stupid and inobservant to make a meta-analysis of his tactics as he deploys them. If he thinks I am that stupid why should I listen to anything else he has to say?
Cranky
Cranky, the purpose is to enable you to emotionally come to terms with a decision that is logically convincing, but not something you want to be true. the salesman is helping you to get where you want to be all along.
> Cranky, the purpose is to enable you to
> emotionally come to terms with a decision
> that is logically convincing, but not
> something you want to be true. the salesman
> is helping you to get where you want to be all
> along.
Thanks, I hadn't had a good laugh for a while.
My purpose is generally to broom the unneeded salesperson (and, by extension the guy with the latest plan for saving the world) right off my premises and back onto the street. The idea that either of the two have some deep truth that has just eluded me due to emotional blockage is a common one at sales seminars and revival meetings, but doesn't quite match up with how people capable of anything in life actually think.
Cranky