It was a seemingly innocent question. But actually, he was just using me.
On Easter Sunday, after spending a rare day alone at home, I decided to grab a small bite and a glass of wine at a local pub. Since I would be alone, I took along a book that I intended to finish. A terrific little volume by Mark Edmundson: “The Age of Guilt.”
I sat at the bar, slowly drinking my cab and enjoying a crabcake, all the while reading and marking up this fascinating book. One of the most intriguing and enlightening works I’d read in years.
My reading habits began in elementary school, developed while I was in seminary, blossomed while I was in the pastorate and a seminary faculty member—and exploded in my consulting business. Although I am a lot more than this, I am my books.
I take a lot of time marking my books and papers, and putting notes in the front of the books and also outlining my research papers notes on an added single page, all making important substance available immediately. I’d be much less a person without my books and my studies. No question but that my effectiveness in church ministry, seminary—and especially in business—was tied to a substantially developing knowledge base and—I don’t want to ignore this—an extensive experience in the performing arts that continually shaped and reshaped my decision making.
These strategies have been most useful as a business consultant. I found business clients rewarding me profusely for what might initially be perceived as unrelated knowledge. Often—actually very often—there were appreciative statements like “never thought of that. . . where did you get that from. . . Erwin’s off the wall again.” Such statements were a reflection of the limited verbal worlds of business disciplines and organizations. Though a focus on execution and strategy is necessary for business success, that focus can also impede creativity and flexible decision-making. Yeah, it’s brash. But it seemed some execs were just hanging fire for that input. Weird.
I’ve done some strange things for money. There. I’ve said it.
Informative vs. enlightening
Actually, the two are quite different, responding to different objectives. Most reading, especially that on the web, is done for information. Such reading adds to the stores of knowledge, checks previously held information and dissipates error.
But the reader who is open to enlightenment focuses on a lot more than just information. They read as if they might be changed by what they’re reading. They’re open to a confrontation between the author and the reader. Open to getting thrown off course and finding a better way. Making changes which may be principled, moral, attitudinal and even behavioral and social.
My career changes from pastor to faculty and from faculty to consultant were the result of far more than merely information. Leaning into information from book interactions and long conversations with my seminary mentors and my graduate advisor, along with interaction with others were exceptionally enlightening experiences. Putting them together, they brought about major changes. They became both the instigator and driver of major career changes.
Enlightenment also became the backdrop for my exec coaching business. Mere information would have never been enough. In coaching I strategically emphasized clients’ stated needs from the perspective of the humanities and a (theologically) relational orientation, and explicitly NOT from a psychological perspective.
I consider myself pretty good in the translation business. But as a consultant in executive development, I became a far better translator. One consequence was that over the 22 years working with approximately 500 long-term executive clients, I only had three people walk away from my developmental process. And many as a result of their development became highly successful while becoming much more truly human. And socially responsible members of society
The experience
Back to Edmundson and “The Age of Guilt.”
The reading was exceptionally rich: highly informative and unusually enlightening. I could already tell it was going to be impacting my thinking and my perspective and provide an exceptionally rich re-understanding of my central convictions. An exceptionally rare and rich experience to be.
After finally finishing my meal and the book, I stepped off the stool, turned and started to walk by a couple booths. In the third booth a couple in their late fifties or early sixties stopped me. The man, dressed in a conservative sport coat and open-collar shirt, obviously a manager of some sort, asked, “So what are you reading? You looked pretty involved.” I lifted the book up and said that it was one of the best books I’d read in the last twenty years. Don’t know whether you noticed, but I actually clapped after one brief chapter.” The woman, laughed and he continued to stare at me. “I’ll have to get that,” he said.
Silence. It was obvious that was all—and he was dismissing me.
I’m a specialist in interpersonal communication. So, on a whim, I decided to ignore his dismissal. I read the meaning of his tone immediately. But I ignored it, telling a little bit more about the book. When a person asks about a book, I expect that there might be a slight bit of interest. But I’d been around businessmen like that enough that I suspected what was really going on.
It was an all-too-common managerial response—and not innocent. The verbal form surfaces periodically when a manager wants to get attention, but doesn’t want anything other than the attention. So, they make a statement, feigning interest, expecting two or three words in response, which they follow up with a nonverbal and three or four words which indicate you should move on, that there are things of more importance.
But I was pissed, and I also intended to confirm what I was hearing. So, I stood with a half-smile, directing a couple brief intelligent statements at him, providing him with a clear opportunity to engage. That’s the purpose of an authentic statement. This time, he said “thank you,” and then looked directly and then very obviously down to the table in front of him.
I confirmed the form for myself. In effect, the attention-desiring manager asks a brief question about you, but clearly wanting no real response—other than your attention to him or her. If he were talking with an underling, a typical interaction, he’d smile, look down, and the person would walk away immediately, thinking the manager was actually interested in him and a “nice guy.” But in fact, the manager is attempting all along to build a positive image of some sort about himself—largely disinterested in what the other person is doing or saying.
Evaluation
I’ve never fully thought through the form until now, but I’ve observed it on numerous occasions, recognizing the interaction for what it was—an attention-getting strategy. To double-check my analysis, I talked it through with one of my best friends, a retired senior manager in mining who’d worked around the world in several different cultures. He responded immediately, saying that he recognized the form on numerous occasions, and found it disgusting. But far too prevalent among managers.
It’s a way of being used.
Candidly, this is an almost typical managerial form. It’s a time waster—and somewhat destructive—sometimes surfacing unnecessary feelings. And, as my friend agreed, somewhat prevalent among business managers.
So what?
Well, you can just ignore it and walk away. But sometimes in my role, when I’m working with a potential client or friend, and they pull that on me, I stop it. With a smile, I’m liable to say, “come off it. What’s your agenda. Too busy to talk?” Inevitably, I’ll get laughter and a comment about me such as, “Remind me. I should know I can’t get away with that with you.” Sometimes we just laugh. On other occasions we may problem solve. . . “too busy, thinking about other things, I’m not feeling good, this is not the right time.”
Occasionally, the situation works to my advantage. Especially if I make a couple comments about the form. It piques the potential client’s interest and builds more respect for my abilities among clients. Smart consultants recognize they’re onstage a lot of the time. And they know how to both enlighten and draw others to themselves.
In the final analysis, smart people will say up front: “Can we talk later? I may be interested in that book, too, so let’s make it a part of the conversation.” But some people are not interested and not all that smart.
In sum, this is not at all high on my agenda. But just once in a long while I resist attempts at being used. Especially by those who should know better, but don’t. So thought you ought to know what you’re dealing with when it comes your way. Don’t be taken in and don’t let yourself be used.