Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jimmy Matorin's avatar

Good ideas if positioned correctly are bought in to from conception in the right collaborative environment. Hostage analogy to me is hostile and one party is looking to come out on top vs. a win, win

Expand full comment
Scott Ko's avatar

Love the article Mack, though I will 'yes, and' one notion that I think might be missing from your dissection of hostage negotiations: Understanding what the hostage taker wants.

If I'm not mistaken (citing all those YouTube videos from Chris Voss and his ilk), one of the primary goals of hostage negotiators in the first phase is to get the 'boss' talking, and to get them to state their demands, from which a position of negotiation can come in.

Now, that's not to say having evidence and a proof of concept isn't important, however if we aren't able to communicate the evidence in a way that the 'boss' feels like is serving of their needs, then the work is moot.

Not to get political, but I do think this is one of the challenges in modern day discourse across the political divide is that both sides DO try to cite a lot of evidence in their arguments, but that evidence often seeks to reinforce or dissuade the other side. However, what is more likely to work is when we start from that position of understanding what the other's motives are, and then letting evidence guide the journey together.

EDIT: I changed 'challenge' to 'yes, and' because on reflection, I didn't mean to actually 'challenge' what you're saying as wrong because I do agree that evidence is important. I was also reflecting on an earlier article of yours on empathy, and essentially wanting to blend both together.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts