This is the first “writing out loud” excerpt from the working draft of Adam Kahane’s new book, “Collaborating with the Enemy: An Open Way to Work with People You Don’t Agree With or Like or Trust,” to be published by Berrett-Koehler in 2017. Adam is keen to engage with interested readers around this material as he develops it. If you would like to read the full working drafts and participate in a conversation about them, please sign up here.
This Collaborating with the Enemy is archived. While we still think it contains valuable content it's not up to the standard of our new website, so it's available here until we update it.
Robert Randall, editor, Strategy & Leadership says
Hi Adam:
I’d be delighted to work with you on getting some of your blogs adapted for columns in Strategy & Leadership, as we have successfully done often in the past. Let me know if you are interested.
José A Bucci Casari says
Well Adam, I really like the subject of your new book, and the reason, to me is obvious – we usually don’t know how to do it, because, I think, the first requirement to do so, successfully is to change ourselves. Yes, change is the key word to me.
What is our first reaction when working with the enemy happens? We start by judging the other person, and then, we imagine in our heads all kind of wrongful things that the enemy will do… And that in my opinion is when hell brakes loose inside our minds, that is when we start fail and pull out.
My question is simple, what can or should be done about it? How to initiate the conversation/work? Well it is not simple, it is a matter of personal development to be prepared to see only facts not feelings!
Um abraço!!
Adam Kahane says
Thank you José. I am asking the same question and will try to answer it in this book.
Tom Christensen says
It would seem prudent as you work this matter out that you take into consideration the way humans change over a lifetime, and just where on that trajectory, the target for collaboration is located at the present. Certainly being open allows for inter-subjective event spaces to form….such spaces require sufficient agreement re implicit notions….and when emerging they embody rapport, respect, and dynamic adjustments….so openness does seem essential. Let’s use “rapport” for shorthand meaning a whole bunch of implicit info has settled into place. If rapport emerges, we will overlook all the agreement necessary for this to occur. If rapport does NOT emerge, I seldom see any study of where the mismatch is. Is the other too immature for openness? Is the other centered in an Existential Level (See Graves, or just about any developmentalist) that prevents rapport? Does the other have a junior level of cognitive complexity that argues against finding rapport. Any of these barriers to rapport can usually be overcome if we know where the mismatch is, and adjust our presentation accordingly. I am in touch with some people in the West Bank who will likely appreciate this work you are doing as much as I will. Thank you.
Adam Kahane says
Thanks for this Tom. I am particularly interested in what one can do even or especially if one judges “the other” to be inadequate, including in the ways you mention. The starting point for this book is the observation that most people (including I) take as their starting point that “those others” need to change–and this strikes me as a particularly unproductive (and arrogant) way to begin.
Chris Corrigan says
On this point, you really need to spend some time talking with Caitlin.
Adam Kahane says
Yes I will reach out to her Chris.
Pierre Goirand says
Bi Adam,
Nice framing
so important in my view to make room for the personal dimension (and helplessness)
you did that beautifully
I want to read more
Uta Stolz says
Dear Adam Kahane, having been brought up in a very humanistic way I am learning only now in my mid fifties that there are such humans in my work field I should have called enemies earlier. I have started detecting them and your approach to openly deal with them thrills me. Perhaps following the path you propose I don’t have to abandon my humanistic roots and still will be able to evolve my own ideas unharmed?
Saleena says
Yes. We close off to protect ourselves, to keep safe, to protect our Known Truths…those things that hold our world stable and sure when all else around us seems uncertain and under threat; our sacred beliefs and values on which we base our identity. We project onto Other our own sense of insecurity and fearfulness of shifting sands beneath us in the foundations of the things that give us and our existence meaning. We Label. We Generalise. This is an effort to maintain a safe space for our own understanding of existence without the stressors and pressures to go to a new and scary experience of the world, which involves risk. It’s a tough place to flourish, but adapt and flourish we must if we are to find a safe space for each other and a working harmony amongst the weathering of constant Change.
Good luck with the book. 🙂
Adam Kahane says
Thank you Saleena.
Theodore (Ted) Thomas says
Adam,
This looks like an important and quite useful endeavor. My mind reflects first on the task now facing the new Speaker of the House in the U S Congress, a task with entrenched enemies galore extending off into the present 2016 presidential campaign.
My second thought is about my own quandary where much of my career was engaged in seeking civil service reform in Bangladesh. Again we have enemies in all the critical places in the governance system there and much of it in the mental outlook of the donor community and also the ‘good’ fellows in the professional community.
Your exploration of the ‘possible’ strategies for engaging the enemy is on target and the idea of an ‘open’ approach seems quite feasible. I will hope to follow your work as the book develops.
Adam Kahane says
Thanks Ted. I am trying to understand the everyday manifestations and roots of phenomena such as those you mention.
Eileen Moir says
A great idea Adam. I’m thrilled to see another book in gestation. Particularly one that focuses on a challenge that is so ubiquitous.
Helping people and organisations navigate change is what I do and working in partnership is usually what challenges them most. Living in Scotland is particularly exciting at the moment. There’s real enthusiasm for creating a more equal and compassionate society. It’s been palpable since the independence referendum and seems widespread irrespective of political affiliation.
Much of the success in public service reform will lie in the ability of leaders, teams and individuals to work collaboratively across the public, private and third sectors to build more equal, enabled and resilient communities. Like you say though, there’s ambivalence. Senior leaders know they have to collaborate but accountabilities and cultural norms get in the way. Consequently, middle managers receive mixed messages and are left to navigate the turbulent waters of collaboration.
My sense is that people draw external partners into their own organisational frame and view the objective of the collaboration from that perspective. If this frame is too rigid, barriers, blockages and stalemates abound. A greater emphasis is needed on preparing the ground and creating neutral space for more human conversations where people truly see and hear each other. Rumi’s quote creates a wonderful image in this respect:
“Beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I will meet you there”.
Maybe this is what you mean when you speak about closed and open ways of engaging. I’m excited already to read the next instalment……
Adam Kahane says
Thanks Eileen. Working this last week in Bangkok, my friend Sumit Champrasit observed that for many people “collaboration” means “you should do it my way.” So there’s some work to be done.
Anant G Nadkarni says
Yes Adam. I am with Rumi….your fundamental point that we expect Change from the other is a kind of arrogance. True. But I have encountered a bunch of preachers using big names to say Change begins with Me. And they are arrogant too. Like Rumi the Vedas treverse to a universal space. They say one should recognise Water in the Rain. And remember Rain when you see Water. This encourages one to build an alternate insight and this is needed at both sides to happen and could happen. From this one more thing can there is a possibility that we recognise we are all in some way One or the same.
Adam Kahane says
Hi Anant. I have just finished reading Arun Maira’a new book, “An Upstart in Government” and so have been thinking about our many conversations in Mumbai and Pune. I recognise both of the varieties of arrogance you refer to but do not understand the resolution you are suggesting: “Recognise Water in the Rain. And remember Rain when you see Water.” Could you explain more?
Anant G Nadkarni says
Okay. I need to say it better. When you see rain, look at the water in it. Or other ways as well. So you look deeper into ‘an enemy’ and see beyond for an ‘alternate possibility’! Gradually the ultimate possibility that we are from a more unified source might be that ‘third’ space you are talking about when quoting Rumi. It might seem simplistic, but it is about looking beyond what you are ‘used’ to or ‘conditioned’.
Charles M Lines says
Yes, people good at collaboration can manage seeming contradictions, as you say, they can ‘talk and fight’. They are good at managing paradoxes and gaining the benefits of both sides of them. They know they need to be open and closed; separate and together; predictable and unpredictable; directive and reflexive. They also know that they have to focus on short and long term issues at the same time. Not least they realise that the can be both powerful and powerless at one and the same time. I explore these paradoxes and how people can manage them within collaborative contexts here at page 57: https://www.scribd.com/doc/139247212/Sleeping-with-the-Enemy-Achieving-Collaborative-Success-Third-Edition
Adam Kahane says
This is great stuff Charles! I look forward to digging into it over the next few weeks. Thanks for pointing me to it.
Jed Kahane says
Hi Adam,
Wonderful to see you writing again from a very wide view that can touch your readers in any aspect of their lives, personal or professional.
Even we succeed in learning the value and the humanity in those we can’t seem “to work with”, and act with compassion to try to find new ways of communicating and collaborating, the most difficult question remains: When is it justifiable to simply walk away? If we believe in the theory and make it our practice to understand and include the “other” no matter how deep our differences, why would there ever be a point at which the hope of a breakthrough would no longer be valid, even with your worst enemy?
Looking forward to reading the resolution that that age-old riddle in a later chapter!
And, it’s admittedly a bit early in the game, but the Rumi quote posted by Eileen is so beautiful and so powerful; perhaps it will turn out to be a citation that can open the book!
Take care,
Jed
Adam Kahane says
Yes, I think a crucial capacity is to be able to discern when to collaborate and when not–i.e. when to try to avoid or destroy the other. Collaboration is not always the best option.
The epigram I am thinking of using is this:
“We find ourselves on different sides
Of a line nobody drew
Though it all may be one in the higher eye
Down here where we live it is two”
Leonard Cohen, Different Sides
Don says
This is a very interesting topic Adam, and I’m glad I came across this first post.
Your classification about there being an ‘open’ and ‘closed’ way towards collaboration is fascinating, given how these types of initiatives are now seen as required in most cases.
Even the framing is interesting, as most often, other groups in these collaborations are considered (or at least referred to as) stakeholders. Your naming them as enemies is provocative, but apt. From my experience, these initiatives are too often seen as an opportunity to have your position heard, as opposed to being part of developing a joint solution (in line with your view of the ‘closed way’). To me this means that there are both internal factors to consider (eg. what are the individual attributes that people can develop to focus on the ‘open way’) as well as external ones (eg. how can the collaboration be set up to enable an ‘open’ collaboration).
Looking forward to reading more about this in future posts!
Sibout Nooteboom says
Dear Adam,
This topic is really well chosen, and I am highly interested in your insights. Personally I am frequently involved in applying legal systems that create a transparency which makes people with contrasting interests more dependent of each other.The rules are usually there, but the implementation is scary. The question I often run in to is how to make people feel comfortable so they can admit some transparency and engage with the “enemy” in a situation where before power was so skewed that there was no need. For the first time they have a law behind them so they can demand transparency. The other side for the first time is forced to take the other into consideration. These rules relate to, in my case, environmental assessment of government decisions. I work in countries like Mali where government decisions about the use of resources have almost direct impact on security issues, power distribution is skewed, and the elite is mostly of good faith, yet distrusting. Help! What would you do? Best to you,
Adam Kahane says
Hi Sibout. I am not sure that I understand the type of situations you are referring to. But it does not surprise me that people feel uncomfortable when they are forced to engage with others whom they would prefer either to ignore or to dictate to. In this book I will offer some approaches to work through such uncomfortable situations.
Yvonne says
Hi Adam,
A big fan of your work and I’ve always appreciated your ability to be honest and share the limitations, as well as strengths of, that thing.
You’re tackling a huge piece of work that is under-researched (in the broadest sense) and from this first draft (which must be an interesting experiment in itself) you’ve broadly defined the points into two separate and extreme camps. I’m curious in all of your work, through all the different stages of development at what points they became either/or and other times the lesser of the two extremes. It’s interesting to also note that you haven’t mentioned, though it maybe in later drafts, what happens when the individual’s you trusted at the start becomes the enemy through the process and a) continue to be the enemy, b) revert back to the trusted or c) in between the two.
In your other pieces of work, you’ve typically added the contexts of how it started and the resulting consequences – it’d be useful to read more of that. I’d probably like to add/ask what have/are the conditions been for creating the space for action (talk and fight, or talk or fight) and how have you known you’ve created that space for ‘collaboration’ – which has been pointed out by your friend Sumit has different cultural interpretations. Furthermore what is it that others are engaging in/distancing from that is based not simply on simple marketing blag.
I’m not sure if this is where you’re planning to take your book – it sounds as if it could be a positive example of CPPD (Continuing Personal and Professional Development).
Its not clear if this is the type of feedback you’re looking for, hopefully its ok. Look forward to the next engagement and good use of blogging.
Adam Kahane says
These pointers to what you are looking for from the book are very helpful Yvonne–thank you. My current thinking (provoked by feedback from Betty Sue Flowers) is that what I have called the open way (maybe there will turn out to be a better term for it than that) is not so much a black vs. white alternative to the closed way as a complementary addition to it.
RalfLippold says
Dear Adam,
Quite a coincidence as tough citizen dialogue (if at all to be called at the moment) on the local refugee crisis and its impact on local society. For over a year now groups of people march through the city of Dresden on the notion of “Pegida” (“Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes”). Over the course of the time several attempts by civil society and government bodies have been undertaken to get into some form of dialogue.
Up to the present day the positions during such events has grown stronger, often resulting in a denying of talking with someone of the counter community.
How to start? That’s the question that is with me all the time.
Adam Kahane says
Dear Ralf: Thank you for reminding me of this basic and crucial question! Adam
Marie-Claire says
That’s a very interesting topic and I am looking forward to translate your new book !
I have always thought that your writings should be put on a blog for discussion.
Very good that Berrett-Koehler agreed.
Maybe it would be better in smaller pieces and on a daily basis, like daily meditations, for a lively conversation.
Are you aware of Arnold Mindell’s Process Work ? The idea is to use conflict and learn from it instead of avoiding it.
In a single one hour “process”, it is possible to have a complete view of the situation, with the forces in play, the ghosts, etc…
(I am currently learning this technique).
Thank you for the work you are doing and your dedication.
Adam Kahane says
Thanks Marie-Claire. I am aware of and admire Arnold Mindell’s work, including as I know it through Myrna Lewis’ version. I also see the need to use rather than avoid conflict–and find this challenging.
Adrian Wagner says
Thanks for this great adventure Adam!
Listening to the audio Book “Power and Love” was a great experience and showed me how important those two components are in dealing with transformation and change. Therefore, I am not surprised by your new project – enemies are those were we have clear imbalance usually of power and love or a dysfunctional, sometimes abusive relationship with. What comes up (very short) is – action logics or value systems as researched by developmental psychology (Graves, Beck, Cook-Greuter and others) – how do I hold an openness and how am I able to take a stand back from my values/believes/worldviews to openly listen or act? In my limited understanding once I am able to open up and don’t defend my way of thinking and living something happens – or i do defend it very consciously and from a place of respect for the person (maybe not for the actions). On the other hand an interesting example from the african tradition is Indaba and how it helped to make the Paris Summit a success: http://qz.com/572623/this-simple-negotiation-tactic-brought-195-countries-to-consensus-in-the-paris-climate-talks/
Hugo Diogo says
Dear Adam,
Without doubt you are working on a very important and hard issue. Congrats.
I am wondering that the conversation with the enemy is a task presenting during all human history. A first concept in my mind about that is respect. Even you not like or agree with the other, is it possible develop a relation based on the respect. Some kings and leaders in the past, in wars situations, based their relationships in a respect way. Richard Sennet from Chicago wrote a book about respect in a gradient of differences. Maybe could be interesting for you.
The second reflection to share is about the amazing tendency for the polarization. In the nature systems as well as in the human systems. The dualism (right x wrong; beauty x ugly, win x lose, etc) seems to drive our ways to think and act pushing us to the one side of corner. For me win, you need lose. For me to get what I want you need be attack and destroy. Something like that. Some philosophers said that there are something between the polos: in the middle there is the correct opinion. How manage and avoid the extremes? It seems linked with your new book.
Thanks for the opportunity.
Adam Kahane says
Thanks Hugo. Yes I see the need to transcend polarization as central to this work, and have been greatly inspired by Barry Johnson’s work on this. I will look up Sennet’s work, which I do not know.
James Taylor says
Hi Adam
I appreciate being invited to join in this important exploration. The part of your intro that connects most directly to experience and work at the moment is your questioning of the relationship between the larger-scale “political collaborations” and the small-scale “personal” ones. This becomes particularly significant when linked to your suggestion that the ‘open way’ includes change in oneself as central. My work in recent years has taken me into numerous organisations dedicated to (and highly skilled and successful in) affecting change in the larger-scale political dynamics of the societies and systems they are a part of, and failing in creatively managing diverse contributions and relationships that make their own organisations. This makes your theme of particular importance to the more activist, social justice organisations who play such a crucial role as catalysts for change, but in the process unintentionally reinforce the organisational forms and practices that promote “othering” rather than more effective collaboration. My sense is that the importance of change to self should be approached not only from an individual, but equally importantly, from an organisational perspective. Organisations changing the world without changing themselves are limiting their impact in the same way. I share completely the experience that the closer change gets to self, the more difficult it becomes. My experience also suggests (as you seem to do so well) that the big shifts in the practice come from learning close to home.
Looking forward to more
James
Adam Kahane says
Thanks for this contribution James. What you say about the organizational part of the story makes perfect sense and yet I was not focused on that. Cheers, Adam
José A Bucci Casari says
James, I completely endorse your experience regarding internal changes in, not only big companies, as well small ones too. We have a saying – pepper upon thy neighbour’s eyes won’t hurt you.
regards
Andrew Russell says
I love the concept for this new book. Very timely. I’m looking forward to reading along as it comes together.
Thanks for taking us along on this new journey.
All the best,
Andrew
Karen Verburgh says
Hi Adam,
Thank you for sharing this with us. And thanks everyone else, for sharing your thoughts and experiences.
I watch out for times when I reproach someone for something, and want the other person to change. When I explore my inner territory I usually find that I exhibit that reproachable behaviour, often towards myself.
As you write (in other words): the people and situations we come across in life are mirrors. Are we willing to look into these and see ourselves? Especially the “ugly” mirrors?
The increasing recognised need that we have to “collaborate with our enemies” to find solutions to problems that are too big to solve “alone” shows us something similar: how as humans we have disconnected and messed up on so many levels. If we dare to look into that mirror.
I think that this era’s theme is (re)connecting.
Dialogues that allow for everything to be spoken and to be heard are needed, including the difficult things: the things that we fight about. They should be alternated with inner dialogues: within myself as a person, and within our own group/community/organisation etc.
The challenge: are we courageous enough and willing to look in the mirror?
And, let’s try to get to the root cause of whatever we are saying/thinking: why are we saying/thinking it? That is where we reconnect.
The biggest question for me, on all levels (personal relationships to global challenges) is: what is needed to get people to dialogue? Which conditions invite people to the dialogue space?
Many thanks again Adam, and all other contributors, I look forward to more!
Karen.
Adam Kahane says
Thank you very much for this, Karen, including the image of the ugly mirror. Yes I agree that reconnection is essential. But I will put forth in the next installment I will post (at the end of January) that not only connecting but also asserting (not only talking but also fighting; not only love but also power) are required.
Karen Verburgh says
Thank you Adam, and I completely agree. Connecting and asserting go hand in hand. Asserting cannot be done properly without connecting, and true connection requires showing up completely, including all the “ugliness” and asserting. Looking forward to your next instalment!
Anaí Linares says
Thank you dear Adam for sharing an opening this space. Personally, I do not understand as an enemy, someone I don´t like, trust or agree with. For me, an enemy is someone that can harm me; in this case, fear becomes the biggest challenge. In order to collaborate with people I don´t like or trust or agree with, I need to understand that they are part of the system or problem, and it would be stupid from my side just to ignore them. What I want to say here is that the drivers -in my case- are different for enemies than for “those others”. Abrazo.
Adam Kahane says
Thanks for this helpful feedback Anai.
My thinking is that in different contexts, we use different words for these people from whom we are differentiated ourselves: others, rivals, competitors, opponents, enemies. It’s like to joke about the conjugation of irregular verbs, such as “I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool.” The enemyizing equivalent is “I see things differently, you are wrong, she is the enemy.” The enemyizing syndrome is important because it makes collaboration more difficult—even impossible.
I will post my next installment, “Chapter 1: Collaborating Is Not Always the Best Option,” on February 1.
Al says
Hello Adam
As so many comments have suggested this is a topic that needs to be addressed and I completely support you in this most important venture.
My sense is that because we seek meaning in everything we do we love to fill in the blanks when we perceive someone as the “enemy” that could threaten our own self worth or the worth of the culture, society,tribe or neighborhood we belong to. Once we label them the “enemy” we kindle a lot of internal, conscious and unconscious dialogue to justify that. At the simplest level perhaps if we start with acknowledging these behaviors exist and that they lay fertile ground for us saying things like, “I could never work with those people” we might be able to take the next step. If I believe I could never work with a person like Adam, start by acknowledging those feelings as being real for you. This is awareness and it is OK to have those feelings.
The next step, application whereby one moves to a place that could allow oneself to have the possibility of working with that organization, person or political party is where the real challenge lies. There are certainly some mental gymnastics required and my judgement would be that there are not many people who can. Julie Diamond (Oregon) has some interesting ideas around “productive conflict” where you acknowledge its OK to have conflict might be an interesting starting point.
This is a very complex subject, but we need someone courageous enough to speak to it. Thank-you.
Cheers
alain ruche says
Hello Adam,
Thanks for this, for this opening and invitation for us being on board (:)).
– I used on several occasions on my job the expression (a remix!) of ‘The power of unlike minds’;
– An open way indeed does not force a consensus, even does not intend to maximize it. I worked on the concept on a MINIMUM consenus (at the EU), which CREATES space for flexibility, improvisation and experimentation
– The role of cultural factors should be underlied from then start: well-known reminder but useful, I beleive;
– I guess you will underline the critical aspects of sensemaking (or meaningmaking) and if they can be taught (MIT Sloan says yes, but there are necessary complementary actions);
– More generally speaking, I am referring to the necessity of a complexity apprach: I have a humble experience of 5 years in the field (with little success, hum) at the EU, which I am ready to share informally;
– An open process means to learn feeling comfortable with the unknow.
best
a
Colleen Walker says
Adam, as you say, we spend our entire lives working with this question. At times we do so in a very structured and conscious way but usually not. It’s at the heart of any personal practice – duality. Even the word “enemy” is so emotionally charged it sets in play a series of internal responses. People like Ken Wilber are talking about and experimenting with “Evolutionary We Spaces”. This is perhaps new language for a way of being together that most of us have been experimenting with for a long time … personal and group consciousness can and does evolve. We know and have experienced that. For me it’s how quickly and effectively it happens, and the practices that enable it. Thankfully many are working on this because the more who do, the greater and faster the shift. I’m reminded of two stories you told at ALIA. I think both are quoted in your books and provide insight.
1. Finding the bones of a baby in a mass grave … the still, chilling and quieting effect that had on the group … likely some internal felt sense that allowed the conversation to shift.
2. In South Africa the two sides going for a walk in nature, in pairs … the experience of being able to see beyond belief system and reaction.
I once received some simple advice from a colleague regarding a co-worker I was constantly in conflict with. Watch him, I was told, and watch all the times you see him doing something kind and helpful for others. Then ask yourself if the stories you have created and tell yourself about him distort and misrepresent all of what he is. And we all do this, all the time … we all add it to the field. And thankfully some do the opposite but with the intense amount of chaos and conflict on the planet, the balance is way off.
So yes, talk and fight; accept what is but remain open; experiment and fail and learn. But how can we do this better? Engage in an integral approach to rewiring our hard-wiring … neuroplasticity … and do it with others. Because ultimately the goal is to evolve consciousness to access something different than what we can intellectualize. It’s a practice. And realize the second something is resolved, it will start to unravel and or requires another level of evolution.
Adam Kahane says
Thank you Colleen. I will try to elaborate further on the practices required.
Jeff Barnum says
Hey Adam,
I’ve read both installments so far; thanks for sharing them. I assume you’re at least a little familiar with Marshall Rosenberg’s notion of the “enemy image.” If not he has written a short essay here — http://goo.gl/ADtyFR . Highly recommended. My own two cents: when we name people “enemies” or “others,” we initiate the “closed way” you describe. Granted, to do otherwise probably requires a worldview shift. Hopefully you can help us see it.
Good luck with the book! Looking forward to reading more!
Jeff Barnum says
A bit more: I’m touched especially by your self-reflection in the next to the last paragraph. This rings very true for me as I have much firsthand experience of the dilemma you describe 🙂 But then I was surprised by your next, concluding paragraph. The “closed way” you describe is conventional, obvious, familiar — and also deeply flawed, not only because it doesn’t work with enemies; it also serves the status quo. It entrenches the very things that underneath the surface actually want to change.
In my mind, the “closed way” of collaboration only seems to serve only our “closed interests.” It serves the interests of an already closed (or formed, shaped, determined, fixed) mind and heart. So it’s not just that it doesn’t work with enemies. It doesn’t work with friends, business partners, or colleagues. It asserts a rule in the game: either I win (and we stay in this relationship) or I lose (and in that case the relationship is over). In other words, it turns a possible friendship sour; it betrays. It is a battle of shadows.
The “open way” is, for me, no less clear. It is a creative process, meaning that although one cannot see the outcome at the beginning (as imagined for example in a “plan”), there are clear steps and clear terrain. But it’s a different mentality, I’ll grant you that. Looking forward to reading more!
Adam Kahane says
Thanks for your comment Jeff. For me a crucial question is whether what I referred to in the draft you read as “the closed way” (maybe it should be called “the black and white way”) is useful in certain situations (e.g. ordinary or simple ones) or is never useful.
I am currently characterizing this “closed way” as follows:
– Work only with people you agree with and like and trust
– Choose talking instead of fighting
– Reach consensus on the problem and the solution
– Execute an agreed plan to implement the solution
– Focus on changing the situation you are in
Alper Utku says
Dear Adam
Really inspired with your new book and even more inspired with your writing out loud. I love the quality of interaction here. Building on the life changing Rumi quote earlier, we easily become enemy of what we don’t know. So collaborating with the enemy should be a generative process as our ‘enemy’ship should disappear as soon as we start to engage and collaborate with each other .
I will look forward to reading more!
Cheers
Alper
Dr S Kulshrestha says
Dear Adam, I have been an admirer of your work and fully endorse your views regarding working with the “enemy” to achieve long lasting peace. If I may, kindly re-look at para beginning with ‘ I knew from my own work…….’ I found it a bit difficult to understand, may be you could simplify it a bit.
Congratulations for undertaking a tough subject for your book. I would be delighted to pitch in my two bits where ever I can. Best of regards!