As I facilitate discussions around the world, I’ve come to learn what makes for a truly successful discussion that results in substantive change versus an outcome that simply keeps status quo or gets people to begrudgingly agree with something. The former generates engagement, while the latter simply generates consensus.
What’s the difference between generating consensus and engagement? Generating consensus is getting everyone to agree to go in a certain direction — “Sure, that sounds OK to me,” they say — and then everyone moves that way.
Engagement, on the other hand, is about understanding why, buying into the why, and charging forward at 100 miles an hour behind that why.
Consensus isn’t bad. We need some consensus in our lives. That ability to get everyone to say “yes” is a great skill to have BUT (used for dramatic effect, because I should never use this word!) when we need real buy-in — when we need people to fully commit and push towards a goal — we need engagement. And engagement comes from genuine conversation and understanding, not just from agreement.
Getting there isn’t easy, though. Getting people engaged often requires an outsider who can shed light on the commonalities in what’s being discussed.
People usually have more similarities in their goals than differences, but they often see it as a complete adversarial situation — “there’s NO way we’re giving into THEM,” I often hear. In these cases, no one is committed to engaging because they see it as taking a weaker position.
If you use outside engagement in the form of a facilitator, nobody must take a weaker position.
So how do you arrive at getting people engaged? Grant them some ownership over the outcome. The idea, campaign, or strategy that comes out of it isn’t the most important piece; the ownership is. When it’s their idea, they’ll be fully committed, self-adjusting, and tweaking as needed. You might work hard for the boss’s idea, but you will literally run through a wall for your own idea.
The tricky part is when people slide into thinking they’re being manipulated into agreeing with a certain idea. Nothing about this is manipulation; it’s about clarity. The distinction between manipulation and clarity is massive, and it often comes down to intent. If your intent is to show that your idea is the right one, that’s manipulation. If your intent is to have everyone believe in the path forward, that’s clarity — and having someone who knows how to help you generate it is invaluable.
