Saying the Wrong Thing | Simon Sinek
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- NOTE: This video was originally uploaded on May 6th 2022. It's been re-uploaded without music, as per the request of the commenters.
It's better to go slow in the right direction than speeding off in the wrong direction.
+ +
Simon is an unshakable optimist. He believes in a bright future and our ability to build it together.
Described as “a visionary thinker with a rare intellect,” Simon has devoted his professional life to help advance a vision of the world that does not yet exist; a world in which the vast majority of people wake up every single morning inspired, feel safe wherever they are and end the day fulfilled by the work that they do.
Simon is the author of multiple best-selling books including Start With Why, Leaders Eat Last, Together is Better, and The Infinite Game.
+ +
Website: simonsinek.com/
Live Online Classes: simonsinek.com/...
Podcast: apple.co/simons...
Instagram: / simonsinek
Linkedin: / simonsinek
Twitter: / simonsinek
Facebook: / simonsinek
Simon’s books:
The Infinite Game: simonsinek.com....
Start With Why: simonsinek.com....
Find Your Why: simonsinek.com...
Leaders Eat Last: simonsinek.com....
Together is Better: simonsinek.com....
+ +
#SimonSinek
Brilliant insightful wisdom as always , thank you .
This channel is a real find.
Thank you very much because I made a horrible horrible first Short. Then I heard sound, then it went away 😔😔😭😭
That’s true. As a leader, we have to learn to say things even if it hurts. Hurt is a key to breakthrough. 🔥
Thank you for your inspiration and your useful information ❤
Yes ! Hopefully!
Yes Simon!❤️
People assume I should know these communication skills "naturally" (probably because I'm a woman), but it wasn't until I learned sales, NLP, and public speaking on my own that I got to build both professional and personal relationships.
These "soft skills" should honestly be taught in grade school, but glad people like Simon puts it out there! Life changing.🙏
That's exactly what I think
There is another useful tool, that I have found incredibly useful over the years. It is the idea of a "longitudinal conversation". Where a complex or emotionally triggering or politically sensitive subject is not finished and completed in one 10 minute conversation or 30 minute meeting. It is the idea or concept that is so scary or confronting that people are scared of talking about it or confronting, so they try and avoid it, but they know that it is going to open a storm of emotions or consequences. So, people tip around the sleeping bear, hoping to not wake them. Some others realise they are going to have to wake the bear, so how to do you appease a bear that has been woken too soon from hibernation? Porridge, honey, comfy shoes, nice armchair? How to introduce that "bad" subject? "Leave a note or report and run?" Or flag, "I need to talk to you about something, but you are not going to be happy." Or your protective parents are about to find out you have a partner "Hey, you know how you always wanted me to find someone I liked?..." Titbits are left. Some to appease, some to inch open the door - but not let a blasting draft or gale extinguish the fire or bring on either hypothermia or the house burning down. So, a bit later, maybe somewhere private while you are doing dishes. "So, you know that conversation about Kelly last week?" "Yeh." "Would you like to meet Kelly next week to see if you like them? I know you want to protect me, but Kelly seems really nice, and I would like you to like them too." Much of modern culture is based on newspaper writing. Make sure you engage the reader in the first few words and get your point across before you lose their attention. This construct is fine if you are in a war or on a battlefront, there is lots of data coming in, you need to know where the good guys are and where the baddies you want to defend and/or take out. It is terrible for building relationships, building peace, innovation, restoration, finding solutions, healing old wounds, appeasing grievances. Some people are addicted to conflict and posturing - their reputation and wealth are based on playing this way and doing it better than most. (One deplorable trick is being really good at co-opting spies (knowingly or otherwise) to recognise where there is a change threat and work out their vulnerabilities to "take them out". Much of commercial business, autocrat posturing is based on this divvy up system. While successful, the inherent conflict paradigm of the process means it is incapable or recognizing the whole game is at risk of collapse. As we have seen in the most recent Australian election (held 21 May 2022) and Putin's disastrous campaign against Ukraine - the "insider game" creates a blind spot. Bearers of bad news or bad results are "lost", "eliminated", "excluded", so the autocrat is caught up in their delusion (fostered by their (priestly) enablers) and blind to the realities of what is really going on. When you are operating in "crux" times (where the old rules are proven failures, but no one knows what the viable new rules are) then two things happen. Those who are used to structure, being in control, the winners, clamp down with aggression and force to prove "they are the powerful ones". Those who know the paradigms are failing (they have already been excluded, marginalised, persecuted) are already working on the new solutions and the new paradigms. This is where longitudinal conversation comes in. Those who want to be in control, but their control paradigms are failing are either going to tantrum into war and apocalypse; or be replaced by the more moderate leaders able to understand the new paradigms. The new moderate leaders are engaging in the longitudinal conversations - with the regenerative agriculturalists; the indigenous peoples who understand their ecosystems and how to keep them sustainable; the marginalized and oppressed who have worked out how to create stable nurturing communities; the visionaries and mystics who have been watching the threads and working out which ones will weave best this way or that. Longitudinal conversations start with a basic precept - that the wellbeing of all parties is what is important. Then the working out how to do that, so that no one is left behind is negotiated. The truly visionary understand it is not one solution, one paradigm, one technique - but rather (just as in nature) the more options and niches then the more complexity and resiliency -the more stability and viability. Not stability of guaranteeing that this particular water molecule will sit "here" in "this" solution, but rather that a water molecule is like to end up somewhere in a viable ecosystem within a living biosphere rather than in a wasteland swamp or atomized due to nuclear reactions.
What was this craziness of frontline workers getting all the training they need?
Ive said the wrong thing lately and reflected on it after and felt that people have misunderstood what im saying in a situation which could bite me in the ass so to speak.
You talk about GF too much. Unsubscribed.
Thank you! Your words have always made me pause and try to process my emotions and thoughts before reacting. You uploaded this on a day where I genuinely am struggling to figure out how not to say the wrong thing, be vulnerable with my leader and maybe gain some leadership skills of my own. Thanks again!
Thank you. I had to listen to this atleast 6 times. Lots of deep reaching thoughts shared in less than 3 mins. The next step is how to get leaders to be curious about those in the org 'below' them. I see so much unlock and time savings.
What did that have to do with my problem though I was trying to wing it but didn't happen
"share more the process" not directly how you think happened.
Dear Mr. Sinek. Can you please make English subtitle in your videos? So that other people from outside English speaking countries may have benefit understand more from your great ideas. It is hard to just hear English rather than read it, especially if the talk is fast. Thank you before, mr. Sinek.
Do you see the CC icon on the video? That's the subtitle
Click on description section and go to the bottom- they include a transcript automatically now😁
We live in da past with all the problems and no solutions 🤫
big trigger - "it's nothing personal" or "it's just business". The exec using such phrases has no interest in the person opposite.
I am teaching international conflicts in a college and the topic of "reconciliation" is coming up. What you said here should be important in my class. Thanks!
There is no such thing as saying the wrong wrong thing. It depends on whether you are being honest or deceitful. There is honest open communication. Which is supposed to be two way. Then there is deceitful manipulative communication, which is one way. As it does not take In to account the others views or rights. Just circumvents the issues.
Example
If my kids were sport mad and one strict diet what has that got to do with what I eat or drink. As long as I took into account their needs and guide and protect them like a good parent should. What is the problem.
The murder of GF should not have been talked about in the workplace. Not the place.
Perhaps not the murder but the circumstance. Don't discuss the effect or symptoms. Discuss the disease.
@@RaZeyLWindBladE No. Don't discuss any of it. It's completely policial and has no place in the workplace.
@@jeremysmith9694 there's nothing political talking about the humanity of the situation. The circumstances of it. Its talking about being human. That's what I meant; talk about the disease, not the symptoms. The question here is then gonna be : can we talk without an agenda? Because the inability to have hard discussion with critical thinking is what is making the symptom more widespread than ever.
Business Exec: "This is how we've always done it"
Simon: "I'm feeling triggered!"
S/S. Saying nothing says something sir ! Try not to use examples of your past, as past is a four letter word-avoid mista ? V
The only Sin is ignorance, the only Evil is the perpetuation of ignorance. Power thrives on both.
Thanks for this. People gain through being intentional, not perfect.
Translation for your vidéos. Please!
Thank you alot Sir. This is really insightful
Fous moi la paix
How can I learn how to teach this?
De-esculating ones own trigger.
I think is something everyone needs to hear.
We all demand too be told the truth, that people should be honest, but so few people are willing to accept what is being said because suddenly it outside their own world view. If you want people to speak the truth,learn how to listen to it.
WOW.
Thank You Much 😊
The biggest red flag 😅
Good video again
Great ideas bro
So true!!!
You lost me at GF. The politics surrounding that are gross and don’t belong in the workplace.
At the heart of business is people.
Many of the problems that come from business, and really all conflict, comes from an inability to see each other as people, and try to understand and sympathize with each other’s motives. A simple mention of George Floyd shouldn’t trigger a “doesn’t belong in the workplace.” People are still people, it’s wrong to put aside and make it taboo for the sake of “getting the job done.”
@@natebee3362 Doesn't belong in the workplace.
@@jeremysmith9694 in what way does a civil discussion about systemic racism and injustice make you a less-capable worker? "The workplace" should encourage personal growth.
@@natebee3362 "systemic racism and injustice" are highly subjective, hot button, political terms. They do no belong in the workplace. It would be like having a discussion about abortion. It has little if anything to do with the work of the company and its employees. For example, if I worked for Simon, his opinion about GF has nothing to do with my work and I don't need to hear his opinion every time he talks.
@@jeremysmith9694 "systemic racism and injustice" is more than just "highly subjective, hot button, political terms." To see it that way is to misrepresent the argument. It is a fact that people in low-income neighborhoods were hit hardest by the pandemic, it is a fact that those low-income neighborhoods are racially profiled, and it is a fact that those circumstances are a result of racist generational practices/biases.
Just because a subject does not directly pertain to the "business" doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a concern of the firm. Disney is traditionally known for making entertainment. Your argument might be that they have no business in LGBTQ+ advocacy. "Gay marriage has nothing to do with making movies." But their entertainment media has influence. Representing LGBTQ+ groups in their media does pertain to their business. It's not so much about the specific example, but the principle of business. What employees care about should ultimately also be what the leaders care about.
Everything is connected. Another example might be climate change. Being environmentally conscious is important. Not further polluting the planet is important. Even if the job is a desk job, shifting papers and reviewing documents, there is an opportunity for voices to speak out against wasteful paper practices.
To a greater degree, you can also make the argument that there simply shouldn't be people doing that job. If performing your job harms others, where another business might be able to do otherwise, it might simply be best for everyone NOT to work at a given firm.
Conversation drives people to be better. Especially in the workplace, where you are likely to be exposed to different views than that of your own circle, conversation is important. Civil discussion makes people smarter. Smarter workers are better for "the workplace" overall, even if it might be bad for a certain firm.
I understand that there is a need to focus on work when it's time to focus. You can't multitask working a legal case while trying to debate Kantian ethics. However, to say that conversation doesn't belong in the workplace, ever, can only lead to worse things. Not having conversation is a detriment to the idea of "the workplace."
Not to mention, we spent 1/3 of our lives working. 1/3 of our lives is spent at our job. I might argue it is fundamentally wrong to ask people give up their autonomy to have conversations for a whole 1/3 of their life. Humans are people, not robots. They should not be reduced to mere objects that only serve a purpose of fulfilling their given task.
We don't mandate public education, or encourage kids to go to college, because they need to learn what it directly in their classes. The best students, the cogs in this analogy, will ultimately fail to succeed in college, even with a 4.0. The purpose of college is not simply to learn the textbook material. The purpose of a well-designed job/career is not simply to perform your given task. Even custodial workers aren't just told to clean toilets and vaccuum; they are asked to pursue the goal of keeping things clean, tidy. That's not limited to just two tasks.
Being a generally well-rounded person makes you a capable worker. Having these conversations, even if they don't seem particularly relevant to your job, does have an impact on your ability to do your job. Angry, trigger-happy cops with issues going on at home don't perform their job well. We have a limit to how much we can simply "set aside" when we don our uniforms. It is a fact.
I hope that you can see a bit of what I'm getting at here. It might not always be the time or place to have a conversation, but there should be a time and place, in the workspace.
' .. 🥰🥰