I remember reading some partnership letters from Nick Sleep and Zak Zakaria’s Nomad Fund. In one of them, a shareholder was complaining about a particular investment that Nomad ventured into which was based in Zimbabwe. The shareholder’s main complaint? That Zimbabwe did bad things and it was immoral to support any investment in that country.
Sleep and Zakaria’s response though was the opposite of what you’d think. Instead of pulling capital, they remained invested in this company; they (I think rightly) reasoned that the only way to affect change is to remain engaged with the party whose mindset you’d like to shift.
What? No canceling? No scapegoating? No scorched earth?
No, the answer is simply to remain in communication. Understand the other side’s perspective and perhaps find a way to “grow the pie.”
Stuart Diamond, author of the book “Getting More” and famed negotiations instructor at Wharton business school, says the same thing. When an opposing party wants to leave the room after things get heated, he often says words to the effect of, “Yes, you can leave and you’ll be fine. But if you stay in this room, you’ll probably get more.” More of what you want and more of what you didn’t even know you wanted but later found out you wanted through continued engagement.
Is it possible that we’ve been approaching human affairs all wrong lately? Can we gain more as a society by staying in communication versus shunning opposition? Asking questions versus spewing bitter diatribes? Staying on the court versus cancelling the game altogether?
I think the answer is obvious.
One Ladder Project 