What does an introverted accountant know about The Art of Discussion?

Many of you may wonder why an introverted accountant has written a book on The Art of Discussion. I could chastise you for a lazy stereotype and tell you to read my book – which you should do obviously!!!?However, take me back to when I was in school, university or the early days of my career, and I would have laughed if anyone tried to suggest that this would be the title of my first book, and presumed it was outrageous sarcasm. I was an unashamed numbers geek, and there is no doubt, that drove my choice of career.

All these years later, I have certainly not lost my enthusiasm for a heavy dose of number-crunching, but I have come to the disturbing realisation that my complicated spreadsheets and detailed analysis are only of interest to me and my fellow bean counters. What matters is not the numbers themselves, but how I can bring them to life in the subsequent discussions and use them to guide and inform the decisions that are taken. I know I do not always have the operational expertise, the strategic knowledge or the market understanding that the business experts may hold, so I can’t make the decisions for them. But I can bring insight and information that empowers them to make the right choices, and the conversations that we have make both of us stronger. Ultimately, my passion for numbers has therefore evolved into a passion for intellectual, engaging and insightful discussions that share information, transform understanding and combine the diverse powers of those involved.

?So having produced a bit of Excel magic, what is needed to stimulate the wonderful discussions that release the potential? Primarily, it starts with the purpose and personalisation that I mentioned in my last posting. I need to know what we are trying to achieve and then I need to tailor my insight to the people who will be in the discussion. This doesn’t sound too complicated does it? But the reality is that whilst I may have celebrated President Zelensky for doing this so well, most of us are terrible at it, including people who really should be experts!!!! Purpose often gets lost on the way as we go off at a tangent, but perhaps even more often, we are too convinced we are correct to make the effort to personalise our argument.

Focusing on personalisation, our failings are perfectly demonstrated in the discussions that we see on the world stage in relation to the environment. Compared to the 1980s when drastic protests were needed to get people to pay attention, we have come a long way on climate change awareness. Conferences are held at regular intervals involving the leaders from all over the world who affirm their belief in the importance of the issues, and their commitment to the actions they plan to take. However, there is still not that much progress being made. Despite the talk, there are a significant minority who just don’t believe it and perhaps even more importantly, there is a bigger minority (probably even a majority!) who are not sufficiently motivated to take action or make any real sacrifices. We focus all the blame on the intransigence of the non-believers, but a major factor is the approach taken by campaigners for two key reasons:

1. There is no discussion, because it is has become socially unacceptable to be a “climate change denier” and so a lot of people just nod along and pretend. As such, we do not get to hear why people are unconvinced or have the chance to listen and learn what may help to change their mind. If we want to get our message across, we need to engage the people who are not yet convinced in discussion and not just dismiss them as stupid; and
2. Separately, or as a consequence of the above, all methods of communication are preaching to the converted. In other words, the arguments are compelling to those who already believe, but they often fail to resonate with disbelievers and fail to motivate the wider public to make sacrifices. We have all seen enough people chaining themselves to trees and buildings and roads, and we have all been told enough times that it is “our last chance to save the world”. If these tactics haven’t convinced us yet, then whacking us again with the same hammer is going to have the same inconsequential impact.

?This example highlights a couple of key messages that we should all reflect upon:

1. However strong is our purpose, we must never lose respect for people who disagree with us and take the time to listen to them and learn from them. Listening is not just about changing our mind, even if we should always be open to that, but is also about learning why others think the way they do.
2. However right we think we are, we still need good arguments to persuade other people who think differently to change their mind. We therefore need to tailor our arguments to the people we are talking to, something that is incredibly difficult to do if we don’t take the time to listen to them and try to find out why they disagree.

Both of these points boil down to the same key message:

We will always have more impact if we listen.

So as you’re preparing for your next difficult discussion, however right you are, and however amazing is your metaphorical spreadsheet, focus your efforts on the other people in the room. What do they think? Why do they think that? Can they teach me anything I don’t know? And how can I get across my knowledge, information, views or ideas in the most impactful way?

James Wyatt

CFO at Our Future Health and Author of The Art of Discussion