Exercise 3: Listen to Examples

[Joshua]

Exercise 3:

Please post your reflections from “listening to examples,” doing the exercise of listening to the Spodek Method practiced all the way through, both conversations at least five times. Please address some of the questions on page 43 of the workbook.

[Ariella]

Exercise 3

Listened to Tony Hansen part 1 and 2. I was surprised and respected how OPEN Tony was to the entire conversation given his professional and personal exposure. I enjoyed hearing Josh discuss some of the same ideas I have been reading in his new book. I could hear that Tony has previously done a lot of personal/spiritual reflection and that seemed to prepare him for being open minded and game. He is already in the choir? I was interested that his self challenge to volunteer maintaining a trail turned out to be as much about him discovering and investing in community as sustainability. We too often silo individual/ community/ environment, pitting them at odds against each other. I hope that is false thinking. With a mind shift can we genuinely say, what’s best for me is also what’s best for the community and environment and vice versa all ways around?

Details from the interview brought up a lot of thoughts and feeling for me, and as usual I may be jumping the gun. (I’m an impatient and pragmatic person). What is our measure of sustainability? Building and maintaining trails supports a local connection to the environment which is a positive! But, if the trail network invites flying vacations and nature deprived tech professionals to move to Bend and commute to SF and Silicon Valley from the local Bend airport then… I also got hung up on his description of stewardship in Patagonia. Is long distance eco tourism and stewardship best for the individual/ community/ AND environment?

[Christof]

Listenig to episodes

While in the later episodes it was almost possible to predict “soon he’s gonna ask” as Josh prepaired the stage, in the earlier episodes (when Peter and the Wolf were still around), it was sometimes like a “foot in the door” or a clumsy brute force approach, seeming not elegant or smoooth/fitting into the conversation.
There also was a difference that some guests knew what is coming.

A reaccurring pattern was talking abot how it went for otheres and that it became an invitation, up for the guest to decide if they want to.
it also changed from “doing something for the environment” to “doing something that will evoke these feelings”, which seemed a lot more inviting and guests repeatadly stated that they like the no-pressure/not being tld what to do approach.
As Josh also often mentions, the easy committement for one thing, often leads to other things (from “recycling” to “avoiding waste/packaging altogether”.
In a way I am excited assiting others and nudging them, at the same time it feels strange to take this role without being asked/invited to do so, as many people might still think that i want them to do something. And of course they are partly right about this, even though from my side it’s more of a hope, and motivated by me being motivated by their benefit.
I will need to figure ot how to be ok with doing this.

[Ivette]

Tony Hansen: Part I

“When you do something you don’t have to do.” I feel the same way when I do something just because. I am not looking for validation, monetary rewards, or expecting something in return. I do it because it makes me feel good and, most importantly, makes the receiving party happy. This like many podcasts I imagine because I’ve only heard this one is a perfect example of the Spodek Method. It wasn’t just a question, answer, question, answer, and so on. The conversation flowed smoothly, which is my goal.

I had the opportunity to have conversations with three young college grads. I have to say it went better than I expected, at least when I reached the third person, Emile. He shared his experience in Massachusetts when he volunteered on a farm. He said it was one of the most wonderful experiences he’s had. Emile shared sensory memories, such as how the earth felt in his hands, the way it smelled and the rain on his skin. Emotions that came to mind were feelings of oneness, belongingness, connection, and peace. I asked the first question and he pretty much filled in the rest. I had to nudge him on the last question because he only expressed one emotion.

[Alexandra]

I noticed a few effective things in how Josh spoke to guests: the focus on connecting with the guest’s experience, elements of positive reinforcement, focus on intrinsic motivation, and adding accountability to the commitment.

The commitment question is prefaced by saying how “It’s not about what is the biggest thing you can do; what does the NYT say you should do? It doesn’t have to be big, it doesn’t have to be small.” To me, this statement emphasizes that it’s not about fixing the world but about internal motivation, which is extremely effective in not overwhelming people when they begin brainstorming ideas for their commitment. It also keeps the options for commitment wide open to the guest’s interpretation (for example, Alexandra Paul’s focus on cooking).

Josh frequently used positive reinforcement and personal connection throughout the conversations to build up to the commitment, which created natural momentum for people to get excited about taking action. I think the verbiage used and how the questions are framed create a sense of psychological safety that helps people open up and get creative about their commitments.

I’m excited to try it out!

[Author]

Posts