Leading Change

Today I share my deeply lovely conversation with the amazing Esther Derby, Author, Coach and author of, most recently, “7 Rules for Positive, Productive Change.”

Esther started her career as a programmer, and has worn many hats, including business owner, internal consultant and manager. From all these perspectives, one thing became clear: our level of individual, team and company success was deeply impacted by our work environment and organizational dynamics. As a result, she has spent the last twenty-five years helping companies design their environment, culture, and human dynamics for optimum success.

She's a founder of the AYE Conference, and is serving her second term as a member of the Board of Directors for the Agile Alliance. She also was one of the three original founders of the Scrum Alliance.

Esther has an MA in Organizational Leadership and a certificate in Human System Dynamics.

We discuss Systems thinking in problem solving, the cobra effect, Clock time vs Human time, the power of invitation, Ritual vs Ritualistic thinking and how forests are a better metaphor for change than installing a new OS.

Enjoy the conversation!

Show Links

Esther Derby on the web

https://www.estherderby.com/

7 Rules for Positive Productive Change: https://www.amazon.com/Rules-Positive-Productive-Change-Results/dp/1523085797

Back when it was 6 rules! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDyoUdVHwbg

Kairos vs Chronos: Clock time vs living time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos

Forest Succession as a metaphor for change: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/ecology/community-structure-and-diversity/a/ecological-succession

“People are easy to see. People are easy to blame. Systems are hard to see and you can't blame systems.”

The Laws of Open Space: 

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology

Ritual vs Ritualized: The Power of Ritual to create a safe container

Esther on Retrospectives: 

https://www.estherderby.com/seven-ways-to-revitalize-your-sprint-retrospectives/

https://www.amazon.com/Agile-Retrospectives-Making-Teams-Great/dp/0977616649

 How to facilitate Safety:

“I have people fill-in-the-blank in two different index cards. And the first index card says, "When I don't feel safe, I fill-in-the-blank," and then I collect all those, and I have them do another index card that says, "When I feel safe, I..." They fill-in-the-blank and I collect those, and I shuffle them all up, and then I read all the ones about, "When I don't feel safe, I..." Sometimes I hand them out to people in the room, just at random  and they read them.

Then I have people read the ones about, "When I feel safe..."

Then I say, "What do we need to do at this time, in this meeting, so we can live into this?"

The Use of Self in Change: “The success of an intervention depends on the interior condition of the intervenor” – Bill O’Brien, former CEO of Hanover Insurance

Radical Participatory Democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_democracy

Virginia Satir: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Satir

Full Transcription

Daniel:

I will now officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory. Esther, I appreciate you making the time. I try to have a different opening question regularly, and I was thinking to myself, your book that's come out about rules for change, is there anything you're trying to change about yourself?

Esther Derby:

Yes. I have been trying, and actually been rather successful, in changing my weight over the last several weeks, months. I am changing how I schedule my time, so that I can have more time to put aside for art and work with fabric. I am making changes in my life to accommodate the fact that my husband is now retired, and he's just around in a different way, and showing up in a different way.

Daniel:

Those are all really good. Those are positive, productive changes.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, well, hope so.

Daniel:

That's really cool. So, it'd be nice to take a step back for those who have not met you and talk a little bit about what you see as your work, what you bring into the world.

Esther Derby:

Well, I would say at the very most fundamental level, what I care deeply about is making the workplace more humane. That is really what is fundamental for me.

Daniel:

Yeah, and it sounds like, from what I followed of your work, is that that comes from your own experiences in the underbelly of organizations? I'm guessing, not experiencing that all the time?

Esther Derby:

Well, I have had the experience of being treated in inhumane ways, but I have also done a lot of reading and research about the origins of management, which many people peg to the railroads, but management as a profession with multiple levels of hierarchy, and productivity counting, and so forth, and so on, specialization of labor. Assignment of labor based on specialized tasks actually dates back to plantations working with enslaved people.

Daniel:

And this is the system under which, not just programmers, which is your heritage, but most people are working under.

Esther Derby:

Sure, and I don't think managers consciously hold that in their minds. I don't think that they are consciously thinking about extracting maximum labor, but it is in our heritage. It's in our family tree of management practices and management thinking.

Daniel:

Yeah. Well, you used that term in one of your talks, this idea of the hangover of mechanistic thinking that we're suffering under. Can you talk a little bit about this legacy change versus this different approach to change that you're advocating now?

Esther Derby:

Well, I do think we have a hangover of mechanistic thinking, and we have this hangover of the origin of management practices, neither of which are particularly attuned to humans. In the earliest factories people came in from either rural situations, or craft situations, or small shop situations, where they had a lot of autonomy in many cases, not all but many, and they went into work situations that were far more regimented. Where they were expected to work by clock time, not necessarily by the time of the cycle of the day, and the cycle of the seasons, and they were in service to the machines.

Daniel:

Yes. Well, because the machines are cost they've paid for and they need to be paid for. They should be operating all the time to be maximally utilized.

Esther Derby:

And they need to be tended, right?

Daniel:

Yes.

Esther Derby:

They need to be tended, and taken care of, and watched, and so that legacy... Which I'm not against industrialization, but huge benefits, in terms of the material wellbeing in the world, and I'm not advocating we go back, I'm just saying we need to be aware of the family tree. So, that sort of factory thinking was then applied to many other sorts of labor. I mean, if you looked at insurance companies in the 60s when people were essentially... Their jobs were reduced to very fine level, "You do this task. You stamp this and then you hand it to the next person," so I mean, they were in some ways, very mechanized humans, and we still have the obsession with specialization, and breaking things down into discrete tasks at the atomic level, and very prescriptive job descriptions, and so forth and so on, all come from that legacy.

Daniel:

Yeah. Well, so then what's the new metaphor that we need? Because we talk about driving change, and installing, or implementing, right? I know it's triggering. I'll make sure there's an appropriate trigger warning at the beginning of the podcast, but this is something that we've all had, and then there's resistance to change and coercion.

Daniel:

So, what is the metaphor then? What's the new metaphor that we need?

Esther Derby:

I didn't put this in the book, because it didn't occur to me until after I had turned in the manuscript, but I've been talking about forest succession as a metaphor for changing organizations. So, not gardening because gardening you till the soil, and you plant particular things, and as long as you water them and weed them, everything will be fine. So, I think that is too simplistic, but a forest is something that does not just spring into being.

Daniel:

No.

Esther Derby:

It takes a process of... Well, if you start with rocky ground, let's just start with rocky ground. If one plant can take hold, that might hold a tiny bit of moisture in the soil that will allow another plant to take hold, and that plant might grow a little taller and put off some shade, which will let more moisture be held in the soil, which will make it possible for another plant to take root. And with all the roots, it'll start changing the soil and then different animals will come in, different insects, different animals, and then another plant community will be able to emerge. And so, it's not so much that we plant things and water them, it's that we create the conditions for something different to emerge.

Daniel:

Yes. So, what's coming up for me is, I mean, people want results. There's a hot problem, and we've got to do it in the next two quarters, and this approach sounds slow.

Esther Derby:

Well, I sometimes tell a story about a company where I once worked, where they were concerned about the projects coming in late and over budget. So, in the first year they said it's because people have never been held accountable. We will have consequences.

Daniel:

There will be consequences.

Esther Derby:

There will be consequences, and it had to do with people's bonuses. So, unless your project, and we're talking about year, or year and a half, two year long projects, unless it's within 5% of original schedule and budget, no bonus for you. Well, that didn't really make a difference, because large software projects were still large software projects, and they were dealing with tons of unknowns, and things turned out about the same way.

Esther Derby:

So, the next year they said, "Well, it's because we don't have professional project managers," and they brought in professional project managers, and things looked better for a while until the end of the year when, once again, things were late and over budget. So, they decided they needed a methodology and another year went by.

Daniel:

Oh, a methodology.

Esther Derby:

[crosstalk 00:09:16].

Daniel:

What methodology did they install in the...

Esther Derby:

Yeah, it shall remain nameless.

Daniel:

Right. Fair enough. I'm sure they didn't install Waterfall. Nobody has said like, "Let's install waterfall in our..."

Esther Derby:

Well, actually they did, because Waterfall was not the way we did projects when I started.

Daniel:

Yeah. Oh, wow.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, but anyways, so this went on for three years and at the end of the fourth year they declared victory. Various things had new names, so we no longer had documents, we had work products, we had job aides, we had compliance checklists, and so forth, and so on, but the results for the project were still the same. So, they took decisive action but it was a slow rolling non change. It went on for four years and essentially the same results, because they did not address the underlying influences and factors that held the pattern in place.

Daniel:

Yes.

Esther Derby:

Right, so I get that people want fast action and fast results, and sometimes you actually need them, right? If your company is about to go out of business, you take fast decisive action. You close it down, or find a way to infuse new cash and keep it running. So, sometimes you absolutely have to do that, but when you're looking for a long lasting change that is actually going to change what the system is capable of doing, I find that you have to really address these underlying factors. If you just slap something on top of it, the old pattern is going to reassert itself, so we have to really understand what holds this pattern in place. What are the things that we need to loosen up to create conditions for something else to emerge.

Daniel:

So, I'm looking at a diagram from a talk you gave, actually a couple of years ago, about people in patterns, where that the top of the pyramid is the event that you see now, and then there beneath the line is the pattern, and then beneath that are the structures. And if we react and respond to events, we have what you are talking about which is, it might work, or we might actually be not observing and depicting the true challenge, and therefore we can't create real change.

Esther Derby:

Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yep, we have to look at those, I call them structures, often, or influencing factors, that are driving that pattern, that are creating that pattern.

Daniel:

So, you use the word container, right?

Esther Derby:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:

Containers are what hold people's attention, and then patterns form around it.

Esther Derby:

Yep, they hold focus.

Daniel:

They hold focus and you talked really beautifully about how we're very bad at temporal awareness and good at spatial awareness, and I'd never really heard somebody talk about this idea that we are humans. In order to stay alive we need to have good spatial reasoning. And so, we...

Esther Derby:

It also staves off Alzheimer's.

Daniel:

Does it?

Esther Derby:

There's recent studies.

Daniel:

Which does? Developing more spatial...

Esther Derby:

Use of the parts of your brain that had to do with spatial reasoning and abstract reasoning. It's protective against Alzheimer's.

Daniel:

Yes. Wow. I'll have to do more design thinking workshops with my parents now.

Esther Derby:

There you go. Good son.

Daniel:

This is an amazing...

Esther Derby:

Okay, so I went on a little loop-de-loop there, so...

Daniel:

No, this is a long question. I think what I'm trying to get at is you've written about retrospectives, and I'm wondering how you create the time and space for people to really see the patterns and the structures that are... Because it seems like safety and reflectiveness you can't just react to the, "Oh, projects are late, let's get people's bonuses." That seems like low hanging fruit [inaudible 00:13:33] it's great. There's time.

Esther Derby:

Well, it comes from a particular way of viewing people, and performance, and organizations that says that if things aren't working it's because of skill and will. People are easy to see. People are easy to blame. Systems are hard to see and you can't blame systems.

Daniel:

I mean, I feel like people sometimes do blame the system, but...

Esther Derby:

Well, yeah, sometimes they do, but...

Daniel:

When the system has been co-created, it's been there for... No one person made the system, usually, we all make the system together.

Esther Derby:

Right, so I think that there is less learning with less reflection. It's possible to learn, and maybe not consciously and maybe not with a great deal of awareness, but reflection I think is a necessary component to learning. It goes against our bias towards action.

Daniel:

Yes.

Esther Derby:

So, in Western business culture, and particularly in the US, there's a huge bias towards action.

Daniel:

So, how do you invite people into a reflective space, so that they may go deeper into the challenge space?

Esther Derby:

Yeah. Well, I create invitation. I create spaces for it. Not everyone chooses to come.

Daniel:

Yes, but whoever comes are the right people.

Esther Derby:

Well, I think there's a law about that.

Daniel:

Yes. Well, yeah, and this is for listeners who are new to this, I was sharing the laws of Open Space with someone and I describe it as Buddhism for facilitators, it's sort of like...

Esther Derby:

That's a nice way to say it.

Daniel:

Whoever comes are the right people, whenever it starts is the right time.

Esther Derby:

Whatever happens is the only thing that could happen.

Daniel:

Yeah, so prepare to be surprised.

Esther Derby:

Yeah.

Daniel:

Can you help us? Can you help me structure invitation for that space better? What are the components of that good invitation to reflection?

Esther Derby:

Well, you already know one of them, Open Space, which always starts with an invitation, right?

Daniel:

Yeah.

Esther Derby:

It always starts, "Come help work on this problem if you have something to contribute to it." I sometimes find it helps to make things a bit of a ritual and that's what retrospectives are. They're a ritual, right? So, they're just carving out time and providing a structure, a format, that is likely to be conducive to a flow of conversation and full participation.

Daniel:

Yes.

Esther Derby:

The trick is not to let it become ritualized, so that it's the same every single time, because then you get habitual thinking.

Daniel:

Okay, now I'm going to take a very fine razor to the difference in ritual and ritualized.

Esther Derby:

Okay. It's possible I'm using the terms incorrectly.

Daniel:

I don't know if there... No, no, it seems like what I'm hearing you say is that, and this is maybe my own projecting, but a ritual creates a safe space...

Esther Derby:

It can.

Daniel:

And a pattern where we can sort of expect to know what is happening, but when something becomes ritualized, maybe that's when we fall asleep to it?

Esther Derby:

Yeah. Yeah. It just becomes rote behavior at that point, and when retrospectives become rote behavior, then the reflection is lost, right? So, people who are doing the same three questions for two years it's like, "Oh, our retrospectives are boring." Well, this is not a surprise if you've been asking the same three questions, or two questions, or doing the same meeting in the same way. It's not a wonder to me that things have gotten stale, and flat, and boring, and uncreative.

Daniel:

Yes. "Weary, stale, flat and unprofitable," that was how Hamlet described all the uses of the world, so how ought people to keep those... I mean, I'd never thought about how core retrospective is, because it seems like if it is regular, it's not about blame, it's just about looking back and noticing and seeing what is.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, I am fond of Shakespeare's, it's Hamlet quoted in Shakespeare, "Nothing is either good nor bad, but thinking makes it so."

Daniel:

Yes.

Esther Derby:

Right? It just is, and then you can respond to it.

Daniel:

Yes. How do we create that space for blameless retrospective though? It seems so challenging, potentially.

Esther Derby:

Well, it depends a lot on the culture of the organization and how people have been treated, right? So, if blame is pervasive in an organization, then I might not recommend that they do retrospectives, right? They may need to deal with that blame issue before they can hope to have an effective retrospective.

Esther Derby:

So, some of the things I do are I work with working agreements, for the particular retrospective if I think blame is going to be an issue. So, I have a number of working agreements I may work through with people, or I may let them bubble up themselves. I may talk about safety, psychological safety, and what that means. I have exercises that help people think about that. So, there's a lot of things you can do that can create at least a momentary place where people can bring things up. And in a culture that has been subject to blame, where people are blamed for things beyond their control, people are blamed for being coerced into commitments and then not making them, I don't expect deep learning at the outset. I expect people to just dip a toe in, right? Try something small, gain some belief that you won't be punished for bringing something up or suggesting an idea, but in organizations where there's a pervasive blame, it takes awhile for people to believe that something else is possible.

Daniel:

Yeah, they're waiting for evidence.

Esther Derby:

Yeah. Well, and who can blame them? It's reasonable.

Daniel:

Yes. What is an activity you use? Not to get you to reveal all your tricks live on the internet, but psychological safety seems to be a very ephemeral quality that people talk about. I've never heard somebody say, "I have activities that help people gain a sense of safety." How do we do that as facilitators?

Esther Derby:

I think the situation that felt most dramatic to me, or feels most dramatic to me, is when I have people fill-in-the-blank in two different index cards. And the first index card says, "When I don't feel safe, I fill-in-the-blank," and then I collect all those, and I have them do another index card that says, "When I feel safe, I..." They fill-in-the-blank and I collect those, and I shuffle them all up, and then I read all the ones that, "When I don't feel safe, I..." Sometimes I hand them out to people in the room, just at random, so I'm just distributing them at random and they read them. So, you just have this kind of pouring over you, and it's like ugh.

Daniel:

So, you read the first ones, the, "When I don't feel safe I," blank.

Esther Derby:

Right, and then you have people read the ones about, "When I feel safe..."

Daniel:

But not their own, right?

Esther Derby:

Not their own.

Daniel:

You anonymize it.

Esther Derby:

No, I've shuffled them. I anonymize them if I'm really... Sometimes I read them myself and it is astonishing. You can see a physical shift in people. You can hear it in their voices, right, and then I say, "What do we need to do at this time, in this meeting, so we can live into this?"

Daniel:

Yeah, because you've drawn the gap for people very clearly, yes?

Esther Derby:

Yeah.

Daniel:

I can't imagine anybody would hear all of that and say, "Well, who cares," right? It's up to everybody. I could see you create that tension and people want to resolve it in the positive direction.

Esther Derby:

Yeah. I wouldn't do that with every group I go into, but it is just palpable the difference. And people really, really yearn, and long, to act out of a sense of safety because that's when they can be creative, that's when they can take risks, that's when they can talk about the tough stuff, that's when they can be at their best, that's when they can take a chance on somebody, that's when they can take a chance on themselves, that's when they can connect and people yearn for that.

Daniel:

Because I'm just imagining when people say, "When I feel safe I contribute."

Esther Derby:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:

And this is what we really want.

Esther Derby:

It's what most people want to give, not everybody, but I mean, some people are just at a job to support their family and their life, and I think that's admirable, but many, many people want to contribute in a significant way. They want to have a purpose. They don't want to just be clocking the time, they want to be contributing in a meaningful way, and that sense of safety is connected to that.

Daniel:

I think that's a really beautiful exercise.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, feel free to use it.

Daniel:

I mean, so that's a safe container, right?

Esther Derby:

Yep.

Daniel:

Because of the anonymization... For sure.

Esther Derby:

And like I said, I wouldn't do it with every group, but I've done it with a number of groups and it's been very, very powerful. Sometimes I do a survey about how safe people say, and I give them a little scale, and say "I'll talk about anything without fear of retribution," and that's five and zero is, "I'm not bringing up anything. I'm not taking any risks." Again, I collect the responses, and I create a histogram, and people say, "What does this say about our ability to deal with the problems that are facing us?" And then they get to make choices about what they're going to do.

Daniel:

How many people would you survey to produce that data?

Esther Derby:

However many people are in the room.

Daniel:

Yeah. Oh, gotcha, like a survey in the room. Yeah.

Esther Derby:

And usually, I collect the little index cards, or slips of paper, or whatever and assuming I'm in person in a case like this, and then I put them in my back pocket, so everybody knows that they're not just laying around.

Daniel:

Yes, that's showing respect. What's interesting is that there's a very strong arc and there's a very strong close to that, that you're respecting the pieces of paper that they've created and spoken up. And what's interesting, it's funny, this definitely speaks to your OG programmer cred, but you're using index cards for this activity, right?

Esther Derby:

Index cards.

Daniel:

Index cards. Us new kids on the block, where it's all about the stickies, but I can see how putting those on the wall might actually be a little confronting.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, well I like stickies, too.

Daniel:

So, I can see how your ethos of respect for other people go into your rules for change, honoring what's currently existing, observing the system and respecting what's currently alive in the system, caring about the networks that are inside of the system. I'm curious how you sort of iterated into the seven rules in the book, because I know you were giving a talk just a year ago were there was six.

Esther Derby:

I know, but I wouldn't be a very good role model for change if I couldn't add a new rule. So, there was a time in my life when entering a new system, I did not stand in non-judgment. There was a time in my life where I...

Daniel:

I'm not going to stand in judgment of you of that. I understand that.

Esther Derby:

Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate it. I mean, it's like, "What the hell are people doing?" It's hard to influence people once you've flipped the bozo bit, right? It's very hard to influence people.

Daniel:

Wait, I'm sorry, for you it's hard to influence people when you've...

Esther Derby:

Once you flip the bozo bit on them. Do you know that expression?

Daniel:

I don't.

Esther Derby:

Oh, well in old programming, when you were actually dealing with bits, you could actually change a bit from a zero to a one. It was called flipping a bit, turning something on or off. And the bozo bit is saying, "I view this person as a bozo."

Daniel:

Gotcha. It's hard to un-say that.

Esther Derby:

Yeah. Yeah. It's hard to get your mind out of that and it's hard to influence someone once you put them in that category. So, I had to learn how to approach things differently, right? And in some ways, I was coming from that mechanistic legacy of standing in judgment, and things should be working fine, so I try not to be too hard on myself, but I had to find different ways if I actually wanted things to change and so, that's in some ways, the origin of when I started approaching these things differently. But I also I had the experience early in my career of seeing how one of my programs was a negative change for somebody, and I had the experience early in my career of making small changes, so that people could work more effectively.

Esther Derby:

So, the six rules was in some ways a little contest with myself to see if I could encapsulate my beliefs, and my experience, and my research about change in a very succinct way.

Daniel:

Yeah, to know what you're about?

Esther Derby:

Yeah.

Daniel:

I think this comes...

Esther Derby:

So, when...

Daniel:

Oh, sorry, go ahead.

Esther Derby:

Well, the first time I gave this talk, the talk Six Roles for Change, was in 2015 and I didn't really know at the time it would turn out to be a book.

Daniel:

What made you decide to make it a book? What was the pull towards that, because you've written other books, not every idea you have becomes a book?

Esther Derby:

No, I went for about 10 years without writing a book. I see so many instances of companies, and people in companies, who really want something to be different and the methods that they have inherited are insufficient to actually bring about the sorts of change they want, sometimes they long for, they yearn for, because they don't address the underlying pattern.

Esther Derby:

And many of the traditional change methods are premised on top down control, pushing change onto people and incorporating plans to overcome resistance, not recognizing that the way they're going about it has actually engendered this thing they call resistance, right?

Daniel:

Literally, creates the thing that they are planning for.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, yeah. Exactly. So, I was tweeting with a friend of mine, who was in a change management class recently, and they were being told that they had to have a plan to overcome resistance in their change plan. So, it's still out there, right? So, it just seemed to me that people needed a different way to approach change that was more humane, more humanistic and more informed by complexity science and working with complex adaptive systems.

Daniel:

Yeah. Well, and it seems like observing the system means, in some sense, respecting what is working in it?

Esther Derby:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:

Having some like, "Whoa. Wow. Somehow it works." So, you don't go in and say like... You respect the fact that somehow there is something alive in the system before you start messing with it.

Esther Derby:

I like the fact that you're saying there's something alive in the system. I like that a lot.

Daniel:

Yeah, that comes from appreciative inquiry for me.

Esther Derby:

I like that languaging.

Daniel:

There's something. It's living something, in some way.

Esther Derby:

Yeah. There's always something worth saving, right. And there's always stuff that's working, otherwise the company would be out of business, or the organization would have folded, so it's worth looking for that and building on it, which again, is sort of the genius behind appreciative inquiry.

Daniel:

So, I want to go back to the sticky note I wrote before we started talking about the use of self, because I feel like the ultimate container for this is the change agent. There's a person who wants change, and who is absorbing the challenges, and who says to themselves, "I want to do something," and then there's this feeling of having to absorb the other person's perspective and having to think about, an empathize. There's a lot of work, internal work, that has to be done in the person who wants to do the change. I don't know if that's what you meant by use of self, but that's what it sparked off on me.

Esther Derby:

Well, I think all of those statements are true. I come at that statement from conversations I've had with friends of mine who are licensed clinical social workers, and in study after study, it has been shown that if you have two people with roughly equal professional skills, they went to the same school, they learn the same skills for dealing with their clients, which may be individuals or it may be organizations, what makes the difference is the ability to show up, be present, connect, and be empathetic. That's what makes the difference, and that has to do with who you are as a person, and how you bring yourself, and your experiences, and your personality to your work.

Esther Derby:

So, for people hoping to bring change, yeah, they are absorbing a lot, which means they have to call on their inner resources, and they need to be empathetic to others. So, they need to call on their empathy. They need to call on their patience. They need to call on their ability to observe and to withhold judgment, because that's not a natural tendency for most of us who are brought up in the West. So, we have to work at it, and you're right, it is hard work and I think it's super, super helpful for people to have a support network.

Daniel:

Yeah. I'm looking at pay attention to networks is something we're supposed to do to change a system, but obviously all of these rules ought to apply to change on oneself or change with oneself.

Esther Derby:

Yeah. It's fractal. I suppose [inaudible 00:35:25]. One human, or 10 humans, or 10,000 humans.

Daniel:

I would hope so. How do you take care of yourself as a change agent, because I mean, that is what you do.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, it is what I do.

Daniel:

You come in and you help organizations, architect, and facilitate change.

Esther Derby:

Yeah. I help individuals do that and I help companies do that. Well, I try to get enough sleep. I try to eat well. I have a support network. I have a number of dear friends who act as sounding boards, or sometimes they let me sing my complaints choir to them, so I have that. I have the support network. I walk in the woods. I walk in the city. I ski. I do stuff that takes me out of this. I quilt. So, I have other things that bring me a bit of sanctuary and a place to refresh and look at things from a different perspective, so I'm not always immersed in it.

Daniel:

Taking time.

Esther Derby:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:

I find it very challenging to do that. There's a lot of demands that I put on myself, so it's encouraging to hear you talk about those pieces.

Daniel:

I feel like we're really getting close to the end of our time together. I want to respect your time. What haven't we talked about that we should talk about? What have we missed off?

Esther Derby:

Well, we've covered a lot of really, really deep and interesting topics, so I'm not sure I'm feeling that anything has been neglected.

Daniel:

Oh, that's wonderful.

Esther Derby:

I'm sure there are other things we could talk about, but I think we talked about some really significant things.

Daniel:

So, I guess one question I have is, aside from your book, which people should read, what have you fed yourself with? What are some of the most significant places you've gone to feed your head around these things, these issues we've talked about?

Esther Derby:

So, in terms of studying, or reading, or absorbing?

Daniel:

When it comes to your philosophy of lack of coercion and change, that's something that's really deep in you and I'm wondering where you've fed your professional mindset from? What wells you're drinking from?

Esther Derby:

Well, in some ways, it goes back to early in my life. In some ways, it goes back to when I was doing my master's program and was exposed to radical participatory democracy and the power dynamics that exist in many corporations. So, I think that helped me articulate a lot of those things. I'm also been studying Satir work for, I don't know, almost 30 years.

Daniel:

I'm not familiar with Satir work, and I know you mentioned it in some of your talks.

Esther Derby:

Yeah, Virginia Satir. She was a social worker and she really pioneered the idea of a family as a system. So, you can't just say, "Well, Suzie's the problem," you have to look at the whole family and how Susie is responding and what the dynamics and the relationships are there. So, while I'm not a therapist and I'm not a social worker, I have studied this model, because I find there are many parts of it that can be used in a business context, in organizational context, that help people be more fully human, be more fully themselves, be more congruent, be more aware of their own resources, and to step into the world in a way that is more healthy for them. So, I think that's a really deep well for me.

Daniel:

That's cool. I'll check that. It's funny, I look at some of the stuff that we do like drawing stakeholder maps and drawing problems as art therapy. When I ask people to draw their jobs, and I see where all the people in their jobs, and where aren't the people. Systems are complex and people are complex. I think there's a lot to unpack in that. I really appreciate it. I'll look her workup.

Daniel:

Well, all right then. I think we're going to close it out there and I'll ask you to stay on for one more moment.

Esther Derby:

Sure. I really appreciated this conversation. It was really lovely having this time to talk with you.

Daniel:

Thank you. Me too. It's nourishing. I'll call scene.

Daniel:

Just wanted to make sure everything felt includable, I don't think we got into any rough territory?

Esther Derby:

Uh-uh (negative), and my dog was quiet the whole time. This is a miracle.

Daniel:

I'm glad.

Esther Derby:

I can hear her snoring in the other room, but snoring is not that bad.

Daniel:

I actually did a podcast episode where the guy had to hold his dog and then the dog finally fell... That was the only way to have a silent workshop podcast call.

Esther Derby:

I get that. Yeah, I'm going to have another cough drop, excuse me.

Daniel:

Thank you really for doing this. It's really interesting. It's like we all come from our own heritage, and our own perspectives, and it's just I really love the way the things that you present, and that you share, because I think it's important stuff.

Esther Derby:

Thank you. I've really appreciated this conversation. I didn't just say that to say it. You are good at conversation.

Daniel:

It's funny, the idea of coercion at the base of it is respect for others, and just understanding that conversations, I've come to respect them more and they make me a little bit more careful with them.

Esther Derby:

Well, you use them to connect and to understand.

Daniel:

I do.

Esther Derby:

So, that's lovely.

Daniel:

Well, I hope this isn't our last conversation.

Esther Derby:

I hope not. I hope that this is the start of many conversations.

Daniel:

Thank you!

Reinvention is Building a Conversation

Today’s conversation with Dorie Clark taught me some essential lessons about how to build a following around one’s ideas - which is no surprise - Dorie has given several excellent TEDx talks on just this topic, and I’ll summarize my insights from our conversation in a moment. 

I learned something more surprising during my conversation with Dorie - that she is living her principles, constantly. I also learned that she’s into musicals, big time. I wasn’t expecting to learn this about Dorie, but I followed the conversation, as you’ll see. 

Dorie is the author of a trilogy of books all about reinvention.

Starting in 2013, Dorie wrote “Reinventing You: Define Your Brand, Imagine Your Future” which she followed up in 2015 with “Stand Out: How to Find your Breakthrough Idea and build a following around it” which was named Inc Magazine’s #1 Leadership book of that year. Most recently, in 2017, she penned “Entrepreneurial You: Monetize Your Expertise, Create Multiple Income Streams, and Thrive.”

Maybe I’m just a cynic, but I often expect people who have this much time to write about their ideas to have less time to apply them. Dorie walks her talk, however. The opening quote is about Dorie’s dream to learn to write and produce musical theater...and how she’s going about it - slowly building skills, insights and networks, long before she plans to tap them. If you take nothing else away from this episode, that alone is a solid gold lesson.

This approach makes logical sense - you have to plant before you can reap - and networks are no different. What I loved learning about Dorie is that she’s not sitting still - she still has dreams of constant reinvention and she’s working to make those dreams possible, steadily.

In the last several years in hosting this podcast, I’ve come to see conversations in a new light - sometimes they can seem like a wave, building, cresting and receding. Dorie certainly treats her own musical reinvention in this way - like a conversational wave she needs to build. But I’ve also learned that conversations also have key sizes that act differently - small, medium and large conversations are all essential to master, as a leader or facilitator, and with reinvention, this is still true. Dorie takes me through three key conversational size “phase transitions” in building a following around a breakthrough idea. You don’t get to massive impact overnight.

Zero to one: Start talking about your idea. It may seem obvious, but many people just keep their ideas and their dreams in their heads. Getting it out of your head is like Peter Thiel’s Zero-to-One innovation and gets the ball rolling.

One to Many: Finding ways to get to talk to many people about your ideas at once, like writing for a publication or speaking to a group.

Many-to-Many: The goal, at the end of the day, is to develop a many-to-many conversation. You don’t want to be the only person talking about your idea. For me, the more people who see conversations as something worth designing, the better it is for me and for the world (at least, that’s how I see it) - which is why I keep making this show!

This episode is full of other insights, like how to write a great headline or choose a collaborator for a project. For the show notes and links to Dorie’s books and videos, click over to the Conversation Factory.com

Show Links

Dorie Clark on the Web

https://dorieclark.com/

Dorie’s Trilogy:

Entrepreneurial You: https://amzn.to/2oYVQ0g

Reinventing You: https://amzn.to/VzNRkZ

Stand Out: https://amzn.to/1FVYNP9

How to Build a Following Around your Ideas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fQ92UVoXqc

Zero to One innovation: https://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296

Full Transcription

Daniel: I will officially welcome you to the Conversation Factory. Dorie, thank you so much for making the time to talk about the things that we're going to talk about.

Dorie: Hey, I'm so glad to have the chance, Daniel. Thanks.

Daniel: Thank you. I was watching one of your many TEDx talks. This is the TEDxWPI Talk where you talked about how to build a following around your ideas. One of the things that really lit me up was this idea of the evolution from one to one conversations to one to many conversations, and from there to many-to-many conversations with. Really building momentum around a breakthrough idea. I want to just dive into each one of those individual conversations, because I think it's important that we all have an idea that's we're passionate about. The question is how do we get other people to take it up and become passionate about it as well?

Dorie: That is totally the question. You're right. Because there are so many good ideas that just languish and die because there's really only one person that cares about them. We have to change that equation.

Daniel: Right. You talked about this in Stand Out right there, and this is not surprising. There's so much noise in the world right now. I guess the first question is how do you in fact get your idea to stand out?

Dorie: Well, the very first criteria in for that, which it actually sounds self evident, but in practice, it is not self evident at all, is coming to understand that if you do not share your ideas publicly, no one will know what they are. That is step one. I think so often, people get frustrated and they start shaking their fists at the sky. Well, why aren't people paying attention? Why isn't this catching on? But the truth is they are only communicating to the small network of people immediately surrounding them.

Dorie: Unless those people happen to be literally exactly the right people or unless they happen themselves to be a coterie of powerful influencers, most likely there is not enough kindling there to get a spark going. You have to start sharing it, not just with the people around you who are within immediate earshot, you need to start sharing your ideas broadly, and that is because you need people to be able to discover them. You need to make yourself findable to the people that actually do care.

Daniel: Now, you are a great writer, and not everybody is. One thing I was looking through your giant list of Harvard Business Review articles, and I got to say, you know how to write a headline. I have a sticky note here that says, "Get Dorie to tell you how to write a good headline," because this seems like we've got a big idea and it's really important, and people will only learn about it if they can get past ... if they click on it, presumably, which means you've got to write a headline that makes people want to read at least the first paragraph of the article.

Dorie: Yeah, absolutely. Not to puncture your enthusiasm, but actually the HBR editors write the headlines-

Daniel: Oh, man.

Dorie: ... for the pieces. I know. I do still have some thoughts I'm happy to share, but the truth is the final responsibility ... Of course, you as the author give your piece a provisional headline just so the editor knows what it's about. But they're typically rewritten with impunity by the editors in a way that ... It's funny. It's like how for some reason your teeth are not considered part of your body when it comes to health insurance. It's like, "Oh yeah. Your health insurance, well, clearly that doesn't involve your dentist. That's separate."

Dorie: Similarly, you would think that your headline is a part of your article, but actually it is treated sometimes as though it were not, and so an editor would never dramatically rewrite your first few sentences without somehow telling you or getting your permission, but they do that with headlines a lot. All that being said, some thoughts about headlines, I mean, the biggest question that I think I try to ask myself is, would I read this article? Is the headline something that is compelling enough to me personally that I would say, "Oh wow, I need to stop and look at that?"

Dorie: If it's not, I want to keep trying to tweak it until somehow I'm hitting on something that is a perceived pain point for people such that they would actually stop to look at it. Because we're all barraged so much. I think that sometimes we can weirdly lower our standards and assume other ways to be a better leader. Clearly, people aren't going to read that, and some people will. But for most people who are familiar with whatever our genre is, we're way past that. We need something more compelling to get us to stop, and I want to keep pushing [inaudible 00:05:26] to that.

Daniel: It's so interesting that the conversation between you and the editor is not bidirectional, in a way. Just to go back to that point, that blows my mind that you write the article, and they're like, "Okay, and here's what it's called."

Dorie: Right, right. Exactly. The truth is, sometimes they may not quite pick up on the nuance that you want, but most of the time they do make it better. I mean, it is their job to focus in on that, and so oftentimes, they can tweak it in such a way that you're like, "Oh yeah, that is really interesting." For Harvard Business Review in particular ... and I have studied this really extensively having written for them for nine years now.

Dorie: I've done about 200 articles for them, and I even actually developed an online course specifically called Writing for High Profile Publications, because I did so much reverse engineering of this. But something that is somewhat unique to Harvard Business Review is that they are very interested in what I will call situational pieces, and so the frame that they like to set up is often what to do when X happens? A common formulation. Partly I think this is because of SEO, because of search engine optimization.

Dorie: But also it's interesting because if you truly capture this correctly, it is going to be a very, very specific tactical article, which is what they want. But, for instance, a colleague of mine wrote a piece about what to do when your employee tells you they have cancer. That's a perfect example, right? It's not something that happens every day, but whoa, when that happens, you really want guidance and it is a very useful tactical in the moment piece.

Daniel: Yeah. This goes to this idea of, you talked about the spark and the kindling, a real pain point. You're-

Dorie: Yes.

Daniel: ... helping somebody with a real pain point.

Dorie: Absolutely.

Daniel: I want to develop this idea a little bit because I imagine ... I'm wondering what that feeling was like for you when you wrote some of your articles that became the book. What does that pull feel like? That momentum from, "Oh, this is a thing, let's turn this into a larger thing? What does that feel like, in you, to notice that spark catch and begin to develop?

Dorie: Well, specifically, if we're talking about Reinventing You, which was my first book, and it did arise in this perfect progression in some ways, where it started out as a blog post, probably a seven or 800 word blog post, called How to Reinvent Your Personal Brand, and then got expanded into a magazine piece for Harvard Business Review, which is about 2,500 words, and then I had the opportunity to turn it into a book. Honestly, what I've come to appreciate in my professional life, it's not so much that I have amazing taste in terms of knowing what will be a great book. It more that I just try not to be dumb when opportunities present themselves.

Daniel: Wow.

Dorie: For me, starting in 2009, that was when I really got serious and I really, really wanted to publish a book. So I wrote two different book proposals and tried to pitch them, and we just met with utter lack of success. I had some people that may be maybe were interested, but the universal position was that I did not have enough of a platform, so to speak, that I was not famous enough, and so I was told that I needed to basically, "Come back when you're famous, kid."

Dorie: So I was like, "Ooh." It's not what I wanted to hear. So I went and started writing for the Harvard Business Review. I fought my way in there, and ultimately, this piece, this early blog posts that I wrote for them about reinventing your personal brand struck a chord, and they asked me would I expanded into a magazine piece, and I did. That's already one vote of confidence in the concept. Then when the magazine piece came out, I did not realize there's a lot of interesting behind the scenes things that until you're part of the club, you just don't know.

Dorie: For me, what I discovered was that, "Oh, interesting." Lots of literary agents, business focus literary agents, use the Harvard Business Review as a way of soliciting clients. So when my first piece came out in HBR, I had three different literary agents reach out to me and say, "Oh, Hey, have you thought about turning this into a book?"

Daniel: Sure.

Dorie: I had not. That was not the topic that I was interested in writing about, but I was like, "Look, I'm no dummy. Sure. I'll turn it into a book."

Daniel: Right.

Dorie: That was how that happened.

Daniel: Well, I mean, it's interesting. You make it seem like it was obvious, but I'm sure that they're still ... that people going through their own moments like this ... I'll just speak for myself. Writing a book is an agonizing experience, for me, especially towards the end. There's this question of, why do I have the right to say what I want to say? I'm wondering if you have any advice for people who are struggling with, I guess, what would be normally termed imposter syndrome?

Dorie: Yeah. I mean, the best advice...

Daniel: Not that you ever have this experience on ... Of course, I presume.

Dorie: Well, it's interesting. I feel bad talking about it sometimes because from everything that I understand, it sounds like imposter syndrome is literally the world's most common thing. The truth is, I don't actually have it because I have, for whatever reason, always had possible overabundance of confidence. That maybe has its own challenges, but this is not my particular cross to bear. However, that being said, I feel like something that is helpful to me and I hope is helpful to other people when it comes to feeling imposter syndrome is, "Okay, what's the advice?"

Dorie: Literally the advice is look around, because pretty much anyone, including someone in the throws of imposter syndrome, can look around and say, "Wow! Who are all these jackasses, and why were they allowed to write a book? Oh, okay. You know what? I can do better than that." I mean, it is true that simultaneously, when you're looking around, there are some people that are brilliant, and they're more brilliant than we are. There's plenty of people that are more brilliant than I am in certain areas.

Dorie: But also, it is equally true that there are people that it's like, "Oh my God. How did they ever get that book contract? That is bonkers." If you look at that and focus on that and just say, "You know what? I'm at least as qualified as that person. Let's give it a go." I feel like that is actually, in the end, a very empowering belief.

Daniel: Yeah. It's funny what's coming to mind is, this is almost the large scale equivalent of grounding yourself in your body. It's one of the basics of mindfulness. Just feeling your feet on the floor. This is a ... and doing that instead of just with your body. It's looking around your environment and saying, "Well, look, this is what's really happening. It's okay."

Dorie: Yeah, it's a really good analogy. I love that.

Daniel: I'm curious about community building, because I get the sense I've heard tell that you run networking dinners that you actively cultivate community for yourself, and that seems to be a really important component. But outside of building an online community and building a community around your ideas, there's also building an actual community. I'm wondering if we can just unpack that, how you take care of those aspects of yourself.

Dorie: Yeah, it's a great point. For me, I got really serious about it about five and a half years ago when I first moved to New York, because I came here and I just had this sudden realization, "Oh wow! I don't have any plans tonight. I also don't have any plans tomorrow night. Oh wait. I also don't have any plans ever," because no one was inviting me to anything. I realized that this was not a good state of affairs, that I would need to do something different and make some effort if I was going to actually have any kind of a social life.

Dorie: So I thought back to what my mom used to say. She used to say, "If you want to get an invitation, you have to give an invitation," and I appreciated her approach on controlling what you can control. So instead of just sitting back and bemoaning my fate, I decided that I would start trying to organize things and bring people together. That was where I started, and so I began organizing usually, typically monthly dinners. At first, for the first couple of years, it was really primarily focused around business authors or authors of different stripes.

Dorie: I have subsequently expanded it out, and now I'll have a lot of entrepreneurs or I'll have ... theater is something that I've gotten into a lot more recently, writing theater and investing in theater. So I'll mix that in as well. So I have a lot of creative collisions in there, but I would say on average for the past five years, I've had about one dinner a month, where I bring people together. It's really been wonderful in terms of building business connections, but also just friendships.

Daniel: Yeah. Well, so let's roll back for a second. Tell me about your interest in investing in theater. That's fascinating.

Dorie: Yeah. Thank you. I got interested in investing in theater. Actually, that was the second piece of it. The piece that came first was about three and a half years ago. I decided that I was going to learn to write musical theater, specifically book and lyrics for musical theater. I did not know how to do it. I had no experience in it. I grew up in a little tiny town. We didn't have a theater program, none of it. I did not have any background whatsoever, but I decided I wanted to learn.

Dorie: So I committed myself onto a program of self improvement and figuring out how to do that. I subsequently found out about, and then got accepted into the BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theater Workshop, which is a rather prestigious musical theater training program, which I'm really proud to be part of. As part of that, I realized that if I was going to be successful in writing musical theater, in the act of getting it produced, essentially, I wanted to understand the business of Broadway, which is really its own animal.

Dorie: I think that, like a lot of creative endeavors, many people who are involved in the musical theater space on the creative side don't necessarily fully or properly understand the business mechanics to their detriment. I thought that that could be essentially a competitive advantage that I knew that I could. So I started to invest so that I could learn more about how shows are capitalized and what that process looks like.

Daniel: That's fascinating. I presume you like actual musicals. You sound like somebody who has a good singing voice. Is this true or not true?

Dorie: Oh, thank you. When I was a teenager, I would write angsty folk songs, and I would sing in with my guitar and I would get a lot of-

Daniel: This was the Indigo Girls era, I presume?

Dorie: Oh, for sure. For sure.

Daniel: Oh man. Closer to Fine all the way.

Dorie: Yeah. [crosstalk 00:18:39] Yeah. The local college coffee house, all that kind of stuff. But interestingly, I don't really know how to read music. I learned whatever the play Indigo Girls around a campfire kind of guitar rather than-

Daniel: Yes.

Dorie: ... actually legitimately learning how to read music. In our BMI class presentations, I'm actually a little paranoid to do the singing because it's all very precise. The main vocal line comes in. Here! When you're strumming along, you can fudge it a little bit, and for things like this, it's so precise that I actually like to yield it to my colleagues who have BFAs in musical theater.

Daniel: Yeah.

Dorie: [crosstalk 00:19:31] really know it. But I do like to sing when the stakes are lower.

Daniel: I understand. The shower, the kitchen, those places.

Dorie: That's right. Serenading my cats.

Daniel: Totally unrelated then. I mean, what's your favorite musical? I suppose that's an impossible question, but ...

Dorie: Yes. There's so many good ones. In fact, this year I've embarked upon a campaign, a self improvement campaign, of watching as many musicals as I can, especially particularly canonical musicals, just to-

Daniel: Yes.

Dorie: ... make sure that I am fully briefed in all the history of the genre. But I would say in terms of just overall, I mean probably rent. A lot of musical theater purists don't love it in the sense that there's things that could be tightened or improved. I mean, poor Jonathan Larson of course died before-

Daniel: Spoiler alert.

Dorie: Yeah, right before it opened. He was getting ready for its off-Broadway opening. So it was just this tragic thing, and it would have been refined certainly further had he lived. But it's just such an energetic and powerful piece, so I really love it. In terms of classical musical theater, there's a lot of things that I ... It's so interesting to look back on things, especially from the '50s, the '60s, and see what has aged well and what hasn't, and it's just really fascinating how that breaks down. But I have to confess a soft spot for Mame. I think that was a great musical.

Daniel: Yeah. My mother listens to all of my podcasts, and I gained a love of musicals from her. We listened to Annie Get Your Gun and The Pajama Game-

Dorie: Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Daniel: ... when I was a kid, and so I still have ... In fact, I was shopping with her the other day and we were singing Seven And A Half Cents, which is one of these, we talk about, canonical musicals. I feel like there's some ... we can pull this back. What lessons, what do you feel like you've transferred or transported some of your lessons from this learning process into the other parts of your business?

Dorie: For sure, for sure. I mean, ultimately, so I wrote this book, Reinventing You, but in some ways in writing it, it was a post facto creation, right? Because in my 20s, I had done a million things. I had been a journalist, I had been a political campaign spokesperson, I had been a nonprofit executive director, and then I finally landed on my current career, being self employed and writing and speaking and teaching and consulting and executive coaching, et cetera, and so it was a book that ... I interviewed many professionals, many successful professionals about their reinventions, but the perspective of the book was coming from someone who had done it, essentially.

Daniel: Sure.

Dorie: Now, it's very interesting because it's like you're reliving it, but you're doing it in real time, and saying, "All right, well, how can I do this as effectively as possible? How can I essentially use this knowledge to hack the process?" It's TBD, but there are certain things that I am doing really deliberately. I mean, number one, chief among them as we talked about, if I want to get a show on Broadway, which I do because I am not the kind of person that has hobbies just for the sake of having hobbies. I want to actually make this count.

Dorie: One of the best things, I think, that one can do is build relationships with producers, especially building relationships with producers before you need relationships with producers, and therefore starting to become an investor so that A, you're knowledgeable about the process overall, but B, you have an excuse to network with producers for years prior to when a show would be ready for them to even look at, I think is valuable. Over the past year and a half, my business partner and I ... I mean, we went from knowing zero producers basically, maybe aside from our friend, Michael Roderick, who is doing less of it now of course, but has done a little tiny bit.

Dorie: But that was really it, to now knowing, I mean, probably 30, and those numbers will increase. That has been I think certainly something that is powerful. Another of course is understanding that people are skeptical sometimes about transitions, and so what you need to do is over-index on social proof in order to convince them that you are serious and credible and should be taken seriously. That is why it was really important to me, as a goal, to get into the BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theater Workshop.

Daniel: Interesting.

Dorie: Because there's a lot of people that write musical theater, la, la, la, la, but people who are in the industry are familiar with the BMI workshop. It has bred many successful people. Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez from Frozen fame, Bobby Lopez with Jeff Marx did Avenue Q, Lynn Ahrens and Stephen Flaherty who did Ragtime, and Once on This Island. We have Tom Kitt who did Next To Normal, who's the orchestrator now for Jagged Little Pill, which is opening imminently. All of these folks have been through the program, and so it really is a premier training ground. So people who are in the know understand that if someone is in that program, they have been vetted, at least to a certain extent, and they are not dilettante.

Daniel: Yeah. You're serious. You're putting your money and time where your mouth is.

Dorie: Yes. Although thankfully not money, because one really amazing thing about it is it is free.

Daniel: What?

Dorie: It is offered for free by BMI, which is really amazing.

Daniel: Wow, that is amazing. It's extraordinary in fact. So it's really interesting. There's a couple of fascinating things to unpack here, because what we started with is this idea of going ... Peter Thiel calls us the zero to one innovation. If you're not talking about your idea, you should start talking about your idea, and well, you talked about your mother's idea of controlling what you can control, or maybe that was your idea. Your mother talked about sending more invitations, because that is in fact what you can control.

Dorie: Exactly. Yes.

Daniel: I think if this idea of the minimum viable permission, a different MVP, that you don't need anybody else's permission to throw a dinner, you don't need anybody else's permission. You can write a musical. In fact, you could rent a tiny theater and start ... try to sell tickets to it. But what's interesting is that you're building your wave, your credibility, your social proof slowly, and building that network way before you intend to utilize it more intensely, let's just say.

Dorie: Yes.

Daniel: Those are two really different strategies of just starting versus the three dimensional chess approach.

Dorie: Yeah, yeah, definitely.

Daniel: I suppose that's not a question. That was a comment. [crosstalk 00:27:24]

Dorie: But it's a good one, Daniel. I liked it.

Daniel: Well, thanks. It seems like you do both, but I'm wondering how you decide between the two. They're not mutually incompatible, but it seems like in some situations you choose one or another [inaudible 00:27:41] situations, you rely on the other.

Dorie: Can we rewind for a second to what the two or-

Daniel: Yeah, it's-

Dorie: ... three dimensional chess? In our metaphor, that refers to which piece? I'm sorry.

Daniel: Well, it sounds like the process of you getting a play on Broadway involves a lot of different moves that you're making.

Dorie: Yes.

Daniel: Over time. You're not taking the zero to one approach to it, where you're just writing an article on LinkedIn about it, or just writing a play and selling 10 tickets to a small theater. That would be the just getting started approach, which I think you sometimes advocate in the entrepreneurial you approach, which is start.

Dorie: Right. Right. Well, I do think, to your point, it is both end, in the sense that, for instance, if the advantage of the lean startup be, what's the minimum viable product, that becomes really important when it comes to the actual content of it, right? For instance, it is an entirely separate question, what musical should I write? What would audiences be interested in? Where do I have something that I can contribute to uniquely? That's a really different question than just setting up the infrastructure that would enable me if I did have the right musical to be able to get it heard.

Daniel: Yes.

Dorie: I think they are two simultaneous things. I mean, right now, building a network and building social proof. So I created an online course as a compliment to my book, Stand Out, and the course is called Recognized Expert, about how to become a recognized expert. As part of that, I talk the three pillars of how to do that. What does it really take to get recognized in your field? The three pillars, which I really am consciously trying to live in the musical theater space because I believe very strongly that this framework works, is that you need to have strong network, you need to have social proof, and you need to have content.

Dorie: All three are really important. In this case, you need a network because ... Okay, I could have written the greatest musical in the world, but obviously, if no one knows who I am, if no one cares about who I am, then it's not going to get heard. So developing the network of people who are actually interested is primary. I already have friends with producers that have said to me on multiple occasions, they're like, "Show me what you're working on. We want to see, we want to see," and I just pushed back and I say, "You know what? I'll tell you when we're ready. Thank you. Thank you very much. For sure, I will tell you."

Dorie: But right now, it's about building the relationship. It's not about any kind of quick sale or anything like that. That's not what I'm interested in. But I do have people who are interested when I am ready, and when I think it's quality enough. So you've got to have that. Number two is the social proof, which we talked about, which is getting into the BMI program so that people understand, "Oh, she's worth listening to. This is not somebody who doesn't know what they're doing. This is somebody who is trained and who has been validated by a certain set of gatekeepers."

Dorie: But then number three is the content. So you can have the other pieces, but if what you're producing is not interesting, it's not relevant, it's not good, then obviously that's not going to work either, especially with regards to the content. This is the place where the minimum viable product testing is important. It is doing a workshop, reading, it's presenting a song, whatever, and just seeing how it's received and seeing what the feedback is, so you can understand is this the thing that is going to capture people's imagination? If it is, then it becomes really powerful. You're able to get exponential growth with it, if you also have the social proof and the network to layer on top of it.

Daniel: Yeah, and one without the other is not going to deliver impact.

Dorie: Yes, that's right.

Daniel: I'm assuming you have written the great American musical already. I'm just assuming that that's possible for you. Why not?

Dorie: What I am doing right now actually ... So year two of the BMI program, which I am in right now, is the year that you are writing an original musical. So I am working with a partner right now on our musical, which we will be finishing by the end of the academic year, if not before then. I'm pretty excited about it, but that part is in process and we are taking our time to create a really high quality product.

Daniel: That's awesome. It'd be really interesting to unpack a little bit about ... I'm building this map of different conversations that you managed, and we've talked about going from zero to one and talking to people about your ideas, and building community around those ideas. It'd be really interesting to talk about collaboration and how you bring people into your circle to collaborate with them. Because obviously working with someone else on a play is very different than writing on your own, and writing a book on your own is very different than doing a project with someone else. How does collaboration show up in your work?

Dorie: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think collaboration is often easiest. The low hanging fruit is where you have completely different skill sets, and so it's very obvious. I think that the trouble with collaboration, there's multiple places where it can go awry. One is where it's not really clearly defined who's doing what or who has the final vote or whatever on certain things. For musical theater, it's pretty straight up. I mean, obviously collaborations can go sideways in plenty of ways, but archetypally, you have a lyricist and you have a composer.

Dorie: So of course, each person can weigh in. I mean, if I was thinking about something as a Somber Dirge, and my composer comes back to me with like, "Oh, it's like Mariachi," then I can say, "this is not really what I was thinking." But most often it's not going to be that crazy of a disagreement. You have someone who is the recognized expert in that domain. He might tell me, "I'm not sure about this lyric," or whatever but, by and large, I am responsible for the lyrics. So I think that simplifies things.

Dorie: I would say in general, while I support the idea of collaboration, I am almost always hesitant to take on collaborators or collaborations because I think obviously when done well, it's great, but I think that a common problem that occurs in practical terms in business life, is that there are a lot of people who are ... What's the way to put it? Less successful aspirants [inaudible 00:35:08] will say, "Let's collaborate." Essentially what they're saying is, "Oh, you have access to shit I don't, let's do something together so I can get that access," and they have not properly thought through how to bring value to the equation, and so it just becomes this colossal hassle. So a real collaboration, both partners need to be very clear about what they are adding to the mix so that one plus one is more than two.

Daniel: Yeah, and I love the thing you said right before that about the idea of being a recognized expert within the conversation, and it seems like in order for a collaboration to really work, you have to recognize someone else, the other person in the collaboration, is having something really valuable to bring to the dialogue, in some way [crosstalk 00:36:06]

Dorie: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. It is especially helpful if you recognize that the other person has a unique talent. I mean, for instance, my musical collaborator, Derek, is a fantastic musician. I mean, he went to an art school literally from elementary school on. He is a beautiful [inaudible 00:36:27], he is a music director at a church. It just comes out his pores. Especially if you take him versus me, who can't even really properly read music, it's like, "Okay." I may have opinions about things, but ultimately nine times out of 10, I'm going to defer to Derek because I know that he knows what he's talking about.

Daniel: That kind of respect is really ... It's great for that respect to be both ways. I'm sure there's stuff that he looks at you and says, "I'm so glad that Dorie is bringing blank to this process."

Dorie: Let's hope man.

Daniel: Well, we're almost out of time. Is there anything we haven't talked about that we should touch on?

Dorie: Well, I want to hear more about your thoughts about collaboration, Daniel. What do you see as the big challenges? Or how do you-

Daniel: Oh, man.

Dorie: ... get past that?

Daniel: It is very hard. I'm glad we talked about it because I was looking at an article you wrote about this, and it is very, very much the case that when somebody says, "Hey, let's do a blank together," it can feel like one person is carrying most of the load. I will say this year, I've been very lucky to collaborate with three other consultants who are at my level or higher, and it's really exciting to be able to collaborate with someone and get to learn from them, and to feel respected that I'm bringing content that's valuable, and to understand that they're bringing something else like operational excellence or amazing client contacts or more years of experience for me. So that respect is really, really important. If the respect isn't there, it's like any marriage.

Dorie: Yes.

Daniel: [crosstalk 00:38:24] The respect has to be there, otherwise, it starts to fall apart, and I've certainly been in that experience with at least one of my businesses, where I think the biggest challenge is everyone having the same talent profile and everyone thinking that they're bringing everything to [inaudible 00:38:43] to the table.

Dorie: Yes.

Daniel: If one feels like they're bringing more, than that's bad, especially in ... If both people feel like they're bringing more, that's really bad, and if everyone has the same talent profile, then there can be a lot of a struggle for power and that's not great.

Dorie: Absolutely, yeah.

Daniel: I don't know. That's my hot take on that, for reverse interviewing and I guess we are.

Dorie: I'm with you. That makes perfect sense. I love it.

Daniel: I want to respect your time. I want to thank you for your time. This has all been really awesome, eyeopening stuff to meditate on< for me. So thank you, Dorie.

Dorie: Yeah, Daniel. Thank you so much. It's great speaking with you, and I'll just mention if folks want to go any deeper, on my website, I have more than 500 free articles that I've written for places like Harvard Business Review and Forbes about a lot of these issues in business. Especially for folks who are interested in questions, like you were asking around how to stand out in business, I actually do have a free 42-page self-assessment that folks can get for free at dorieclark.com/join. J-O-I-N.

Daniel: You're stealing my thunder. I was going to pitch your website, and that 42 page. The questions are voluminous, and they're all amazing sparks for contemplation. I highly recommend people download that and work through it in their own time.

Dorie: I appreciate it. Thank you.

Daniel: I haven't gotten through it all the way. What do you think the approximate amount of time it takes someone to get through all of those questions [inaudible 00:40:31] Dorie?

Dorie: Possibly a lifetime.

Daniel: Well, we'll leave it right there. That's the perfect end point.

Leadership is Consistency

Influence and Leadership aren’t things you turn on and off...it’s a muscle you have to practice all the time. And while being “on” all the time might sound exhausting, Stacey Hanke, my guest today, suggests that the key to leadership is being consistent. Leadership and influence is something you practice “monday to monday” and every day in between.

Stacey is the author of Influence Redefined and Yes You Can! … Everything You Need From A to Z to Influence Others to Take Action. Her company exists to equip leaders within organizations to communicate with confidence, presence and authenticity, day in and day out.

One thing I really heard from Stacey is that in order to grow it’s critical to see ourselves from the outside. That can mean recording yourself speaking or presenting or it can mean having a coach or trusted adviser who can give you honest feedback  - and that you have to prepare for that feedback. If you want to dive into how to develop a culture of critique and feedback about your work, check out my interview with Aaron Irizarry and Adam Connor, authors of “Discussing Design”.

One of my favorite questions in this episode came from Jordan Hirsch, who was in the most recent cohort of my 12-week Innovation Leadership Accelerator: 

How do you lead from the middle, without formal authority? Stacey had some solid, down-to-earth advice:

1. Don’t waste anyone’s time - be brief and clear in your communication

2. Have your message clear and crystallized so you can speak to it without notes

3. Be clear on how you want to be perceived and how you are currently perceived

4. Deliver value, consistently

5. Show up for others - listening deeply means you can respond deeply

If you want to connect with a community of innovation leaders keen on growing in their authentic presence, you should apply to the upcoming cohort at ILAprogram.com

One other fine point I want to pull out from this interview is how influence shifts depending on the size of the conversation you’re holding space in.

1-to-1 : It’s easy to adapt and influence one to one: Stacey suggests that we listen deeply and get our conversation partners to do most of the talking. Also, mirroring their body language can create connection as well.

Groups - if it’s more than five people Stacey’s rule is to get on your feet. You’ll have more energy and the group will feed off of that.

Large Groups - be “bigger” - use more of your voice, and use the whole stage. Connect to the whole room, purposefully, with your eyes

One side note: I misquote one of Newton’s Laws. The Third law is about how every action creates an equal and opposite reaction, not the second law! How embarrassing!

Check out the show notes for how to find Stacey and her work on the web as well as links we mentioned in our conversation.

Show LInks

https://staceyhankeinc.com/

The trusted advisor

Ed Sheeran on giving up his phone: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ed-sheeran-doesnt-have-cell-phone

Deep Listening on Ian Altman’s Podcast: https://www.ianaltman.com/salespodcast/deep-listening-impact-beyond-words-oscar-trimboli/

Developing a culture of critique: Designing a Culture of Critique http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2018/9/2/culture-of-critique

Full Transcription

Daniel: Well, all right. Stacey Hanke, this is a perfect time to welcome you to the Conversation Factory. I'm really glad you made this time to talk with us, because influence is really important. And we're going to dig into it.

Stacey: Honored. Yes. Thank you, thanks for trusting me with your listeners.

Daniel: Thank you. I appreciate that. So, influence is different than people think it is. I think that's something ... like what's the misconception people have around influence that you'd like to help revise their mental model on?

Stacey: A majority of us believe that we turn it on when we need it the most. And I bet all of your listeners can relate to the concept of you have a big presentation coming up or maybe it's a big presentation to the board, you're going to a meeting. And how many times do we really prep for that? Perhaps the night before, the morning of. And then when we're there, we're really focusing on how [inaudible 00:09:20], our word choice.

Stacey: To me, that's not influence. Influence is more consistent than that. We define it as a company that body language and the messaging, they need to be consistent Monday to Monday. Which means every conversation. When that happens, people are less likely to guess who's going to show up for a podcast versus who's going to show up for a phone conversation or whatever it might be.

Daniel: Yeah. So, it's being yourself? All the time.

Stacey: But the best of you. And that's where the other element to influence comes into play, is we really believe that if we feel good, if the message is easy, the conversation is easy, however your listeners define that, we then translate that to, "I must be influential." Another common misperception I hear leaders say, "Why, I've earned this role. I've worked hard to be the partner." Or whatever the case may be. "Therefore I'm influence."

Stacey: I truly believe it's not a badge of honor. I don't think it's something suddenly you accomplish. It's more as you had said, the authentic side of every time you're in an interaction, people really see you, perceive you as someone who's influential, someone that they can trust, and someone that they really want to follow.

Daniel: Yeah. And this seems like a really important thing, because power is not ... command and control power is not really appropriate so much anymore. Especially in organizations that are trying to be more self-managed. It seems like leading through influence is so much more important than leading through, "I'm the boss."

Stacey: It is. Because the other part of the definition of who we define influence is that you've got this ability to move people or take action long after the actual interaction occurs. For example, I want to have influence on your listeners during this podcast. But to me, I don't know, that's not good enough. I'd rather have influence on them three days from now, from when they listened to the podcast, three months from now, three years from now.

Daniel: Yeah.

Stacey: To me, that's a true test of influence. When people come back to you and say, "You know, we had this conversation," or, "I used to work with you at so and so, I just want to circle back around, because you really had some impact on me 10 years ago." Or whatever it might be. But that won't happen if you're not consistent Monday to Monday with how you show up and how you stay showed up for every interaction.

Daniel: Yeah. So, what's really interesting ... So, I come from the world of design. And one of the main ways that we designers think about designing things is as experiences. And when we talk about experiences, we talk about them as journeys or arcs of experience. And it's really clear you have an influence experience arc that you're sketching out. It's not just, "Hey, I have a presentation and I show up." It's the email I sent before and it's the follow up card I send after. And then it's the looping back around. So, I feel like there's a mental model you have. There's a picture in your head of how you sort of sketch out your influence arc. And I kind of want to unpack that from your brain to my ears.

Stacey: Yeah. And you're hitting it right on the head. I really go back to my father used to always tell my sisters and I, "All you have to do in life to be successful is follow through and show up on time." He also would always follow up with, "Always be kind to anyone you ever interact with. Because you never know when you're going to need their help." I translated that into, "My name is on everything I do." Whether it's the email, the social media posts. To me, it's not always ...

Stacey: I'll give you an example. And you probably can relate to this. Client reaches out to you and they want you to speak at an event or whatever the case may be. By the time they meet me in person, that relationship better be created. I know that every touch point they have with me or with my team is constantly creating the perception, the reputation that we have through their eyes. And it is a pull through.

Stacey: I'll give you an example of ... this was a while ago. I'd been reached out by a meeting planner. We hadn't talked. It was all via email. And every time I received her email, I really started to second guess, "Is this someone I want to partner with?" It just didn't feel like the right fit. For whatever reason, the instinct said go with it. When I met her at the event site, she was adorable. Just super outgoing and kind and genuine. On the way back to the airport, I had forgotten my laptop at the event site. So, I text her to let her know. Her response to my text was everything that I experienced when she had emailed me prior to me ever meeting her.

Stacey: That's what I mean by inconsistency. When people are guessing, "Well, Stacey shows up this way if you meet her over the weekend, but when she [inaudible 00:14:34] presentation, she's this person." When we can be consistent in how we deliver a message, how people experience us, what our message says, meaning how people comprehend the words, we start eliminating doubt in our listener's mind. They start doubting us, I think they really start doubting our trust. And trust is really the backbone to whether you have influence or you don't.

Daniel: It seems like consistency has come up in a couple of your interviews as something that's really key. And this is something you're identifying with this one particular person is that she ... her written communication and her in person communication were really different. Is that right?

Stacey: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Exactly. I could go on and on. I have so many stories about clients that I admired and just was impressed by them, and then we would take a step outside of that corporate environment and they were totally different people. I'm sure your listeners can relate to this. Where maybe it's your significant other, you don't know who's going to walk through that door every night.

Daniel: Yeah, that's fair.

Stacey: We can compare that. To me, consistency applies to everything. Influence, to me, is hard work. It takes discipline and it takes a lot of hard work to have influence Monday to Monday. A big piece of that hard work that most people don't comprehend is you need to be consistent. Be consistent with how you communicate and how you treat people and every message that you give to them. Because they don't have to listen to you. They might show up for your meeting, but they don't have to mentally be there.

Daniel: No, they do not.

Stacey: You need [inaudible 00:16:08] them that it's worth their time.

Daniel: So, you mentioned your dad as an early influence in how you thought about how to show up. I actually had this ... a little card here about just curious ... you mentioned that you video tape some of your coachees to help them see what they're doing and how they show up. And so watch ... We learn by watching. I'm wondering like who else did you learn from? Who are your influence heroes? Where you look at them, you go like, "Oh yeah, I want to do that."

Stacey: Yeah. I was really fortunate in a lot of the corporate jobs that I had, I had incredible mentors. I had one really early on, right out of college. And he just ... he constantly pushed me to be uncomfortable and I never liked it at the moment, so that was a lot of it. The constant grooming from him. Then my next job I had another amazing mentor. And that's where the video taping started. Where to be their emcee, I would introduce our speakers at our events. He videotaped me. And that was a little harsh to see it for the first time. And that's when it really clicked to the fact of reality is, you feel a certain way, does not mean that's how everyone else sees you. You have to experience yourself through the eyes and ears of your listeners to truly determine the level of influence you have.

Stacey: And now I have a presentations coach, I've got a business coach. They're huge for me to continue to be uncomfortable.

Daniel: For yourself?

Stacey: The other side, oh yeah.

Daniel: I mean, I think that's really awesome.

Stacey: Because I feel like I can't ... right? And I can't preach to my clients that I mentor, "It's so important that you have a mentor, that you have a coach," if I'm not doing it. To me, that's the other part of consistency.

Daniel: What are you working on right now? What are you trying to develop for yourself? What's your edge?

Stacey: Always working on my keynote. I'm in the midst of that right now. Just creating new material, new stories, new analogies. But that's a little brutal. So, a lot of video taping around that. My business coach, I meet with him monthly. He's a big part of our team. That's all about growing a business and the mistakes we're making. The opportunities that we're missing that he sees that I don't see. And so, it's just hopping on a call and really talking about what's our strategy for the next month, for the next six months.

Daniel: So, in your own coaching, like as you're coaching other people, what are some of the things you're thinking of to help you be a better coach to others?

Stacey: Yes.

Daniel: Because I think that's really important.

Stacey: Here's what I think is not a good coach, when we're constantly telling people how great they are. I'm not saying you're not great. But you can't do anything with that feedback. How many times have you asked someone, "How did I do?" And you hear, "Good, nice job. That was great."

Daniel: Yeah.

Stacey: And you walk around life with blindfolds on, believing how great we are. I always tell my mentees, your company did not pay me to come in here and tell you how good you are. One of the first things I do with coaching is I'm always very clear on, "You tell me what reputations you want to create. Monday to Monday, how do you want people to perceive you?" Once I know what they are aiming for, then I'm very specific on every element to their body language, how they communicate, what they say, where does that enhance that perception, and where does it negate it? We're always working on that piece. I also am very clear if I say to you, "Here's what's working, here's how you can continue to grow that." Not working, meaning here's where you're creating distractions, you're making it really tough for people to understand what you're saying. Here's what you can do with it.

Stacey: I think for your listeners, any time that they want feedback, the most impactful way to get it, to receive it, is always prepare for the feedback. So, for example, let's say, Daniel, before we got on this call today I said to you, "Here's what I want feedback on during the podcast. Would you watch for that? And then afterwards, when we're done recording, give me feedback." If you are in a situation where you can interactively coach, say we were not recording this conversation. In that case, I'd say to you, "I want you to point out to me every time I do this." And fill in the blank on what you want to be developed on.

Daniel: It's interesting. It feels like a definition of leadership that I've been working on. We had an executive coach come in for the Innovation Leadership Accelerator that I'm hosting right now, this gentleman named Helge Hellberg came in. And he talked about how leadership is about the ability to be specific in the qualities that you recognize of others. And it was a very strange definition of leadership.

Stacey: Nice.

Daniel: And what I'm seeing, what you're talking about here with coaching, you don't want somebody just to say, "Hey, good job." I mean, obviously sometimes we do want somebody to hold us and tell us that we're okay. But the truth is, we want to be seen for ... Stacey, when you did that specific thing, when you moved your hands this way, that worked. Right? Your opening worked in these ways. That is a specific acknowledgement of your excellence that helps you be seen, to feel seen. Nobody ... it's not helpful to say like, "Yeah, good job. All right. On to the next thing." It's like ... that's not ... that is definitely not helpful at all.

Stacey: And I had a call right before you and I hopped on this call. A new client inquiring to mentor one of their leaders. I was asking, "Well, has this person received this feedback? Have you told this to her?" And they said, "Well, the team member told her leader, who then told her." I said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. [inaudible 00:21:54] filtered." Already, she's getting the feedback that may not even pertain to her. And it also isn't clear. A lot of times mentees come to us, because they know we're going to tell them the truth.

Daniel: Yeah. So, one thing that came up, and I just want to make sure that I say this. Because I heard it in one of your other interviews. Is this idea of brevity and clarity. Because this came up in another interview I did recently where this idea of communicating for what happens afterwards. Right? The idea of what is my intent? What do I think you're going to do with this information? And to think that we can give somebody a paragraph and then get that paragraph communicated onwards with fidelity is absurd. And so, it seems to me, and of course this is a long ... this is not even a question. This is a diatribe.

Stacey: It's okay.

Daniel: But it seems to me that I'm imagining that some of the work you do with people is just around clarity of messaging.

Stacey: That's a big part. And it doesn't matter how long they've been in the company, the industry, how old they are, how young they are. That is probably one of the number one elements of influence that people lack, is brevity. Getting to the point. We have this internal dialogue with ourselves that the more we speak, the smarter we sound. The [inaudible 00:23:15] is completely true. I am constantly advising individuals, start thinking and speaking in bullet point sentences. Use that time to really pause to think about, "What is my listener saying verbally and non verbally to me that I can adapt my message to what they need? Not what I think they need. What they need." There's no way we can adapt our message on the fly. There's no way we can really listen to a question, an objection, a challenge without giving ourselves permission, "Stop talking." Knowing that silence sometimes is the right answer.

Daniel: Yeah. Being comfortable with silence is no trivial matter, though.

Stacey: Agree. It's the subconscious that lies to us and tells us when we're silent, everyone thinks you don't know what to say. The-

Daniel: Hold on one second. I think I just detached something important. Hold on one moment. I just destroyed the ... sorry Stacey. That was me. Sorry, that was me losing a portion of your interview. Sorry about that.

Stacey: It's okay.

Daniel: Could we just roll back the comfort with the silence piece. And the noise in our heads.

Stacey: Right. The subconscious that lies to us and says to us if we pause, if we're silent, we don't know what to say, we all know the opposite is true. That there is no way you can multi-task. Meaning, thinking of what to say, thinking about how to adapt it [inaudible 00:24:45], and then talking all at the same time?

Daniel: Yes.

Stacey: Trusting our competence, knowing that silence sometimes is the right answer. Giving our listeners time to really follow us every step of the way with our message.

Daniel: Yeah. It seems like a really, really important component of influence is confidence, internal confidence. Trusting in yourself, which is not trivial. How can one actually build that internal confidence?

Stacey: Goes back to the beginning of our conversation. This idea of Monday to Monday is if you're going to practice brevity, you can't [inaudible 00:25:20] brevity in one meeting on a Monday and then forget about it all week. It will never happen. So I want your listeners to think in terms of an athlete or a musician, an actor, an actress. However they perform, that is hours and hours of preparation before they get there.

Daniel: Yeah.

Stacey: The good news for us, because we're talking ... I mean, we're communicating some form 24/7, you have an opportunity to practice brevity all day long. [inaudible 00:25:46] is that suddenly brevity, you cannot speak without it. That way, when you go to a high stakes conversation, you're not thinking, "Well, maybe I should pause today. I really haven't done that lately." It's [inaudible 00:26:00] work. It's going to be an absolute cluster. That's what I mean, again, by Monday to Monday. It's however you're experiencing me now, Daniel, is how you would experience me if we were hanging out for lunch or hanging out in the hallway. It's the same me. Goes back to your comment earlier about being authentic To me, that's authenticity. It's not something you turn on, you turn off.

Daniel: Yeah. Yeah. So, I guess one of the questions I have. Jordan, who is in the Innovation Leadership Accelerator, I asked them at our kick off workshop last weekend if they had any questions around influence. And this one came up, which is how do you lead without authority? If you are not an authorized leader, if you are in the middle of your organization, if you don't have that mandated influence, how can somebody start to earn that ability to influence others?

Stacey: I think it comes down to every time you show up, you make people want to listen to you because you never waste their time. So, brevity's tied to that, Daniel. Right? If you're invited to a meeting, you prove that you earned the right to be there and you've earned the right to stay. To me, it's have that message so clear, not memorized, have it so clear that you know exactly what trigger points and what takeaways are right for your listener, to the point, don't waste their time, and then walk into that conversation like you own it. Your listeners do not need to know what's going on inside in your stomach or in your head. Unfortunately, we reveal that when we start um-ing and ah-ing and we start fidgeting. Or our eyes are constantly disconnected with who we're trying to create some purpose with. All of that communicates we're uncomfortable.

Daniel: Yeah, this is a really interesting idea about everything is communicating in some way, shape, or form. And so, it's about choosing what you focus on to get your ...

Stacey: And you get ... The great news about all of this, say I think a lot of what we also teach with influence is reputation management. You get to determine to some degree the reputation others have of you. You get to determine that by how you show up every day. And then what you really do leave behind. Meaning, do you make it worth their time? That message is worth their time. Do you give them some action steps to actually apply and go back to later on? All of that, to me, is within your control to some degree. Versus someone sees your name on their Outlook in the morning and they kind of think, "I don't want to talk to that person that day." Suddenly, your name has created this reputation that you're the one that's created it. Just by how you treat others.

Daniel: So, let's say I'm in that hole, right? And I might not even know that, right? It's hard. It's maybe impossible to know what somebody's thinking and feeling when they look at my name on their agenda. How can you understand that what people are feeling about you now? Because I know you talk about this. I'm probably not as influential as I think I am. I'm probably not seen the way I want to be seen. So, how do we start shifting from where we are? How do we know where we are? And how do we start to move it in that new direction?

Stacey: Two elements. Get constructive feedback from someone you know is going to tell you the truth and is not going to sugar coat it. And be very clear what works for me? What do I do and say where I have the greatest value? What am I doing that's really causing distractions and disrupting my reputation? Ask that person the type of reputation that you create. Two goes hand in hand with this, and you've heard me talk about this before, Daniel. Is audio and video, as much as possible. Because eyes and ears of your listeners.

Daniel: Boy oh boy, everybody should have a podcast, because I get to look at a chart of whether or not I was a good listener. It's pretty uncomfortable sometimes.

Stacey: Exactly. Without that, though, I really do believe we walk around life guessing the level of influence we have. And usually the guess will be based on the feeling that we have during an interaction. Now, it could go the other way, too. I've worked with many individuals who I'll record them and before we watch the play back, they'll share with me how awful it was. Yet we watch the playback and it's that moment of, "Wow, that wasn't as bad as I thought. That's not how I felt. I felt worse than what I'm actually observing."

Daniel: Definitely.

Stacey: Now, it can go both ways, right?

Daniel: Well, I mean ... And so, one of the keys of in order to get good feedback, you have to have people in your life that you trust.

Stacey: You do. And they're there. Usually you don't have to pay someone to do this. Usually it will be a friend, a significant other, your child. My nieces are great with feedback. My sisters, my sisters are part of the company. And they are always brutally honest. People are out there. You just have to ask for it. And that goes back to our comment earlier, make sure you prepare for the feedback. Be really specific on what you want feedback on.

Daniel: Yeah. I can't stress this enough. I think if you don't frame the type of feedback you want, you'll just get sort of a general ... people will default to they're like, "It was fine. You know, you're great." Or like, "Well, you know," or they'll just give you a shit sandwich. Which is also unhelpful.

Stacey: That's right. Exactly. "Good, nice job. That was great." Well, that's not going to get you anywhere in life.

Daniel: No. So getting feedback and then sort of behind that is having a trusted advisor. We talked about clarity. Right? One way to lead when you don't have authority is to be really, really much more clear and direct in your communication. And there also seems to be a flip side to that, which is knowing the motivations and the needs of the people that you're communicating with.

Stacey: Yes.

Daniel: Do you teach any tools to leaders on that part of the ... the empathy part of the influence challenge?

Stacey: A lot of it is listening and asking the right questions. Not closed-ended questions. Asking very open-ended questions. And then not being caught up in your own agenda when they're answering the question.

Daniel: Well, that just sounds easy. But we know that, that's not-

Stacey: That just sounds so easy. And maybe this is a challenge for your listeners. This week, pay attention to how many closed-ended questions you ask.

Daniel: Yes.

Stacey: I think closed is our world. When you can ask more open-ended questions, it gives you more insight on what do they really want? I always think of a good interviewer. And maybe someone comes to mind for all your listeners. The really good interviewers, as you watch them on TV or YouTube, they'll ask a question to the interviewee. The interviewee answers, the interviewer still doesn't say anything. Because the good stuff usually comes after that first response. Are you practicing, Daniel?

Daniel: Maybe.

Stacey: You know, and it's ... Something that's common is we don't even listen anymore. We teach a lot of executives and leaders how to have influence when you're in a meeting and you're not speaking.

Daniel: Interesting. Tell me more about that. That's really-

Stacey: And this kind of, yeah, this evolved over the years, Daniel. Because we'd be doing our workshops and we do tons of videotaping and people have to get in front of room, they get videotaped and coached by us. While there would be other partners or leaders in the room that would be busy on their phone, because they thought, "Oh, well, they're being recorded, I can check out." And one day we happened, by accident, to catch all the background noise on the video, of someone else's video. It just so happened. And we played it back in the room, and that's when it hit me that day where I realized, "Oh, wait. Influence is not just when you're speaking. It is so much more impact when you're just supposed to be physically listening." I always tell leaders, if you're on your phones in meetings, other peoples' meetings, then expect the exact same behavior to happen to the meetings you lead.

Daniel: Yeah, yeah. It's how you ... It's Newton's second law, right? For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.

Stacey: So true. And how can you ... You cannot adapt a message if you're not listening. And let ...

Daniel: No.

Stacey: If you ever watch a really good leader, and I get to observe a lot of them in meetings at their corporate sites. I'll watch them. And for the majority of the meeting, they [inaudible 00:34:46] a lot. Every time they do speak, though, it's just this amazing idea or concept. I'm thinking and dissecting what they're doing, they're just listening to what's going on in that meeting.

Daniel: That's so interesting. And so, how can we ... what's something actionable for us to be more ... being influential as a listener is not a concept ... is not a mental model I really have. This is fascinating to me.

Stacey: I think we could start something as simple as when you go out to dinner with friends or family, don't open your phone. Actually listen to what's happening around you. You're waiting, so you're at a coffee shop or wherever you're at. And you're waiting for whomever to arrive. Don't check your phone. Just sit there and listen to what's going on around you. I read an interview, and I wish I knew who it was. It was some musician that had decided to give up his phone for three months. He said the hardest part initially was exactly that. Where you go to a restaurant, your friend or family member's not there. He said, "I realized I couldn't go on my phone. I realized how far connected I was from just sitting and listening to my own thoughts."

Daniel: Yeah.

Stacey: And then from there, when you go to a meeting, do you really need to take your phone in that meeting? Or could you just take your own physical being and get more out of that meeting through the listening?

Daniel: Yeah. I think that's a really, really important thing that we need today. More than ever.

Stacey: Oh, we're losing it. I think we're really losing the art of face to face communication. And a lot of it's the technical gadget, we're on this fast speed, sprint, sprint, send message after message. So much of this spoke to, Daniel, about being aware. That when you're in a meeting, it's being aware that you're suddenly drifting and thinking about what traffic's going to be like on the way home. To be able to recognize that and pull yourself back into the moment.

Daniel: Yeah, very much so. It's funny, I'm ... for some reason, what's going into my head is one of the first interviews I listened to of Ian's on his podcast was a gentleman who talked about deep listening. And one of the things he pointed out was that we can think at more than twice the speed that we can talk. So, we ourselves are thinking a lot while we're talking. And the people who are listening to us are doing the exact same thing. And so, it just seems like one important way to influence is to, I find, and maybe you know this as well, because you're a trainer. Right? Is presenting people with as much multi-sensory information as possible when you're working with them. So, it's not just talking, it's not just visuals. It's getting people out of their chairs. It's getting them to move around. It's really giving a 360 degree experience for people, so that there's not even a chance for them to bring out their phones.

Stacey: That's when your open-ended questions come into play, too. Make it part of their conversation, not you delivering this message and lecturing to them hoping that it sticks. Make them take ownership, that if they're there, they're just as much as a part of conversation as you are.

Daniel: Yeah. So, I have a ... I want to transition to maybe my last sticky note. Because there's something you talked about with consistency of showing up Monday to Monday. But we also ... You also mentioned in one of your other interviews, that there is an energetic difference between showing up in a one to one and in a group facilitation, which I know you've done a lot of as well and a keynote. And I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about ... because this spectrum of size and conversations is something I'm really obsessed with. And it's a big part of the book that I just finished writing. So, I'm wondering if you could talk about like being influential in those different sizes of conversation, from the small to the medium to the large?

Stacey: If you're one on one, I think it's really easy to adapt the message on the fly. Because just get them to do most of the talking. And suddenly it's all about just that one person. It's easier to adapt the body language if they have a lot of energy and they use gestures or they're leaning forward often, then I will do that as well.

Daniel: Sure.

Stacey: If not, I'll kind of back off. I'll respect their space. So that's where I see that piece is really different. When you get to a medium sized group, now you've got to pay attention to 10 people, 15 people, whatever the case may be. In that case, my rule of thumb, anything above five people, I get up on my feet. I know I'm going to have more energy, I know that gives them more energy than just sitting down there. And you can change this up, right? Sometimes you're standing, sometimes you're seated. [inaudible 00:39:28], though, you still get them to do a lot of the work. Get them interacting with you. Get them engaged with you by asking those open-ended questions.

Stacey: When we go to a large group, I always ... you know, anyone that I'm mentoring, they'll want me to mentor them for all these different situations. When it's a large presentation, you just have to make yourself bigger. [inaudible 00:39:48] suddenly, the person way in the back corner of the room, they can't really see you like the person in the front of the room. So, how I teach what to do with your eyes is different one on one, to a small group, to a large group. And how to really make that eye, I call it eye connection, eye connection purposeful. Although, if you're on a stage, make sure that you walk to all far ends of that stage to make sure you're connecting and really bearing where you stop. Your voice needs to change. You need to make sure that, that volume level is suitable for whatever the microphone you're wearing, for the size of the group.

Daniel: Sure.

Stacey: I want you to think of it ... I teach core skills like a golf lesson. I'll teach everyone core skills that I truly believe apply to every conversation. Where it gets difficult is based on your competitor in golf and based on the obstacles and how far away you are from the green. That, to me, is [inaudible 00:40:43] our communication is there's core skills we teach, we'll then teach you how to adapt them to not just the room size, but the personalities in front of you.

Daniel: I think that's a really important point. Which is that the skill of connecting is the skill of connecting. Body language is body language. But the intentionality with body language in a keynote versus a mid-size meeting, there is an energetic difference than with the one on one. It's like a ship. You know, a small ship is easier to turn around.

Stacey: Yeah.

Daniel: So, that's really helpful.

Stacey: I always ... Yes, it is a different level of energy. But we still want to make sure that you're authentic. I've seen individuals get on stage and suddenly it's this acting show. [inaudible 00:41:33] through that. And you're really going to lose that trust with them.

Daniel: Yeah. Because people can sense the inconsistency.

Stacey: Right.

Daniel: Right. So, you know, I guess one other question to ask is, when I teach people collaborative intelligence stuff, and I talk about the fact that I use some of the feedback frameworks that I use at work. I use them with at home, with my fiance. People roll their eyes. They're like, "Oh, she must really be tired of that." And I'm like, "Well, actually, no. She is generally really happy to have clarity about whether or not she wants empathy or sympathy or problem solving." I'm intentional about that. I'm not going to tell her the solution to her problem, because A, I probably don't know it. And B, that's probably not why she's telling me. It does seem potentially exhausting to feel like one has to be always on Monday to Monday. So, what does Stacey do for Stacey to relax? To unpack, to just be? Because it seems like that's an important part of influence is not being influential sometimes.

Stacey: Right. Right. Well, let me give you an example of this idea of what is really being on and not being on. If I were to um and ah throughout the weekend with my friends and family, and then on Monday I have a sales call and suddenly I don't do it, it's not going to work. So, that's what I mean by Monday to Monday. If I don't look people directly in the eyes on the weekends and I'm constantly talking to my phone as I'm having a conversation or I'm talking someplace else, I can't suddenly go in a meeting on Monday and now lock eyes with people. Does that make sense?

Daniel: It does, actually.

Stacey: So, these are these core skills that I compare to golf or tennis, whatever the sport may be, that we teach. Now, is it okay to maybe on the weekend you said more than you needed to say? Of course. The more that you practice, the more you're going to be aware that when you're in that meeting on Monday morning, you know when you're starting to go on this long winded road that you can stop it in the moment without skipping a beat, and get back on track. But that only happens, that moment of time of your level of awareness, will only happen when you put in the work of that practice as much as possible.

Daniel: Yeah, and building that muscle memory. That's really clear.

Stacey: You know, we talk about having a very open stance. Well, on the weekend you're at a cocktail party, can you have a cocktail and you might have a closed-stance, of course. But it's about being aware of that when you're in that conversation at work or where else you need to be influential, you're aware when your body is closed that you can easily open up without it throwing you off your message.

Daniel: Yeah. It's really clear that it's not a switch you turn on. It's a muscle that you develop.

Stacey: It's all muscle memory. It's all muscle memory. And let's face it, you learned to fill spaces with your words somewhere. You can unlearn it, too.

Daniel: That's true. Well, and I think mostly people aren't aware of their choices.

Stacey: It just takes work.

Daniel: Right? That's what's clear, except not everybody's aware of what their choices even are.

Stacey: Yeah. My nieces, I have a seven year old niece, my youngest niece is seven. She would be in first, is it first grade? I don't even know. They're already teaching her not to say um.

Daniel: That's amazing.

Stacey: [inaudible 00:45:00], because if I slip or my sister slips when we're all together, she'll catch it right away. I'm like, see, no teacher ever tells you, "When you don't know what to say, just keep talking." We've never been told. Yet somehow, we pick up that mentality.

Daniel: I had a teacher, my fourth grade teacher, hammered on us for saying like. Oh, man. We got that beaten out of us. And it's a pretty bad one. So, Stacey, we're getting close to the end of our time together. Is there anything I have not asked you about the world of Stacey and influence that I should have asked you? Is there anything that we've missed off that's important to talk about?

Stacey: I think the most important piece you hit on is what can your listeners do after this podcast? If they're really curious on the level of influence that they have through their communication, the feedback is key. And take that step of audio and recording yourself as much as you possibly can. You've got the technical gadgets to do it. I do it on my iPhone all the time. And that is going to be the trigger to constantly get you to grow. Because this is also not a one stop shop. You don't practice one skill and then you're good forever. The success, when I see successful, to me someone that really has influence consistently, is someone that is constantly working at it.

Daniel: Yes. Yeah. That's really, really good take home. And so finally, off on the internet places. Where can people go and learn more about all things Stacey?

Stacey: Got it. I'm happy to be your listeners' accountability partner from afar. We are all over social media. We never sell on it. We truly are there to just pump material to help people. Or on our website is where you can find all those sites to social media. And that is Stacey, with an E-Y, H-A-N-K-E, I-N-C, dot com.

Daniel: There you go. You heard it here first. Stacey, thank you so much for your time. I really, really appreciate you digging into all these things with us. This stuff is really important. And I hope everyone can start working on their influence muscle memory starting immediately.

Stacey: Thank you, Daniel.

Leading Through Asking

Questions need silence. Great questions are provocative. Great questions defy easy answers. Answering them takes time - they can be the work of a lifetime or a workshop. A great question can guide an organization, a Design Sprint or an educational program. Great Facilitators ask great questions - on purpose.

In this episode I sit down with the effortlessly scintillating Nancy McGaw, Deputy Director of the Aspen Institute Business & Society Program (Aspen BSP). Nancy also leads corporate programs designed to cultivate leaders and achieve Aspen BSP’s mission of aligning business with the long-term health of society.

In 2009 she founded (and still directs) the First Movers Fellowship Program, an innovation lab for exceptional business professionals who have demonstrated an ability and passion for imagining new products, services, and management practices that achieve profitable business growth and lasting, positive social impacts.

I would suggest you listen to this episode at 1X speed if for no other reason than it’s good to slow down sometimes - it’s a point that Nancy makes early on in our conversation.

Nancy and I meditate on the power of questions: Asking instead of telling lights people up and will surprise you, the asker, if you design your questions with care. 

Nancy shares three of her favorite questions.

1. Tell me about a time when you were working at your best…?

2. What would have to be true…?

3. Why do you do the work you do?

Starting with Stories

The first question shows the power of Starting with stories. Any user experience researchers or Design Thinkers listening will know this to be true - if you’re talking to a customer or a client, the best way to get rich and detailed information is to ask a “tell me about a time when…” question. Stories light up our brains in ways facts cannot, and starting our gatherings with a story is a luxurious and powerful way to generate energy and connectedness.

Appreciative Inquiry

This first question also connects to one of the most important ideas in this episode - even though it’s mentioned only briefly: Asking with focus on the positive and the functional over the negative and dysfunctional. Appreciative Inquiry is a rich body of work and a unique approach to change.

The Art of Possibility

Nancy’s second question is an excellent act of conversational Judo. Asking “What would have to be true…” can transform conflict into collaboration...or at least, honest inquiry. Asking this question can allow skeptics to dream a little and open the door into possibility.

That question came out of another question, from Michael Robertson, who attended the recent cohort of my 12 week Innovation Leadership Accelerator. He wanted to know if an “us vs them” mentality is ever appropriate when trying to lead deeply important change. Nancy’s answer is profoundly empathetic. As a side note, the next cohort of the ILA is in February - we’re accepting applications through January. If you want to dive more deeply into your own personal leadership, head over to ILAprogram.com to learn more and apply.

Why over what

I love the idea of asking people “Why do you do what you do?” without even knowing what they do. This question also points to understanding people’s history, which is one of the key components to change - how did we get to now? What was the arc of the story?

Nancy has added some amazing books to my reading list - check out the show notes for links to them all and enjoy the episode!

Nancy at the Aspen Institute

Business and Society Program

First Movers Fellowship Program

Edgar Schein’s Humble Inquiry

The Four Quadrants of Conversational Leadership

Appreciative Inquiry

John McPhee’s Draft No. 4 

The Four Truths of Storytelling

 Carmine Gallo’s Storytelling Secrets

Rosamund and Ben Zander’s Art of Possibility

Leading change with and without a Burning Platform

Hal Gregersen’s Questions are the Answer

Elise Foster’s The Multiplier Effect

Full Transcription

Daniel:            I'll officially welcome you to the Conversation Factory. Nancy, I'm really so grateful that you made this time in your schedule, and even moved it back or forward in your calendar depending on how you look at time.

Nancy:             Great.

Daniel:            So, I wish we could have recorded our first conversation in some ways. Because those are the improvisational unexpected conversations. But I was really, really grateful to get connected to you because you're the dialogue person and the conversation guy as our mutual friend described. So I'm wondering, why is dialogue important to you?

Nancy:             You know, when I came to the Aspen Institute 20 years ago, I realized that dialogue was much more than just a way to bring people together and get them to talk. That it was really an opportunity to imagine future, and sort out differences, and explore possibilities. And that actually learning to structure a dialogue, it was a revelation to me that you could think about it in very different ways, and that it mattered to the outcome. So, I just became fascinated by this notion. I think it went back to my days, my early days as a teacher, when you're thinking about how the classroom is going to go. It was just so much fun to begin to imagine what we could do in this space. And of course, I was leaning into when I joined roughly 50 years of practice in dialogue that has been true with the Aspen Institute since its founding in 1950.

Daniel:            So can you talk a little bit about the dialogues that you structure at Aspen, the two programs that you have your hands in structuring for us?

Nancy:             Well, sure. Dialogue can mean a lot of things. And so I may deviate from what you're thinking about in terms of dialogue. But when we're bringing people together, we really try to think about who's in the room, and to create a space that will make it possible for the expertise of all of the participants in the room to emerge. If we do that, I feel like we've succeeded. And to let that expertise emerge in a way where everyone can feel engaged. This isn't about sharing insights. It's really about sharing knowledge so that others can learn and in a way that allows them to share something that makes you better at what you do or think more broadly about who you are in the world. And that's putting a lot of emphasis on dialogue. But I think that's what's possible in the dialogue space.

Daniel:            Yes. Very much so. And this actually goes to the quote you talked about right before we hit the record button, but from Edgar Schein's, Humble Inquiry, perspective. Ask people questions to which you do not know the answer.

Nancy:             Right. I think that dialogue is about talking, of course, it's also very much about listening. And one of the things that I've been focused on since I came to the Aspen Institute, and it's become even more important to me as I've learned more and more about how to facilitate conversations is the importance of question. What questions you ask and how you frame those questions is enormously important to the outcome. And if you ask a question, you really are not interested in hearing the answer, then you might as well not bother.

Daniel:            Right. So I'm curious... Oh, sorry, please go ahead.

Nancy:             No, I was just going to say Edgar Schlein, in this tiny book that I recommend to everyone, Humble Inquiry, he says we have a tendency to ask, but to tell rather than ask and we need to shift the balance there. And really to ask, with intent to learn.

Daniel:            So this is fascinating because this is one of the primary structures I've been using to get people to think differently about how they communicate. And it's actually even helped my dad in his relationship with my mother, who will be listening to this podcast and will be very gratified that I drew them a two by two matrix which was asking versus telling, and problem focus versus solution focus. And pointed out that my father was in a different quadrant than my mother was, and this was a revolution for him.

Daniel:            And I find that structure can really help people take this amorphous thing, which is dialogue and asking, and narrow things down. What are some of the ways that you structure these dialogues when we're looking at the Leaders Forum and the First Movers Forum, what are some of the structures you apply to help you make sure that the right types of conversations are happening?

Nancy:             Well, first of all, I have to say I love that story about your family because I think asking questions isn't just about doing this in a professional setting. It's engaging with the people that you love the most, and who may frustrate you the most.

Daniel:            Oh, yeah.

Nancy:             And I would love to have been a fly on the wall when you had that conversation with your parents. Because sometimes we don't even realize we are telling more than asking. Because no one's asked us to slow down enough to really think about that. And so when you talk about the structure of dialogue, I think that's one of the first things is just slow down.

Daniel:            Yes.

Nancy:             And realize something about the way that you interact with others. And when you can do that and really be genuinely interested in the other people who are in the conversation with you, something happens. So, we try to do that in a way that provides space for everyone to contribute, but doesn't put any pressure on anyone to be the person who has the right answer.

Nancy:             I think there are so many things I think about when we're putting a seminar together. And if you're doing a seminar that goes over several days, you have to have a variety of experiences for people. So there's no one formula that works. But there are a couple things that we keep in mind. One, of course, the questions that we hope will be interesting enough to people and prompt enough reflection on their part so that they feel that they want to participate in trying to find answers to those questions.

Nancy:             We believe in the power of silence. This was really difficult for me when I first started facilitating. If you start out a particular conversation and you're asking a question of the group, you need to give people an opportunity to process the question. And my tendency was to cover up the silence. So if I didn't get an immediate response to a question, I would explain it further, or ask the question in a different way. And I have learned, sometimes you just sit with a silence. And that's particularly true when we do something that perhaps seems quite unusual to those who work in a business setting.

Nancy:             One of the things we do, on occasion, is to introduce a poem into the group to prompt a different way of thinking about things. And some people feel quite uncomfortable with that, with memories of being in an English class in high school and having to do the heated discussion about some poem. But it works, surprisingly. In fact, it's so popular a part of the First Movers Program, that the First Movers themselves, who are fellows in this program of innovators within business, they've created their own poetry circle. But the point I was going to make was, if you introduce a poem, and you read the poem, and you ask someone else to read the poem, and then you say, "And what thoughts emerge for you as a result of reading this?" And there's silence in the room, you can assume that people just don't have anything to say. Rather, you need to assume that they needed a few minutes.

Daniel:            I think that's so beautiful. Is there a specific poem you find is one that you enjoy sharing with people often?

Nancy:             We have a lot of them. Mary Oliver, of course, is beautiful. She's lyrical and she's not esoteric. So, she's great. We try to use selections from different traditions. There are translations of some of Rumi's work that works well in a group. There are many. One of the-

Daniel:            I'm going to try to get you to read a poem for us by the time this call is over if we can manage it.

Nancy:             Well, I don't have any handy but I would be glad to do that at some point.

Daniel:            Okay. So, I'm curious about the First Movers Program because it is like a longer arc. When you were talking about seminars, and that's multiple days of people coming together to talk or reflect on a specific topic, but the First Movers Program is once a year long arc. How do you hold that conversational space? The word sometimes people use is container. How do you keep that container together over such a long period of time?

Nancy:             Well, let me, if I may just say a word about what the First Movers Program is.

Daniel:            Yeah, that'd be wonderful.

Nancy:             Which has been in existence for over a decade now. So, way back in 2007, we started asking ourselves at the Aspen Institute Business and Society Program, what if we were able to find people in business, from all different places in the business, not solely in the sustainability or corporate responsibility. People in business who were doing innovative things to create new products, services, or management practices that achieved a great result for the business, and a great result for the world?

Nancy:             And when we started as a pilot, we started this program as a pilot, we didn't know if we could find good people, if the companies would support our participation, but we set out on this class. And we are now with our 11th class of fellows. And we have found these people in companies that the competitive process we select a class each year. And these First Movers, who we also refer to as corporate social entrepreneurs, become a part of a community that we're building and our objective is to build a community of business leaders who really change the way that business operates and also the way that success is measured. So that's just a little bit about this First Movers Program.

Nancy:             Our intent was to learn from the First Movers from the innovators in business, but also to help them be more effective and more courageous in the work that they're doing in company. And to do that, we decided to offer a fellowship program where they continue to work in their companies, but they participate in three seminars for the first year of the program. And I could talk at great length, Daniel, about the structure of this. So, I don't want to get carried away, I'll just say, just start and then stop and see if I'm moving in a direction that's useful for you.

Nancy:             When we decided that we wanted to create these seminars, we believe that there was four themes that we really wanted to integrate into the programming. And those things were innovation, of course, that was the core of the program. What does innovative practice in this space look like? Leadership, because each of these people we knew would have to be leading change within their companies. Even if they were people who didn't have a team, they were still trying to create space for new ideas to be considered.

Nancy:             So, innovation and leadership, reflection, this is consistent with the tradition of the Aspen Institute to offer people an opportunity to think about their decisions and their life in a broader context. And that is actually probably much more important a part of the program that I might have envisioned at the beginning. And the fourth theme was community, so we build this network of people who support each other. And so the content in the seminars that we designed relate to one or more of these themes. I'm just going to stop there and see if I'm moving in the right direction.

Daniel:            Oh, absolutely. I mean, because I look at those four; innovation, leadership, reflection and community and from my own perspective, I look at each one of those as a type of conversation, right? Reflection being a conversation with myself, community being this multi node nonlinear conversation. We've had some episodes where we've talked about people who try to shape community and what it means to shape a community and innovation is definitely, from my perspective, a conversation between somebody who wants to make something and the person that they're trying to make it for. At least in the product design world of innovation, we always try to focus and personify "recipient of the innovation." So, those are all... We will be lovely to dig into all of these individually if we have time, but in any case, it'll be interesting to look at the arc that's tying all those things together. Because there are three seminars and these four topics, do they show up in each one or is it like a sort of a rising and falling arc where we address one, and then another in series?

Nancy:             They show up in all four, but we emphasize maybe one or the other. Obviously, community cuts across all of that. Well, all four of the things are visible in each of the seminars. But in order to build community, you have to, as you know so well, you have to build trust. So certainly in the first time we come together, that's a big part of what we do is just sharing and getting people to be comfortable sharing with others whom they've never met. And it's amazing how that can happen. And people value that opportunity to learn from others and to share what they know. And that emerges very vigorously in the first seminar.

Nancy:             I just want to go back to your point though, about conversation being a part of each of these themes. I think it's so true and you can have conversations in so many ways. And especially in the innovation piece, we all talk about it. Everybody loves innovation. And one of the things that becomes so apparent when you're talking about innovation in any space, but certainly in this social innovation space that is our focus. It really does not work to have a great idea that you try to convince others to embrace. The only way that this kind of innovation can happen is when you invite others in to co-create possibilities. And that is very much rooted in conversation.

Daniel:            Yeah. I mean, you've used my... I don't know if you can hear the rain that's happening above me. There's no way to remove that from the recording. Everyone will know it's raining hard today.

Daniel:            You've used one of my favorite trigger words, which is invitation. And this idea that you can't force real interaction, you can only invite it. And I'm wondering, this is such an interesting question of how these first movers are guided to invite people into the challenge that they want to create. Because I know when you're creating big change, there's often this idea of immunity to change, or resistance to change, or people who don't see the need for the change in the same way that these people might.

Nancy:             Right. And we talk about that in a variety of ways. It might be useful just to talk a little bit about how we start the first seminar. Because I think it speaks to this notion of invitation and getting people into a conversation. And you and I have talked before about the power of something called appreciative inquiry, which is a foundational approach that we built into the First Movers Fellowship Program designed.

Nancy:             And so the first thing we do in the seminar is to invite each fellow to tell a story. And the prompt for that story is to reflect on their own personal experiences and tell the group in five minutes or less a story about a time when they were working at their best in order to create some kind of change that was good for the business and good for the world. And sometimes they go back to an experience they may have had in college, which isn't really a corporate experience, but it's something that has stayed with them. At the moment the important piece of this is to tell about a time when they were working at their best.

Nancy:             And what happens in that room when everyone shares their stories is quite remarkable. No one's bragging. They are just reflecting on a time when they were able to achieve a result that made a difference for them, and for others. And we ask them too, as they tell their story, just to tell us three things about themselves that made it possible for them to achieve that particular result.

Nancy:             And I'm grateful to the scholars, particularly at Case Western, David Cooperrider and Ronald Fry, who ran a seminar that I had a number of years ago on appreciative inquiry, for giving me this powerful framework for thinking about organizational change. And one of the ways of doing organizational change, you know, is to figure out what's wrong and try to fix it. Another way of thinking about organizational or personal change, for that matter, is to really reflect on what work and build from that foundation.

Daniel:            And so I presume, what do you do with all of those stories after all the First Movers share the stories? What do you harvest from that?

Nancy:             I'm losing you, Daniel.

Daniel:            Oh, can you-

Nancy:             There's connection. There, that's better.

Daniel:            Okay. Hold on-

Nancy:             And there seems to be a lot of background noise.

Daniel:            Yes, that's the rain. There's not much I still can do about that. But I'll try to talk louder.

Nancy:             That's fine. Sorry, ask me the question again. I lost track.

Daniel:            Yeah. I mean, my curiosity was around, once you've heard all of these stories, what do you harvest from them? What's the aha that comes from all of those stories?

Nancy:             I would say the aha is that each of the individuals in the room has worked in a way that already reflects success and possibilities. And because we ask each to share some, just short insights about what made it possible, begin to build a sense of the qualities that the group brings to the challenge of corporate social entrepreneurship. And there's quite a lot of consistency we found over the years in the qualities. And there are things like institutional savvy, real vision for possibilities, some passion for doing work that matters to them, persistence. And so then these qualities can become something that gets discussed as well. How do you build on those strengths? How do you amplify those capabilities in the next challenge that you face?

Daniel:            Yeah. And how do we learn from and adapt other's excellence for our own?

Nancy:             Yes, absolutely. You know, when you hear other tell these stories, you think, well, that either sounds like me, or maybe that could be me, or maybe I need to think about my own personal narrative in a different way. So, yes, there's a lot of learning that happens.

Daniel:            I love starting with stories, because you could start with a framework, you could start with, here's a diagram of the strengths and capabilities. And I think that would put everyone to sleep.

Nancy:             It is amazingly powerful. And I will tell you, in the first seminar that we did with the first class, and we set out this question and ask people to start, the design team, the facilitation team, we weren't sure where this was going to head. I mean, sometimes you just have to experiment, right?

Daniel:            Yes.

Nancy:             And you have to trust that the process is going to take you where you want to go. But we didn't know. It happened to the person who stood up to tell the first story. We don't stand up necessarily, but she did, in my recollection. And she was a wonderful storyteller. And that set a tone. But also it allowed us to relax, even if she hadn't been such an accomplished storyteller, because she was telling something that mattered to her. Then there's just a level of engagement that is so palpable in the world, and encourages others to really lean into these stories and to reflect on their own experiences.

Nancy:             And you would think... we are usually a group of somewhere between 20 and 22 people. You would think that 25 minutes stories would make people want to climb the wall, and it's true, we do take a break in the middle, but stories are powerful. I would love to be more of an expert in storytelling because I think stories are conversations too. I guess we could say everything is conversation, but.

Daniel:            I mean, I would, but I feel like stories are an interesting element of a conversation. I feel like that's one of the things that we communicate in dialogue is the creation of a story together is an ideal. I'm wondering, I'd like to link this back to the other book we mentioned in our conversation about the fourth draft and this idea that a story should be compelling and short, and cutting stories and teaching people about storytelling intentionally seems like an important aspect of talking to anybody about innovation, is learning how to tell stories. What are you learning about stories right now?

Nancy:             Right. And you're referring to something I put on my email. This is a another way to have a conversation, I think, is to-

Daniel:            It's a conversation starter.

Nancy:             ... dare to put on your email what you're reading. And I started doing that several months ago, and it's given me an opportunity to have a number of conversations I wouldn't have had otherwise. The book you're referring to is John McPhee's, Draft No. 4. It is a series of essays written by someone who is an extraordinary writer who wrote for The New Yorker and for Time magazine for many years, and who taught writing at Princeton for a number of years as well. And I was trained, my undergraduate work was in English. So I did a lot of reading, did a lot of writing when I was in College, and have continued to do that since. But it's always fascinating to me to read about the art of writing and to realize how one has to continue to cultivate the ability to do that. And John McPhee is a master.

Nancy:             And it's sort of odd, I suppose, to say that John McPhee talks so much about cutting content, because articles for The New Yorker can be 40,000 words and you think, "Gosh, that doesn't seem like they've done much cutting." But he is so focused in these essays on how you structure the written word, and the choices that you make, and what you say versus what you don't say. And I found it... and is surprisingly witty. Very charming.

Daniel:            Yes. Well, he seems to find moments. He captures witty moments as well.

Nancy:             Yeah, he does. He does.

Daniel:            So what are you learning from Draft No. 4? How are you applying that in your own work? How is narrative enhancing your dialogues?

Nancy:             Well, narrative, another powerful word. We think a lot about narrative, and storytelling, and how we communicate the work that we do, and how we help others in the seminars that we put together communicate what it is that they're trying to do, but also how they think about who they are and how they show up in the world. And I think just focusing on how that appears on a page in the written word is one way to think about how important it is to be a craftsman and not to be intentional about choosing the way that a narrative comes together. And so that's one of the big things I'm learning from him.

Nancy:             And also, it's encouraging to know that someone as accomplished a writer as John McPhee was, that he struggled. And it's important to realize that the struggle is part of the process, no matter what it is you're trying to do. And sometimes you shouldn't fight that, rather you should embrace it.

Daniel:            Yeah.

Nancy:             And trust, trust that if you put your mind to it you'll get there.

Daniel:            I mean, my brain is lighting up so many things. One of the things I loved about the small section of Draft No. 4 that I read was his diagrams of how he was thinking about his essays. Where he put the person a little circle, the person, the profile was about, and then all these X's around them, all the other people he was going to talk to triangulate the truth or the narrative that he was talking about. And then it's like, "What if I did two circles?" And then he had this third version where he was like, "It's so elaborate that I decided not to do it." And this is where structure gets in the way of content and our mental model doesn't help, it hurts. And I guess I'm wondering like, do you have a narrative, a mental model for storytelling that you use to help you tell and share compelling narratives?

Nancy:             I don't think I have a mental model for that. But I think I have an appreciation for the discipline. And there are people whom I've learned from other than many other people. I read a lot. So every time I read, I try to think about the choices that the author made. When I hear people tell stories, I think about the choices that they made. And there's some great... In the seminars we do with First Movers, we use background readings.

Nancy:             And one of the old pieces we use is a Peter Guber article from the Harvard Business Review that talks about the four truths of storytelling. That you have to be true to yourself and true to the listener. That it's just helpful to have someone who does a lot of storytelling, give you a framework that can prompt you to think about what your approach is. It doesn't have to be the same as that. But something that gets you thinking. Carmine Gallo work, The Storyteller's Secret has been so informative to me about, again, the choices you make, and how you need to think about how it is that you're framing the material that you want to communicate.

Daniel:            I mean, yeah, I love that it's an inquiry instead of an end point for you. And it almost seems like you're using appreciative inquiry as a lens for any story that you encounter is looking at and saying, "Well, what's working here? What's lighting me up?" And that's really, really powerful.

Nancy:             You know, I hadn't thought about it that way, but I think that's true. And I think it's also, another thing that I try to keep in mind is to be in this space of possibility. I love Ben Zander, Rosamund Zander's book from a number of years ago, The Art of Possibility. Which is very much linked to appreciative inquiry too. They talk about people living in a universe of possibility, as opposed to a universe of metrics and measurement. And in this universe of possibility, you can see abundance rather than scarcity. And when you do that, what door is opened for you.

Daniel:            It's really beautiful. I'm wondering if... One of the things that's interesting to me about your work is, it's a little more personal for me now because my fiance is getting her master's degree in... she's getting an MBA in sustainability. And sometimes we talk about whether or not these regenerative businesses are possible. And if it is possible to change how things are being done. And it seems like one of the ways that you're, I mean, these First Movers are living in the world of the possible, they're doing it and you're trying to spread the narrative that it is possible. I'm wondering what you say to people who feel like it's not possible. That we can't change the way things are done.

Nancy:             Wow. I probably I'm selective in the people I hang out with because I like to be amongst people who say, "This is really hard. This may take generations. Or it may take decades. But it is possible and we can change." And I have the pleasure of working with a network of people who are in sustainability or corporate responsibility, our Leaders Forum Network where these are people who are devoting their professional career to a belief that it is possible to change. And it's remarkable to see what's happening. So, I don't have a good answer to the question about, what do you do when you are working with skeptics?

Nancy:             Well, I do have a response to that, actually. So one of the things we... It's not the answer, but it's a response. One of the things that we suggest with First Movers and others when they have an idea, they want to innovate in a particular direction, to find the skeptics in their organization, and really listen to where they're coming from. And there are questions that can be asked that will shift the conversation. And one of them that I love is, "Well, I understand where you're coming from, but I'd really be interested in understanding from you, what would have to be true in order for our organization to..." whatever. And that allow people to... even if they're totally [inaudible 00:37:39].

Daniel:            I see what you're doing.

Nancy:             If they don't initially believe it, they will go into that space. Well, what would have to be true? Well, that's a pretty provocative question. And if you ask it genuinely wanting to hear what they have to say, then they may provide an insight that you wouldn't get from somebody who's more on board with an idea. I mean, you come from the world of design. I think in design, the how might we question is a driving factor, right?

Daniel:            Yes. Well, and so I'll put a really fine point on this because I have a question here. I'm running Innovation Leadership Accelerator right now. And I promised my participants that if they had questions for you, I would pass them along. And Michael, had this provocative question of, is there ever a time for an us versus them mentality? And the example he gave was Greta Thunberg, you adults are ruining the world for us kids. And she has a very strong narrative. And what I just heard you say is, take your thems, when there's an us and a them, and go to the thems and say, "Tell me more." But sometimes we want to say to the thems, "Screw you, get out of the way?"

Nancy:             Yes. All of that is true. And we can't just turn off our dismay, or our disappointment, or our anger, but I think, if you really want to drive change, you have to at least get into the space where you begin to think, "I can't just react, I have to be strategic." And it's hard. We talk a lot about listening just as an example. And you can learn to be a great listener, but you're not always going to be with people who return the favor. And that's hard.

Daniel:            Yeah. So that, I mean, that goes to the... Oh, sorry. Please proceed.

Nancy:             No, I was done.

Daniel:            Well, because what's lighting me up there is this question of reflection and self care, because maybe we talk about anger and processing that anger. Sometimes anger can be effective, but asking the question, "Will this help me get what my goal is? What I want." It's a tough question to sit with sometimes because the anger feels pretty righteous.

Nancy:             Yeah. Self righteous probably doesn't get you anywhere. Although in, I think in classic change management theory, the John Kotter approach. This notion of creating a sense of urgency, what he calls the burning platform, can be very powerful. And Greta of course, was boring. She was creating a sense of a burning platform. People may not have liked the way she was delivering the message. But sometimes maybe that is necessary to get people to think differently. I think a little of it probably goes a long way.

Daniel:            Right. Yeah.

Nancy:             And some people are better than others. And I think you do have to be true to yourself. I've never been one who operates in that way but I have been moved and changed by people who do.

Daniel:            I mean, I think I'm going to look into those four truths because I think being true to yourself and saying what is true, those are really powerful places to start from. But then this question of, will you incite action or resistance is a really important one.

Nancy:             And you have to be prepared, I guess, for whatever comes your way. That's part of being open to the dialogue.

Daniel:            Yeah. So we're getting close to our time. It's swept through rapidly. Is there anything that we haven't touched on that you think is important to touch on when it comes to facilitating deep and powerful dialogue?

Nancy:             I touched on it, but I think I would just emphasize again, the importance of studying questions. And there are a couple of wonderful books out there. Hal Gregersen talks about this. As does Warren Burger. And the notion of studying questions and becoming a better question crafter is so important to learn. And it's one of those things perhaps we don't think we have to think about, or master. But in fact, that's a skill too. And I have been... my work has been enriched by that idea of, what does it mean to craft a question? And how do I do it better? And what possibilities does that open up?

Daniel:            Do you have a favorite question that you ask people?

Nancy:             Well, I think the question about when did you work at your best? Or what would have to be true in order for something to happen? We also ask people, why is it that you do the work you do? And that's important because, again, we get so busy with our daily lives that we don't necessarily think about why we're doing it. And I think it's very important for all of us to ask ourselves that question and answer honestly.

Daniel:            I had a conversation with Elise Foster, who I'm hoping to have on the show soon. She co-wrote a book called The Multiplier Effect. And she use this lovely phrase around, how much space does the question create? And we talked about open versus closed questions. But I never heard somebody talk about, well, is it this idea of an expansive question, one that really cracks open a new horizon? And it's okay to ask somebody a more narrow question, I think. It's about being intentional. And that's a really powerful thing to take care with.

Nancy:             Yeah. I love that idea of opening up space. And of course, we ask narrow questions all the time, and we need to, but I certainly didn't think very much about the possibility of asking questions that opens space. And I think it's a powerful notion.

Daniel:            Yeah. Well, I want to officially close out our conversation. And thank you for your time and creating the space for dialogue with me. Nancy, it's a real pleasure.

Nancy:             Well, it's been a great pleasure. Thanks so much, Daniel, for making this conversation possible.

What is your Sales Metaphor?

I am so thrilled to share this conversation with author and speaker Ian Altman about a conversation we all have to contend with one way or another - sales! Everyone sells something at some point, whether it’s in a job interview or a client presentation...and at some point, everyone is going to be sold to.

Ian’s book, Same Side Selling, asks “Are you tired of playing the sales game?”

The most widely used metaphors in sales are those related to sports, battle, or games. The challenge with this mindset is that it means one person wins, and the other loses. Instead of falling victim to a win-lose approach, what if you shared a common goal with your potential client? How might things change if the client felt that you were more committed to their success than making the sale?

As Ian says in the opening quote - it’s not about a series of tactics, it’s about selling something you care about that helps people solve real challenges that you also care about!

I wanted to share my own takeaways from Ian’s approach that have helped me facilitate deeper conversations with my clients and potential clients.

1. Stay in the problem space slightly longer than feels comfortable. My listeners with Design Thinking experience will not be too surprised to hear that jumping from problem to solution quickly is not any more effective in sales conversations than it is in innovation conversations. Staying in the problem space means listening longer and more deeply to people before you share your amazing solution to all their worries. Ian’s “same side quadrant” notebook has actually been a helpful reminder to do just that.

2. Ask “what’s the cost of not solving this challenge?” Make sure you understand not just the problem today, but the cost of not solving the problem in the near future. This conversation can help you both understand how to measure the impact of any effort you make to solve the problem.

3. The Cost of your solution is often irrelevant in the face of the cost of the problem. Once you really know the cost of the problem, talking about your fees can feel less challenging.

What is particularly interesting me to are the wider implications of Ian’s metaphor driven-approach. What metaphors are driving the key relationships in your life? Those metaphors are narrative threads that link (and color) each and every moment of the relationship. The simple shift from a game to be won to a puzzle to be solved is a profound one. If you think of your marriage as a battle or your job as a circus, the way you name the game will affect how you play it. 

I’m really grateful to Ian for this new metaphor - and I think you’ll enjoy it too!

Show Links

Website www.IanAltman.com 

LinkedIn: /in/IanAltman

Facebook @GrowMyRevenue

Ian’s Same Side Sales Podcat: https://www.ianaltman.com/same-side-selling-podcast/

Your Chocolate is in my peanut butter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJLDF6qZUX0

Same Side Sales Journal: https://www.ianaltman.com/store/Journal/

Full Transcription

Daniel:            So I'll officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory, Ian Altman. I really, really appreciate you making the time to do this. I felt really lucky that Dan Levy just linked to you on a little LinkedIn conversation about the best sales books that people have read and you were nice enough to agree to come on. I've read your book. It's a blockbuster. So, I really appreciate your time.

Ian:                  Hey, thanks. Thanks for having me. It's cool.

Daniel:            So the thing that is amazing about your book is that the idea behind it is so simple and I can explain it to somebody in literally 30 seconds and I feel like it changes their mental model.

Ian:                  I would love for you to do that because your conclusion may be totally different than what Jack and I intended.

Daniel:            Yeah. Well, I mean, so here's the thing, the metaphor of an adversarial sales relationship, it means that we're fighting each other and it's a game of one-upsmanship, right? That sales develops a new tactic and buyers develop a new tactic and it's a war. And instead of trying to win the game or beat the other side, what does it look like if we get this on the same side in solving the problem as a puzzle rather than as a game to be won.

Ian:                  Yeah, that's it. Wow. Mission accomplished because you never know. You never know how people are going to get it when they read it. But thankfully that's that the gist!

Daniel:            So here's the thing that I'm really curious about. The metaphor is really, really powerful. When did that metaphor start to cook in your brain? Because I know it didn't just pop into your head fully formed.

Ian:                  Well, I'm a lifelong integrity-based seller. So, I had started businesses from zero grew them to a pretty good size where the last company I ran before starting to write books and help people on growing their businesses, we grew to a value of over a billion dollars. And it was always based on thinking in my client's shoes saying what's important to them? What do they really need? What are they trying to accomplish? And if I can align with that, then it makes it easy for everybody. But if instead, if I'm just trying to push stuff on somebody, let's face it, none of us likes to feel that way. And then I was actually... I was giving a sales training class before it was called Same Side Selling in the Washington D.C. area and Jack Quarles, who's my co-author in Same Side Selling, he and I didn't really know each other that well.

Ian:                  And Jack, who had a consulting business on purchasing and procurement and cost savings signed up for the class. And I thought, wow, this is cool. Jack's actually signing up so that he can help his business. And the reality is that what Jack told me after the fact was, "Look, I had clients who were buying from people you had trained and they would defend why it was okay to pay more for them than other people, and I wanted to learn what would these devious tactics you were teaching people, is and I came there and that it was all integrity based." And then he realized, well wait, Ian's teaching people the same thing. I'm teaching my people just from a different angle and to us as far as we know this is the only book on sales that was ever written by somebody on the buying side and the selling side, which really should be the same side.

Daniel:            Yeah. What I find so really delightful about this, so I'm curious about how that conversation, that was your first moment. That was your meet cute, right? In the story of this romance of the two of you writing this book together. That's the meet cute where it's like... and you mentioned the book, The Chocolate and The Peanut Butter, Peanut Butter and The Chocolate metaphor, which only people of a certain age will remember that advertisement, and it's a great advertisement. I'll link to it in the show notes because if you haven't watched it you should definitely, it's a classic. How did the conversation progress from, oh this is a conversation that should be happening, to, okay, let's actually tell the world this story together?

Ian:                  Well the interesting thing is, so Jack and I became first friends, and we would talk... and Jack would say, "So, why do you suggest this process?" And I said, "Well, because I think it helps give the truth and here's what's going on in the buyer's mind." And Jack said, "Well, you know what? It happens to work really well, but that's not what's going on in the buyer's mind, here's what's actually going in the buyer's mind because I work with buyers," and we looked at each other and said, "That perspective would be really valuable for people, because most people have no idea what's going on in the buyer's mind." In fact, in the keynotes I do in the workshops, I do with businesses, I spend a lot of time on, here's the research I've done with over 10,000 CEOs and executives on how they make an approved decision.

Ian:                  And what I find amazing is that people are shocked and they, really that's what's going on? Yeah. Oh, I had no idea. And it's funny because as I started doing this research, now the first hundred people, you'd get an answer and say, "Wow, look at that." The first a hundred people all pretty much were asking the same questions when they were making a buying decision, trying to approve something. That's interesting. And then a few hundred later you're like, "Wow, I'm really surprised that it's still the same answer over and over," and then into thousands, you're like, "Okay, wow. It's still the same thing." And then as I started speaking overseas and different parts of the world, it's like, "Well, I'm sure it's going to be different here," now it's the same thing. Wow, that's really fascinating. And so it's just taken this journey where now oftentimes it's just helping people become aware. It's even in regular communication with one another, we often don't think so much about why does the other person feel this way and why are they saying that? We just said, "Okay, are they done? So now I can give my bet."

Daniel:            Yeah. It's interesting how the friendship with Jack just gave you that deeper level of empathy, which we say we're supposed to have, but it's hard to get.

Ian:                  Yeah. I don't know if it was so much empathy, it's just I was ignorant. And then, through that, I mean, I guess empathy came out of it, but I would love to give myself credit and say, "Well, I was trying to demonstrate more empathy." It was just all of a sudden I realized, wow, here's something that I thought I knew that I didn't. That's embarrassing.

Daniel:            So, you two develop this friendship, you start to learn a lot about his side of the table as it were.

Ian:                  Yeah.

Daniel:            And when does this idea of, let's be on the same side, start to evolve?

Ian:                  I think the concept of Same Side Selling-

Daniel:            Because presumably, this is back in 20, you wrote the book in 2014 or published it in 2014. So, this is going back a-ways.

Ian:                  Yeah. The first version of the book, the first edition was 2014. We wrote it in 2012 or start writing... Anytime someone says, "Oh, I'm going to write a book," you're like, "Okay, well you're in for the long haul." I've never met an author who said, "Wow, that wasn't so much faster than I thought it would." It's always the inverse. And so for us, it was... All of our discussions were always about how do we get buyers to understand this, and how do we get sellers to understand this so they work together. And it's fascinating because Jack is equally passionate about getting salespeople to understand the buyer's perspective, as he is about getting the buyers to understand the sales person's perspective. And it's not like, well, just these sellers need to understand stuff, we both equally are passionate about when the buyer is doing things like reverse auctions.

Ian:                  Like, look, you might think you're getting the best deal, but you're really not, and here's why. It's not always... I mean because of movies and personas, it's always, "Oh, the hyper-aggressive salesperson is doing X, Y, and Z." But it happens on all sides of the issue. And so if you get people together and try and find common ground, then usually end up with a better outcome.

Daniel:            Yeah. Why does sales have such a bad reputation do you think?

Ian:                  Mostly because it's been earned. With a bad reputation has been earned over time, you think about it, you have the hyper-aggressive, pushy salesperson, no one's born with this notion of, well, what I'm going to do is I'm going to impose what I want on other people and I'm going to try and manipulate them into doing what I want. That's not the way we're born. And so someone is taught that unfortunately, somewhere along the line things work. So years and years ago, if you delivered something that didn't work, if you delivered something that wasn't effective, your customer might tell the few people they were close to who they have face to face conversations with. And today when that happens, that extends to the free world. So you used to be able to sell snake oil and get away with it. You used to be able to, if you were selling automobiles, you used to be able to sell somebody a lemon and no one would know. And now of course, if someone doesn't get great service, they post on social media and the car dealerships like, "Well how about we just give you a new car," because it's not worth it for them to do it the wrong way. So similarly in... I spend most of my time with businesses who are selling to other businesses. So the B to B space.

Ian:                  And in that context, you can't afford to deliver something that doesn't work for somebody, because your reputation is toast. You're not going to get repeat and referral business. But if you deliver amazing value, people will tell everybody they know the good news. And so if you focus instead on how do I get to that good place, it works really well. And whatever "Idea" you're selling, think about it. If someone's selling you an idea for their reasons, you're much less likely to be interested than if they are helping show you how their idea can help you.

Daniel:            Yeah. So I guess one of the questions I've been... While I was reading this book, I was looking at it through my lens where I'm a business selling to other businesses and I was also looking at it through... My fiance Janet works for a beer company, it's a sustainably produced beer. And I was thinking about it from her side where it's beer. And in thinking about integrity-based selling and are these techniques more appropriate for complex products and services or do they work for anything in your mind?

Ian:                  They for anything that has differentiation. And what I mean is if you were just selling ball-bearings, and if the way you delivered ball bearings was the same as anybody else, it wouldn't matter. So in..., it was Janet, right?

Daniel:            Yes.

Ian:                  Okay. So in Janet's case, if she's selling beer but it's sustainably produced and it uses organic products instead of toxic products and things like that, her conversation with either a distributor or if she's dealing with the end purchaser, not the end customer, but her discussion is, look, if people didn't like the taste of our beer, anything I'm about to tell you it doesn't matter. So the first thing is you need to make sure that it's appealing to people. And my guess is you have patrons who come in, who would find sustainable and organic to be important to them. If you don't, none of this matters. But do you? And if they say, "Yeah, I do," how do you think they would respond if there was a beer that you could show was produced sustainably and responsibly. And what the ingredients were organic versus who knows what. Do you think that might attract additional guests to your establishment if you have that? Yeah. Okay. Then what's the best way for us to test this out to make sure that you're not buying this long term and that way we'll know whether or not this effective. Because if it is, this could be a game-changer. If it's not well then it's not worth changing. Right?

Ian:                  And now what they say is, but why wouldn't they like it? And now they're convincing you. But it's about realizing well, who would care about that sustainably produced organic ingredient beer? Now, I don't know if it's an organic ingredient. I added that in because that is my wife's [dent 00:12:37].

Daniel:            It is, and I love that I'm getting free sales consulting for Janet out of this but one of the things that I'm noticing in the arc that you're painting, is that a, there's an arc that you're getting towards. I have a sticky note here from the Same Side quadrants section of the book where you say this on page 80. I want to be sure that we don't miss anything important. Can you share what sparked you to pursue this project? And then you have like, hey, we're just doing research. We're losing X money per quarter, or why do you care? Can you just give us a price? And what I'm hearing in your speech here and in these questions in the book is just a tremendous sensitivity to the way you express an idea in a way that's inviting to people and a lot of sensitivity to what you're getting back from the other person. Is it hot? Is it cold or is it a dead fish?

Ian:                  Yeah. And the thing is that, so one of the things I talk about often on stage is that effective selling is not about persuasion or coercion. It's about getting to the truth as quickly as possible. So, you're not trying to convince somebody else, you're just trying to find out what the reality is. So for example, if someone says, "You know what, our bar, here's our demographic," and I'll go stereotypical "Our bar is truck drivers who cuss and don't care at all about the environment, don't care about sustainability," so I'm painting a broad brush that probably isn't accurate, but that's it. So we don't care about if it's sustainable, we don't care if it's organic. In fact, they just want to brand that happens to be on their shirt or hat right now.

Daniel:            Right. She gets to walk out immediately.

Ian:                  Yeah. That's not Janet's audience. And says, you know what, then we're probably not a fit. Now, some people love our beer and their primary reason isn't that it's sustainable or that it's ingredients are organic, and I'm happy to provide a keg for you to try out. If people love it, we'll do more of it. And if not, then you shouldn't buy it. And then that might tip the scale. But the idea is that she shouldn't want to sell somebody a beer that goes bad in the keg because people aren't drinking it. Because that's not good for their business. It's not good for her brand. Because what happens is people say, "Oh, well you had this last week you don't have it now, why not?" Well, because no one cared about it. Well, that's, that's bad for the brand overall.

Ian:                  And so the idea is that if we think instead about how can I understand what that person wants and what's important to them, and see if I can find common ground with them, then that works. And at the same thing happens in conversations. I mean you can pick the most hyperbolic political situation or social topic and I can say to you, "Hey Daniel, you pick either side of this issue, it doesn't have to be what you believe, it could be the opposite of what you believe and take the stereotypical approach for that." And I'll show you how we get on the same side. That's the key to this stuff, is making it so that it's not hyperbolic, it's not yelling at each other. It's just trying to find common ground.

Daniel:            Yeah. And, I think one of the keys is, you have to believe that what you're selling matters.

Ian:                  Absolutely.

Daniel:            And if you go back to the ball bearing thing, even the guy selling ball-bearings can believe that the way he delivers them is unique. And his understanding of your problem and what you're trying to achieve with those ball-bearings is unique.

Ian:                  You can never effectively sell something that you don't believe in. So I often, when I'm working with businesses, I say, "Look, here's why it's important for your employees to believe in whatever it is that your mission is and what you're selling," because if they don't, then as soon as the client pushes back and says, "Well, it doesn't seem like that's great." It's like, you're right, it's not that great. I don't believe it either. Our stuff sucks.

Daniel:            Well, can I push back on that because I listened to Jordan Belfort's audiobook the Way of the Wolf, I don't know if you've checked it out. Maybe you saw the movie.

Ian:                  I've not it.

Daniel:            Have you seen it? Though-

Ian:                  I've seen the movie. I've seen the movie, yeah.

Daniel:            Yeah. So you know some of his techniques just by watching that movie, I mean, there's a guy who sold really inferior products to people who probably shouldn't have bought them and he was really good at it.

Ian:                  But notice that was snake oil and we know it was called out to be Snake oil and people went to jail over it.

Daniel:            That's true. That's a good point and match.

Ian:                  So when I talk about effective, the idea is that I should say you can't effectively and with integrity sell something you don't believe in. And so for example, when I'm talking to an organization and they say, "Look, so we've got this event, we've got 1,000 people, we've got 500 people, whatever it happens to be, we've got 5,000 people, we want you to come speak." The first question I ask is, "What are you trying to accomplish?" And people will say to me, "Oh well, is this a tactic?" Is this... It's like, no, I want to find out what they're trying to accomplish because if I don't believe I can accomplish that for them, I'll recommend somebody else.

Daniel:            Yeah. The tactic thing is fascinating because there's a... I want to talk about this a really absolutely amazing notebook because there... I think about this like dating, there's questions you want to ask but you can't ask them. But you still want to get to the answer of, what's your budget? And you say in the book, and I get this, is that the buyer mentality they freeze up and they're like, he's just going to use that information to charge us 98.2% of what our budget is. Right? Versus this question with the issue and the results of the premises, until we know what success looks like, we don't know what it would cost to deliver. And that's a very interesting way of phrasing. I can't tell you the price because I don't know what you want yet.

Ian:                  Well and here's the thing that I want listeners to understand, and tell me what you can about what you know about your audience. Because I want to make it as relevant to them as possible.

Daniel:            Doing this on-air is hilarious.

Ian:                  I understand. But you know what, keep in mind, I know on the same side of telling podcasts, we, fortunately, had done some additional research that goes beyond the podcast. So I know at a point in time based on who responded to a survey what my audience is on my show. But I don't know other than that much about my audience other than when people send in questions and comments and things like that. And I say, huh, I hope that's representative, but it may not be. So I'm putting you on the spot with it, but I want to make sure it's relevant to people. So any insight you have can help me try and make it most relevant to them.

Daniel:            The truth is the podcast is primarily for me. Anybody who's-

Ian:                  That's awesome.

Daniel:            .... listening, I apologize. This is my podcast and it's for me. What I like to know and what I like to understand is how to communicate with people. And I like to understand how to create impactful change. And my background is in product design and product innovation. And so there are definitely people who listen to this podcast who are from product design and product innovation. And what product design and product innovation come up against, is organizational alignment challenges and organizational change. And facilitation of group dialogue is one way that we create spaces so that good decisions can get made. And so people who listen to this podcast are interested in I think all of those things, you let me know if that's true or untrue guys.

Ian:                  It's so let me put it in that context because that's really helpful. In that context, if someone's asking you what does this cost, and you don't know what success looks like, it's the same thing as asking somebody in product development, "Hey, how much is it going to cost and how much is it going to create... How much is it going to take to create this new product?" And the people on the product team say, "Well, what does the product need to do?" "And what does the successful product look like?" And the person says, "Well, I'm not going to tell you that, I just need to know what it's going to cost and how long it's going to take." And you're saying, "Well, but if I don't know what the end goal is, if I don't know who our target audience is, if I don't know what the form and function has to be, if I don't know what makes it successful or not, then I can't tell you."

Ian:                  It's like, "What's it going to take? How much does it cost? And how long is it going to take to build a home?" "Well, do you want a log cabin or you want something like the Taj Mahal?" "Doesn't matter, how long is it going to take and how much it's going to cost." "Well, those are two very different facilities." "Well, it doesn't matter, just tell me what it cost." So the reality is that when we guide people to how to ask these questions, it happens to be with sincerity. It's if I don't know what success looks like, I can't tell you what you need. For example, in my business, there's a difference between, so what do you want to be the impact your organization? If it's I want them to learn some new concepts and we're going to build this on our own firm and mentor people internally, that's great. That's a keynote. I come do an event, I'm done.

Ian:                  If it's well, I want to make sure it has a lasting impact and here's where we're going to measure it. Okay, in order to achieve that result you just specified, it's more like, here's a 90 day program I do where I do this workshop with people and then here's what we do for 60 days afterwards. And we're going to survey people in advance and here's what we do to make sure you have a lasting impact, and that's a bigger investment that's likely to generate a much higher return investment per invested dollar. Or if it's well, we want to change this whole culture that we have around business growth. Okay, well that's something that's probably going to be an engagement we do over the next year, but here's how we're going to measure that along the way to make sure the investment makes sense.

Ian:                  So if you think about an any context, it would be like if you went to the doctor and you said, "Well geez, so I have one condition," the doctor can either put a bandaid on it or they can treat the underlying condition so that it goes away. And two very different things. If you say, what does it cost? What if you just need the bandaid, we'll give you that. But if you actually want to go through this treatment, it takes more analysis, more time and more effort on everybody's part.

Daniel:            That's really helpful. And I'm wondering, because I love the sort of the small, medium and large impact arc. I think there's a question around how do you, if you're looking in front of... if you've got a customer in front of you and they're thinking in terms of small impact. And you want them to be thinking in terms of larger impact. Now obviously you have your own reasons for wanting to do that. I'm sure doing a 90 day program's more satisfying for you and is more profitable for you, but it's also more valuable to them. Do you have a way that you... Is that a clear question?

Ian:                  It's a great question. And since this podcast is for you, what do I you to do is share with me, so when your clients engage you, my guess is there's stuff you do on a small level and on a larger level. What's the difference? What does those sound like?

Daniel:            Oh, I mean it's very similar shape. Doing a one off training is, it scratches the itch for people. They say, "Oh, well we need to have better collaborative intelligence skills, we have facilitators, we want to level them up." But the sort of, well, how do we actually support them in implementing these skills day to day? That's much harder. It's a bigger left.

Ian:                  So it might sound like this. Someone comes to you and says, "Well, so yeah, all we want to just for you to come to do this one workshop." Now does that ever happen where you think to yourself, I don't think that's what they really need.

Daniel:            Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Ian:                  Right? So I'm sure there's times where you think to yourself, well that isn't what they need with it. What it sounds like they really need is this other stuff.

Daniel:            Right. And that comes from understanding the impact that they're trying to create.

Ian:                  Sure. So, if they came in and said, "Oh, when is this workshop?" Okay, that's great. "How did you come to the conclusion that you need this workshop?" Well, because here's [inaudible 00:24:54] and so-and-so said they did a workshop with you and it was fantastic. Okay, well, so sometimes when people come to me it's like, "Hey, can you just do this workshop? Our people are already familiar with these concepts and we're going to roll with it and we're going to implement it." For other organizations, what they tell me is, "Look, we know that people are going to retain so much in the workshop, and is there a way to coach people and mentor them along the way so that we get better results down the road, which level are you looking for?"

Ian:                  And so I'm not pushing them in one direction or another, I'm just helping them become aware that there are multiple ways to work with me and they can pick the one that's most helpful for them.

Daniel:            Yeah. But-

Ian:                  And sometimes you're going to get people who say, "Yeah, you know what, all we can afford right now is the workshop, and all we can do right now is the training." Okay. Do you think there's a point in time where you might be in a position to do it the other way? Because my feeling is, my experience is people get a much greater result from the other. And if you tell me, hey, next quarter we could do it this other way to generate better results as opposed to right now I would be more comfortable if you waited so that we gave you a better result because it's going to be better for you and [inaudible 00:26:10] that you're going to tell your friends and it becomes better for me.

Ian:                  I'm okay waiting if those results are important to you. And now what comes to their mind is, wow, Daniel is actually more concerned about our results than maybe we were 30 seconds ago, and maybe we should be more interested in our results. Maybe we're better off waiting and then what goes to their mind is, but if we're going to get those results, why should we wait? We should just get those results now. And there's this whole process it just evolves through.

Daniel:            Right? And then they sell themselves on, well, maybe we really should do the larger thing because it makes more sense.

Ian:                  Now keep in mind the larger thing isn't always the right answer. So there's times where someone will say, "Well, here's what we need." And I'll say, "I don't think you need that, I think all you need is this and then let's see where the results are." There's a business I'm working with right now where they've got a sales force that's around the world of about a thousand different people. And they said, "Well, so we want to do this whole program to get everyone up to speed." And I said, "Well, how would you feel about if we took a group of let's say 20 people and we implement this, and we measure it, and let's see what kind of results we get over the next 120 days?" "And if we get great results there, then we rinse and repeat, we replicate it everywhere.But my guess is we're going to make some adjustments along the way and it's going to be easier to make adjustments with 20 people than a thousand people. And once it's working well then we can expand it."

Ian:                  Now the funny thing is the response was, "Well that sounds great man, we feel like we're in really good hands. Can't we just skip that and go to the thousand people?" I was like, "Well no, because I actually think this is going to be better for you." But the idea is that as soon as you make it clear to your client that you are as committed to the results as they are, then all of a sudden they think to themselves, wow, so this person isn't just trying to sell me something for the sake of selling something. There is a reason it's in my best interest for each step along the way. So now I can put my trust in them to guide me to get me there.

Daniel:            And this is the essence of, I don't know if you're a fan of the Trusted Advisor book, but this dea of honestly seeming like this is integrity based selling. I care about your results as much as my own because of the longterm truth that there is no other real way to do it.

Ian:                  Yeah. And it's... You know what I'm not familiar with the book per se, but the whole concept, I always say anybody who teaches integrity based selling, I'm a fan, because there's been so many people who have taught the antithesis of integrity based selling that anytime somebody is doing something that is good and positive, it's great. The trick is that when people will often say is, so I have to do this so that it appears that I'm more interested in their outcome. And it's like, no, no, no. You actually have to genuinely be interested in their outcome. I ran into a guy who was playing in a charity golf tournament yesterday, ran into a guy I know who had wanted me to come in and work with his team, and they just weren't in a position of business, they were struggling and I was, "No people, look, once you're in trouble, it's tough for me to help because you tend to make short term bad decisions or longterm bad decisions because of you're short term cashflow needs."

Ian:                  So you'll take the client who isn't necessarily a good client for you, because you feel you need the revenue. Because you can't see that six months from now, that client is going to become the bane of your existence. And so you start making decisions like that. And so I saw him at this event and I said, "I've got this event coming up on October 15th, which is this... " I do these group immersion programs very rarely like once or twice a year. I said, "And it's the kind of thing you can send your team and it would cost a third of what it normally costs, So I just want to make you aware of it." He said, "Oh, thanks so much." And the person next to us said, "Oh, so he was trying to sell you on his program?" And he says to them, "No, he's actually trying... we really wanted to do this, but we couldn't afford it, and this might be a way we can."

Ian:                  So it's like, there's a hundred people playing this tournament. There's one guy who I mentioned this to because I know for his company it's like, "Oh, here's a way I can actually afford to get what I wanted."

Daniel:            Yeah. I feel like the flip side of integrity based selling is obviously having your own integrity, but also a certain confidence in not just what you're selling but in yourself. And I don't know if you have any perspectives on how you sort of selling can be a... there can be internal panic. There can be, oh God, they need to know this. I don't have the answer. How do you manage your own internal responses that maybe you don't want to say everything that's coming up in your mind?

Ian:                  Well, I think in some cases the insecurity people have is all expectation management. Meaning people have expectation that anyone I meet with who has an interest in what I do, I should be able to close that deal. And this person should become a client. Instead of, if you start with the premise of anytime I run into somebody, there's a greater than 50% chance that they're not a good fit for what I do. And so my job, getting back to kind the one of the core themes of the book, is to determine whether or not there's a good fit. Do they have an issue that has enough impact on their business? That's important enough to solve to make it worth my time to help them find a solution. And once I figured out what's important to them to solve, can I really help them get there?

Ian:                  So do you think that doctors, like a good physician, do you think they have this problem where they're like, "Wow, this person has this terrible disease that I can totally cure, but man, I don't want to come off like I'm selling it." No, they're thinking, look, if I don't help this person, they're going to be way worse off. They're lucky to be here.

Daniel:            And the answer with a doctor of like, "Oh actually you're fine and just leave," is a great answer. It's not like, "Oh, I didn't get to give them any medicine."

Ian:                  Exactly. Or you come to the doctor and they say, "Wow, you have a condition that I'm pretty sure this is your condition, and I don't treat that, but I can refer you to an expert who does," is not seen like, "Oh, you lost the sale." It's, "Wow, that doctor I can totally trust because they pointed me to the right treatment." In fact, what I often say to people is that the biggest challenge for many individuals is that you're selling your features and benefits instead of what you should be doing is seeking out the symptoms. So if we stayed with this medical metaphor, the idea is, what are the symptoms that your client is experiencing that are an indicator of a condition that you're good at treating. So for example, in your business, the idea of, well, so I'm going to facilitate these types of meetings to help people collaborate better.

Ian:                  Well that's one way you could pitch it or you could say, "So if you have organizations where their creativity gets stifled, if in your team you have people with different viewpoints and it results in products not getting formalized because people have disagreement and they can't draw consensus. If they feel like their creativity well has dried up, that's where I help." And if people say, "Oh, I have one of those problems," then they're interested in talking to you.

Daniel:            Sure.

Ian:                  So if I say to people, "Oh gee, I can help improve your sales organization," a lot of people might know what that means or may not. But if I say, "Look, if you have people who are constantly focused on price instead of value, if you have clients who, you know you can help but you can't earn their attention, if you have trouble standing out compared to the competition, those are areas people come to me to solve. Then if you're having more of those issues, there's probably a discussion worth having. And if you're not having more of those issues, then I'm probably not the right person to help you right now."

Daniel:            Yeah. And that's really focusing on the why, instead of the what, which is so much more impactful.

Ian:                  Yeah. We hope so.

Daniel:            We hope so. So I'm going to change gears. I have a sticky note here that I want to talk about, which is, I checked out your podcast night, I was really blown away at how much value you provide in your podcast literally every single episode, whether you're interviewing somebody-

Ian:                  Oh wait, that's accidental.

Daniel:            Yeah. You're just trying to educate yourself. I know this is like... I'm curious if you have some favorite episodes that you can, I really liked the one where I'm blinking out on his name. It was about deep listening and it was so beautiful and really, really amazing conversation.

Ian:                  Yeah. Oscar Trimboli.

Daniel:            Yeah. Are there some other like key lessons you've learned in some of your podcasts recently.

Ian:                  You know what I mean? I learn constantly. So the Same Side Selling podcast, it's become something that I love doing. And about once a month, I do a solo episode but I have guests on, and it's generally other bestselling authors and people talking about concepts that are fascinating to me. I've had Seth Godin on a couple of times, and every time Seth is on, there's at least one part of the interview where Seth says something and I'm thinking, wow. And then I remember, oh yeah, I'm the podcast host so I can't just, wow. I can't just take the note and take it in. I actually have to interact and go on. And we've become friends over the years. It's funny, Seth was at an event, he was on the podcast and we had talked, I'd figured it was on the podcast or after the podcast about a trip he had made this family to Peru. And last year I take my family to Peru.

Ian:                  We were talking about Machu Picchu and Lima and Cusco and the going to Peru, if you've never been, definitely put it on your list. It's absolutely amazing. And one of the things we talked about was we both discovered this great Peruvian chocolate. And the chocolate in Peru is just incredible. And of course, much like every other topic, Seth Godin knew everything about the origin and why their chocolate was so great. And so a couple of days later I stumbled across this chocolate at Trader Joe's and I said, "Wow, I don't know if you've tried this, but Trader Joe's has this amazing chocolate, not quite as good as Peru, but man, it was really amazing just at Trader Joe's, this inexpensive chocolate bar is phenomenal." And Seth says, "Oh dude, I've been on the Trader Joe's chocolate bar train for forever."

Ian:                  And so he's speaking in an event where I'm involved with the organizers, and I'm sitting in the front row and Seth's doing the keynote and he comes up on stage and before he says anything, he walks over the front, reaches into his pocket and hands me a Trader Joe's chocolate bar. And he goes back without saying a word to anybody. And I mean for two minutes, I'm just crying laughing because when I left my house that morning, I said to my wife, I said to Deborah, I said, "Wouldn't it be funny if I brought one of these chocolate bars and handed it to him?" And Deborah says, "When you get them up here and handed to him, when he's on stage?" I said, "Even if I saw him beforehand," I was like, "What's he going to do with it." I'm not going to do it.

Ian:                  So the funny part was not only that he did this, but that I had thought about doing the same thing. I'm like, no, I can't pull it off. So his is great. Another favorite of mine is Alison Whitmire is an executive coach. I think that she was on season one, and then I think I had her back in season three or something like that. And she talks about coaching and giving and receiving feedback. And it still is one of the most popular episodes. And it was just this whole notion of how do you ask for and how do you receive feedback. And it was really fast. And I mean, I've done hundreds of episodes, so I've got many favorites and just depends on the given topic. There's a friend of mine, Marcus Sheridan, who speaks about content marketing and my team, I don't really look at the analytics, and my team says you and Marcus could just chat about random names you found the phone book and somehow people find it fascinating.

Ian:                  And so that's always a fun conversation. But there's a lot of them. I mean it's very rare. In fact, there are times where I'll interview somebody and if I don't think that the interview resonates like you might not with this one, then we won't publish it. And so it's just a matter of, if I don't think it's going to serve my audience or the guests, then we won't publish it. And it's nothing against them. It's just, look, maybe I didn't guide you properly in the interview, but if it's not going to resonate, I don't want to take up people's time.

Daniel:            Yeah. I actually remember you mentioning Marcus in your book and you talked about assignment selling, which I'd never I'd never really heard that term before. It seems like a really interesting way of determining that getting a signal back of measuring the motivation of a person that you're working with.

Ian:                  Yeah. And for the benefit of your audience, I'll briefly describe it. And Marcus talks about assignment selling In his They Ask You Answer, which just has a second edition that just came out as well. And it's really fascinating stuff. But in the idea of assignment selling is that, you create content that is designed to educate your customer. And what he found in his research is that, look, he found that the customers who took the time to read at least 30 pieces of content on his website where the people who 85%, excuse me, 85% of the time, those people said we're going to make a decision to work with you. And the people who didn't, didn't. And so he started a model that said, look, here's this e-book we have, happens to be about 30 pages long, and here's all the key questions and it because I'm sure you want to make sure that you're fully informed when you make a decision.

Ian:                  So I'm going to send this to you in advance, and if you do not have time to review this before our meeting, let me know and we'll just reschedule. And what he found is that the people who didn't take the time to read it, weren't serious anyhow. And people who were or would and Marcus's keynotes, he's also a great speaker, I know Marcus is his material inside and out, backwards and forwards, and I like being the audience to hear his talk. I mean that to the extent that I know his material, he and I were speaking to event together. He was flying in from someplace overseas. The organizer said, "What if you miss your flight?" And Marcus said, without joking, "If need be, Ian can give my talk." And the organizer said, "Well, I mean it's putting a lot on him." I said, "No, it's true. I could give his talk, it won't be the same, but it'll be pretty similar-

Daniel:            You'll hit the marks.

Ian:                  ... and he could probably do the same for me." The idea is that with assignment selling, you're saying, "Here's the homework that makes sure that you're properly prepared and so that you're well-informed, and if you can do this in advance, great, and if you can't, we're going to reschedule." And people say, "Oh, you must've lost a lot of business." No, he did fewer appointments and doubled his business.

Daniel:            Sure. So I'm curious about Alison's, I'm going to listen to that episode with Alison as well because coaching is so important. Asking good questions to get people to give you good information. Seems like that's a really important component of what you do. Where do you see the relationship between coaching and sales? What were some of the lines that you connected between those two area?

Ian:                  You know what? I mean, and I can't remember and I couldn't do justice to Alison's brilliant insight. And Alison, just to give you context, Alison used to be the producer of the TEDxPugetSound conference. And she was the one who first brought Simon Sinek to the stage. And so she's absolutely brilliant. She's been executive coach, leadership coach and she's got a whole business that talks now about identifying how people by default communicate under crisis. So they have this whole system where they put people through a video series and then say, "Okay, so now you're this person, here's this video of this interaction. How would you answer these questions?" And it gets to the root of how people would actually react. Because most systems that do any sort of assessment, anybody smart can gain the system. And this is a system you can't gain. So it's brilliant.

Ian:                  But the idea behind coaching is that I believe that in the world of sales for example, and really sales is really a matter of just getting people to... helping people do a decision. And so to a certain degree, that's what coaching is. Coaching is just asking the right questions and listening intently enough so you can ask the next intelligent question, to help people reach a conclusion. And so there's great synergy if done properly. Now, in some cases the differences that I often say that I'm not as effective as a coach, because I eventually run out of patience. So someone's like, "Well you keep asking questions," so they reach a conclusion themselves. And I'm like, "Look, I give people two bites of the Apple by the third one, it's like, 'Look, here's what you may want to do.'" And so that's where I fail as a coach.

Daniel:            Because you have insight that you want to share.

Ian:                  Yeah. But a great coach is insight too. They just have more patience than I have.

Daniel:            Well, let's attach this then to the everyday conversations. Because we talked before we started this recording about your keynote around the Same Side Conversations and talking about really difficult issues.

Ian:                  Yeah.

Daniel:            I'm wondering where some of these skills of asking and probing come into your daily life and then also like how we can use them for some of these more high intensity conversations around divisions.

Ian:                  Well, and so the thing is you can take any polarizing topic, right? And if you want to pick one, we can run with that. But literally it can be gun control, it can be abortion, it can be politics, like any of these things that aren't typically hyperbolic. And I can show you a model and like, here are six steps in how you end up getting on the Same Side. And so if there's a specific... If there's a topic that you say, "Oh, this is one that's always controversial," we can go there. The idea for me is, look, "I always want to find the ones that everyone says, 'Oh, you couldn't possibly do that one,'" and show that it's actually pretty easy. So if I picked something as hyperbolic as, I don't know, pick one. You tell me which... What happens-

Daniel:            Oh, you want to break down a difficult, a very-

Ian:                  Topic, yeah. And I'll show you how this would work.

Daniel:            Let's talk about global warming.

Ian:                  Okay. So we talk about global warming. You can pick either side, you can pick a side that you believe or you can pick the opposite side and just take a position from the stereotypical position of that. And the reason why I always tell people, "Look, you can pick either side." Is because it's not about what side they picked, it's just about understanding and appreciating all sides of it.

Daniel:            Yeah. So, is this about gaining empathy with people who think that nothing's wrong?

Ian:                  Well, so the idea is, pick a side of the issue. Give me the wrote position of one side of it. So, what's the position of one side of that issue?

Daniel:            Right. Yeah I mean, if we were going to ask... get Greta Thunberg on here, she would say that, we've already spent most of her carbon budget and time is running out.

Ian:                  Yeah. So, the argument would be that people who say there's nothing more important than global warming, would say, there's nothing more important to global warming because the planet is about to implode and if we don't do anything, we're not going to have a planet. And gee, most people haven't understood that if we don't have a planet, that we're not going to be able to live on a planet that doesn't exist and can't sustain life. Okay. So, that's one position. What is the viewpoint or position from people who oppose that viewpoint? What do people say who don't agree with that viewpoint? What's their position?

Daniel:            Yeah, I mean, I think some people just say that the science is inconclusive, right. They'll say that we don't really know and why should we spend so much money changing everything about our lifestyle.

Ian:                  Yeah. If you're somebody who believes in global warming, and if you're somebody who now is evaluating people who don't, then what we do is we say, "Well, those people are climate deniers." Because now we do is we're projecting we're labeling other people. But instead, what we need to say is, "Okay, so what do other people believe?" So, you started making the case for, here's why global warming makes sense. And then what we can say is, so the first step is, let me understand the other person's perspective. First let me assert what I have to say and the other person should listen to it without judging it and say, "Okay, I understand that. So, that's a valid concern. If you believe that that's the issue then first I shouldn't judge you or label you, it's just, okay, this is what they believe and here's why they believe it. Great.

Ian:                  So, then, it's for us to understand the other side. The other side's position, and I'm just arbitrarily, when you pick one side, I'm going to take the other side just for the purpose of this. So, other people say, "Well gee, we've already made great progress in terms of this. We don't know what the impact would be in an environment without us doing these things. We're doing the right things or other places in the world that are... There are other places in the world where they're doing this horribly and they don't care about this at all. But what we really need to do is step back..."

Ian:                  And they would say that the... they would characterize people who believe in global warming as they would label them as, tree huggers and it's not science-based, whatever. But that's not helpful for either of us. So instead, what we have to look at is, okay, where's the common ground? Is there a group of people who if they believed that the earth was in peril, wouldn't care about that? Unlikely. Okay. It's unlikely there are people that say, "Oh yeah, we're in trouble, but I don't care about it." All right, let's start with that. So, there is some common ground. Both sides of this issue, believe that the environment is important and that we need to preserve the earth. It's just one group feels like, oh my God, this is about to collapse and the other group doesn't.

Ian:                  But if both groups feel that these things were important, so the people who are opposed to some of these concepts might say, "Well, gee, if we're opposed to it, it's because we feel it's going to hurt commerce or hurt business or this and that." Okay. But it's not the sort of, they're putting profits ahead of something else. Where do we find the common ground? Well, both sides want to make sure that we have clean drinking water, that the air is safe to breathe and that we're not doing more harm than good. Now the idea is, okay, so if someone's on the opposing side, being sensitive to things that you want to protect also, what are some of the things we could do together to get there?

Ian:                  And now all of a sudden we found some common ground that says, well, both parties agree with this and the idea is that, I think that in many cases we've gotten to a point in society where everyone takes an all or nothing approach. We'd have do everything or nothing and it's like, look, most things that have done well over time, have been incrementally improved. And I look at the United States says, we have a system of government that's predicated on people drawing compromise. I mean there's two party systems they're different...

Daniel:            That was part of the original plan. Yes.

Ian:                  The idea is for people to disagree and sacrifice a portion of their idealistic view to find something that has common ground that everyone can agree with. If you think about this, and we translate this now to a business context and in the business context, you might have a product development team, where one side says we have to do it this way, the other side says we have to do it this other way. They're diametrically opposed. And if you say to them, "Well, so you feel this way, why do you feel that way? What are some of the core principles of that? Well, these are the three core principles. Great. Types of people who have the opposing view of it. What are your core principles? These are core principles."

Ian:                  Okay, well, we both have this one in common. So what is it we can do that achieve that one thing first and foremost. And now we found common ground around it instead of, well you don't agree with all three of my points. I don't agree with all three of your points. So, the assumption is we don't agree with anything. And then, we go to the 2019 go-to approach, which is, what I'm going to do now is I'm going to call you names and scream at the top of my lungs and somehow I believe that that's going to get you to come around to my point. And it just doesn't happen. The idea is that, we first have to be open to people's ideas without judging them and then if we actually seek common ground, we're better off.

Ian:                  I'll give you an interesting example, which is, let's say if in my house I'm making dinner and it's actually a bad example because my wife is a world-class cook, so she's in most cases doing it. When we first met, we did an equal amount of cooking. In fact, she might have argued at the time I was better, now she teaches cooking classes. So, let's say she made something and once about every four years, she makes something that doesn't turn out the way she hoped it would. As her husband, I could say, "Well, this thing's sucks. What were you doing?" Or I could laugh about it and say, "Wow, look at that. You're human." One out of a thousand meals didn't turn out the way you wanted it to. What should we do now? So we always have a choice in how we react and respond.

Ian:                  We can either do it in an empathetic, supportive way or we can criticize and attack the other person. I just think that unfortunately, we've gotten to a point where people think it's okay to just attack and vilify someone they disagree with instead of, okay, you have a different viewpoint help me understand it.

Daniel:            Yeah, that's assuming positive intent. Right. Which is really, really key.

Ian:                  Yeah, well, it's assuming positive intent and it's also not assuming the worst case. There's a good friend of mine who we often, from a political standpoint, have very differing views and we get along amazingly well because we'll say to each other. "So, I know this is your viewpoint on this and I don't understand that, let's have a discussion and help me understand your perspective." And neither one of us is trying to convince the other one of something. We're just trying to actually learn more and understand it because we know we're both good people. And I think that, I mean, I don't want to go down the rat hole of politics, but I think the problem right now in politics is that no one wants to listen to each other. No one's willing to compromise anything because their fear is it might give their opponents a quote win.

Ian:                  And they're sacrificing citizens in the fray instead of, okay, so what's the common ground where we can solve this? Pick a position. So, it's, gee gun legislation, we should ban all guns. Everyone should have one because we have a second amendment. The answer is somewhere in between there.

Daniel:            Probably the truth. I think it's really interesting and I feel like this is the Iron Man versus the Straw Man approach to dialogue, which is instead of setting up the worst case of your opponents position and then knocking it down, you try to understand their position and make it as clear and as solid as possible so that you can say, "Oh, actually, there's evidence that disputes yours," or "Oh, I can understand what you really want and your real goal underneath that."

Ian:                  And keep in mind, you don't even have to say there's evidence that disputes your position or that shows that your position is wrong because that would imply that your goal is to convince them of something else. The idea is just to understand each other's position. And you can take... Literally, it doesn't matter how polarizing the topic is. I often say to people, "Look, if you take the abortion debate, is there common ground?" People will say, "No, it's impossible." Because it's either a woman's right to choose, or it's people who say we shouldn't have any abortions. And it's like, okay, do you think there's a segment of the population that is advocating for, I think we should have more abortions? No, I don't think so. Okay. So, if we accept that everybody says, well, gee, it'd be nice if we had fewer, then you could probably get people together that says, what are some of the things that would help them?

Ian:                  And now it's like, it's not an idealistic outcome. It's just... what's, what's the common footing that you can find and then you start having a dialogue about, so how would you solve that? Well, I would just ban everything. Okay. But that might be offensive to someone like me. What, would be a good middle ground? And it's funny because I believe that, sadly, most of these highly polarizing issues that our politicians really don't want to solve them because it motivates their base to come out to the polls and they could get together pretty quickly and solve some of these issues if they weren't motivated by other things. But that's, I get it at that...

Ian:                  And I'm somebody who over my life has voted for an equal number of people in either party. It's funny because to conservatives, I'm a liberal, to the liberals, I'm a conservative. It's like, whatever.

Daniel:            What do you think the best way to get somebody to step back from a scorched earth approach to decision making is?

Ian:                  You know what? I think the biggest thing is that normally when somebody is being hyperbolic about an issue, we tend to escalate with it or we try to show them where they're wrong. Instead of saying, "You know what? I can see that you're passionate about this, help me understand a little bit more." And not say, "And here's the evidence of why you're wrong." Just go, "Huh I got it. Let me share with you what I think about this. And hopefully you can not judge me the same way I have not judged you. And then maybe we can find a common area together." And then all of a sudden someone says... Oh, now keep in mind. There are people who are just looking for a fight and you just need to recognize that and let them fight with themselves.

Daniel:            Yeah. It's the opportunity to de-escalate, to step back and say, "It sounds like you're really passionate."

Ian:                  Yeah, exactly. It's just recognizing the obvious. There's a guy I know Jim Goldstein has a PhD in psychology. He wrote a book called, Powerful Partnerships and he's done a ton of counseling of couples and partners and the like. And one of the things Jim says is, "Look, the reason why most things escalate is because people attribute an emotion or motivation to something rather than speaking truth." And what he says is truth is, for example, if you said something I found offensive, and I said, "Well, you offended me." Guess what? That's something that you could argue, well, I didn't mean to offend you and now you're labeling me. His whole thing is, look, when you said this, it made me feel this way. And I don't like feeling that way. I'm hopeful that you didn't intend for me to feel that way and I just want to share that with you because this is the way I felt. Well, no one can argue with how you felt about something.

Daniel:            Right. So this is all really, really amazing stuff, but I just want to be respectful of your time. I just realized we're way over. I really appreciate your time and I'm wondering if you just have any one last parting thought on how we can be designing all of our conversations better today.

Ian:                  I just think that if we're always thinking about what's in the other person's interest, what's their motivation behind things, what are they trying to achieve, then we can seek out the common ground. If we start with an adversarial position, which says, "If you don't agree with me you're wrong and I need to convince you that I am right." You're going to lead a miserable existence and you're going to get sucked into the vortex of evil. This is one way to just make it so that, you're spending more time trying to figure out where the common ground is and how you can work together and how you're going to get on the same side.

Ian:                  For my clients who do this in the world of business growth, it has tremendous success for them, for the audiences that I speak to, it often helps them break through some stuff that was getting them stuck before. When you do these things right, you actually achieve your goal and you feel better about it.

Daniel:            That's beautiful. And not getting sucked into the vortex of evil is really, really clear, actionable advice I can follow that. So, we're going to leave it there, we'll say, "End scene."

Designing the Organizational Conversation

Today we are talking to my friend and client Jason Cyr, Director of Design Transformation at Cisco. We have a wild and rambling conversation about designing conversations on at least three scales: as a facilitator of workshop experiences, a designer of design processes and as a leader of a transformation effort in a larger organization.

Like anything else, conversations can be designed with a goal in mind: speed, effectiveness, clarity, joy. How do you intend to proceed towards your goal?

The very first story that Jason tells us shows how knowing your conversational goal is key: Jason tells us about his Uncle Rowley and how Jason’s mother pointed out the ways in which Uncle Rowley was as talented conversation designer. It seemed like he designed his conversations with an overarching purpose, regardless of the objective of any individual conversation. His purpose, his higher goal was to make people feel good. Did he do it in order to be successful, or was that an outcome of his purpose? Sadly, we can’t ask him...but there was clearly an aspect of his way of being that enraptured Jason as a boy - he wanted to be like him. 

As an aside: One of my favorite topics in conversation dynamics is about how power shows up...the type of power Uncle Rowley exerted over young Jason is called Referent Power - the power of charisma.

Jason is now responsible for designing a much bigger conversation at Cisco - how teams work together and how teams of teams communicate and collaborate. One key way he’s doing that is through enabling his organization to apply the tools of Design Thinking to their internal and external challenges.

What my conversation with Jason highlights, is that this conversation takes a long time....the cadence of transformation is not the quick rat-a-tat-tat of a stand-up meeting. It’s a steady drumbeat of regular workshops and consistent follow-through. It’s a healthy reminder that change takes consistency, clarity...and time.

Jason has a simple three step transformation process that he shares:

1. Start with the Coalition of the Willing

2. Make more evangelists

3. Craft stories that share themselves

How does Jason pull people into that conversation? It seems like he uses the same skills he learned from his Uncle - making them feel good, like they are part of a bigger narrative arc - a growing capability and practice inside the organization, one that can and does deliver value to the organization...even if it takes 6-9 months into the effort. This is charismatic power on an organizational scale. People want to be part of a positive story.

How does Cisco design the design thinking conversation? Jason shares four principles of Design Thinking at Cisco and they are so delightfully on point that I wanted to repeat them here:

1. Empathy. We are always designing for someone else’s benefit. Somebody else is going to consume the thing or the thinking or the product that you're making. Do your best to understand that person so that you can build something desirable for them. 
   

2. Go wide before going narrow, whether you're trying to choose a problem to solve or whether you're trying to find a solution to that problem, explore a little bit before making a decision. Try and reframe that problem and dig into that problem before tackling it. Try to generate multiple solutions before picking one. And it doesn't have to be a lot of work.

3. Experimentation. As soon as you think you have a good idea, how quickly can you figure out what's wrong with that idea? We do that by experimenting, putting it in front of people, having them react to it.
   

4. Diversity. Be thoughtful about who you bring into the conversation around the problems that you're solving. Make sure you have the appropriate definition of diversity and make people of all genders and colors feel welcome. Jason also asks: are we including the right people from across the organization, ie, engineering and product or design? Maybe we should be including sales. Maybe we should be including other parts of the business.

I’m so grateful Jason took some time to sit down with me and share some insights on how to lead a design transformation in an organization and keep the conversation on track, moving towards it’s ongoing goal...I hope you enjoy the conversation as much as I did! Also, be sure to check out the episode Jason referenced, where I interviewed Jocelyn Ling from Unicef’s Innovation team on Disciplined Imagination.

Show Notes and Links

Referent Power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referent_power

(one of my favorite types of power!)

The six types of power: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/six-types-power-leaders-john-prescott

Jocelyn Ling’s episode on Disciplined Imagination https://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2019/8/27/disciplined-imagination-with-jocelyn-ling

10 types of innovation: https://doblin.com/ten-types 

The book: https://www.amazon.com/Ten-Types-Innovation-Discipline-Breakthroughs/dp/1118504240

All process is the same

https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process

https://www.ibm.com/design/thinking/page/framework/loop

POST method: Purpose, Objective, Structure, Timing. Adjust your ST based on your evolving understanding of PO.

Facilitation Means design experiences and conversations: https://medium.com/@dastillman/facilitation-means-designing-conversations-24bac966076e

Creating Change in three steps:

1. Start with the Coalition of the Willing. 

2. Make more evangelists

3. Craft stories that share themselves

Full Transcription

Daniel:            All right, Jason, I'm going to officially welcome you to the conversation factory. Thank you so much for making the time to have this conversation with me.

Jason:              Thank you for having me. I'm excited to be here.

Daniel:            Awesome. So, what would you say your conversation superpower would be?

Jason:              I think that one of the things I'm good at is making people feel good about themselves in a conversation. Like I really do try and draw out, the positive in people. And I'm genuinely, I think one of the reasons why I've, had a successful career in design is because I have a lot of empathy for people. I am truly very interested in them and interested in learning about them.

Jason:              And so I tend to really, try and have positive conversations with people and really try and understand what their superpowers are, which in turn makes them, I think feel pretty good. And interestingly enough, it's something I learned from one of my uncles who's very successful in business. And it was something my mother pointed out to me when I was very young.

Jason:              I remember it clear as day. We were in a grocery store and we happened to be with my uncle who met a former colleague or something, and he had this wonderful animated conversation that clearly left this person feeling really good. And my mother pointed out, watch how Uncle Rowley interacts with people. That's one of the reasons why he's so successful is because people come away from his conversations feeling really good. And interestingly enough that stuck with me and I don't know if that has an influence on why I do what I do, but I think that I do try and always draw out the good in people.

Daniel:            That's so interesting. And you anticipated my second question, which is like, what's the origin story of that superpower? And it seems like that little moment where it was like, this is how you get ahead, which is by connecting with people, which is really beautiful.

Jason:              In fact, I've realized that I've never, acknowledged my uncle for that moment. And so hopefully he can hear this later.

Daniel:            Thanks uncle. And this goes to this idea of like we learn patterns, like both good and bad in our histories. And like you said, I assume that this ability to empathize, to take the perspective of other people and to connect, how could that not help you in your work?

Jason:              I think it helps in anything and it's something I'm trying to pass on to my children as well, and helping them understand when they're, whatever, dealing with tough personalities or tough issues, at school or with friends or whatever, trying to help them see that there's another person in this equation. And what is it that you can learn about how they're experiencing it and feeling that'll help you navigate the situation.

Daniel:            So I'm wondering if we can then take like another step back and talk about like the work you do and your origin story. Like how did you get into the work you do and what is it you do now?

Jason:              So my origin story I think is kind of, crazy because I didn't take a typical path of, I'm going to be a designer or an engineer or whatever and go to school and strictly pursue that. I've always been creative in the work that I do. I had the advantage of the fact that my father was a firefighter, a career firefighter growing up, and he had these side jobs, like most firefighters have these side jobs.

Jason:              And, he sold art supplies for a long time, and we had a basement full of samples, art supplies samples. And so growing up I had this unlimited resource of like, paints and pens and crayons and markers and airbrushes and oil paints. And I took advantage of it. And so I was always very creative. Through high school I started doing a lot of graphic design work and started to commercialize it and sell it.

Jason:              And it just happened that it was, in the sort of mid '80s, early '90s when the migration of design was really moving onto the computer. And I was doing a lot of commercial sign, like hand painted signs and kind of old school stuff. And I had to start laying out these signs on the computer because of the digital transformation and because signs were going to vinyl, cut vinyl. And that's when I got introduced to things like Photoshop and CorelDRAW and-

Daniel:            CorelDRAW.

Jason:              ... these tools.

Daniel:            That's taking us back!

Jason:              Right.

Daniel:            Yeah. That was the shit.

Jason:              And so that sort of led into this transformation towards web design. And, I started, my first sort of real corporate job as a web master, which is why I was in Connecticut. I was working for Thomson Newspapers, designing and building an intranet application for them. And that sort of morphed into a career as a front end developer, in the early '90s in the security industry for RSA Security.

Jason:              And that's when I got my first glimpse at like user experience and that there was this whole sort of practice around, being thoughtful about how we create these UIs and these experiences for people. And I just really, really geeked out on that idea of building this deep sense of empathy for who it is that we're trying to solve problems for and really understanding what they're trying to do and be thoughtful about creating an experience that helps them.

Jason:              And so I spent a lot of time in this security world. I realized that I needed different experiences, went into like entertainment brands and had my own agency for a while with a partner. We worked for everything from, work for Disney and Ronald McDonald House and the Canadian military and like all sorts of projects. And then ultimately went back to working for a more established startup that got bought eventually into, Cisco. And that sort of leads me to where I am now.

Jason:              And I'm currently a part of the security business group at Cisco, which is, a small part of Cisco, but on its own, a massive business. It's about 5,000 employees, upwards of $3 billion in revenue. So it's a huge business on its own. And I came in with this startup where I was leading the design organization for the startup. I led a design organization for a little while within Cisco.

Jason:              And then I realized that the skill that we use as designers, design thinking, this ability that we have of trying to understand people and design for them, can be applied much more broadly within the business. And so I set out to really change the way that the rest of the security business was working by trying to teach them these tools and encourage them to start thinking the way that, that many designers think in the work that we do.

Daniel:            And so we're going to, I want to get into the capability and capacity building conversation in a minute, but I kind of want to go back because you just have this really unique perspective on, when did in your timeline as a designer, did user experience design and like design thinking become part of the conversation for you? When did you feel like you were in that dialogue with that larger idea?

Jason:              I think it was the early 2000s, when I started working within an established design team, for RSA Security, which is a pretty big security organization. That's the first time that it became part of my language. And I recognize that user experience was a thing. User centered design was a thing. Human computer interaction was like a degree that you could go and take that was specific to this stuff.

Jason:              We had the benefit of a usability lab where we could go in and watch people use news products. And so I think as soon as I recognize that this thing that I was deeply interested in, it's like that moment where, I don't know, you find your tribe or you find your people and it's like, whoa, there's other people who are like really excited about this stuff. This is great.

Jason:              And, I had the benefit of working with some great leaders in this space who really nurtured my learning and brought me along, and matured my thinking around all this stuff. And I suppose that's what led to me starting an agency with a friend of mine and a colleague of mine, because it was just something we were so passionate about bringing to the world and talking about.

Daniel:            That's so cool. Because I mean, in my own evolution in design, I feel like design thinking wasn't taught in design school, neither was, I went to industrial design school and it was only when I came out that I became aware of all of these other types of design and all this larger, more expansive language. And it really was the UX community that was speaking about understanding the customer or designing for the customer and being really structured like watching Jon Kolko and Dan Saffer talk about like really being intentional about your process. It was inspirational for me. What were some of your, I don't know, influences who's part of your internal dialogue, when you think about design thinking and designing for the customer? Like, what are the voices that are echoing around in your brain?

Jason:              That's an interesting question. I don't know if I could put my finger on anybody in particular. Like, I mean, there's so many industry personalities that, I was always reading or looking up to, and a lot of companies that I was really interested in and following, whether it's, Cooper or IDEO or, so many great, design organizations. I don't know. I can't really put my finger on anyone in particular. I can't really put my finger on anyone.

Daniel:            In a way, that's what sort of being in the conversation means. It's like there's this meilleux there's a marketplace of ideas and it sounds like you've just really absorbed a lot of it.

Jason:              Yeah. I love learning. I love new information. I really enjoy a great example. So, I was telling you about the story of listening to your podcast last week, of like really trying to be mindful about taking breaks when I can to get away from work, especially when I'm trying to solve hard problems. And I was deep in trying to plan a for a workshop that I'm helping some people with at Cisco, and I took this break for an hour, listen to your most recent podcasts and in it, your guests was talking about the 10 types of innovation and referred to this book.

Jason:              Well, that's the sort of stuff that really triggers me. So the minute I got home, I look up this book, I ordered it, I have devoured it since over the weekend and realized that, Oh my God, there's all this great material in here that I can apply to this problem that I was wrestling with and try to design this workshop.

Jason:              So I think as it relates to design thinking, I'm really quick to identify something and trying to experiment with whatever it is that I've identified, whether it's a good idea or a new resource. And I get excited about it and I like run with it and it'll be the thing that I talk about. Like I've already recommended the book to everybody on my team. I've like, it's been the thing that I've been talking about in most of my conversations this week, and that'll run its course and then I'll do the next shiny thing that inspires me and interests me and I'll go down that path and see what I can use or learn or leverage from it.

Daniel:            Learning from other people. It's interesting. I had really, that conversation is with, just for everyone who's listening, that was with Jocelyn Ling who's, an old friend of mine who works in innovation at UNICEF. And my fiance listened to that and she was like, "I've never thought about having the conversation with somebody about how they work and what their working styles is." And she's getting her MBA in sustainability while working full time. And she's like, "I'm going to have the working styles conversation with my next round of teammates." And it's like, and I just love that Jocelyn learned that from someone else and it just sort of spreads... it just spreads like a wave out into the world, which is a great way to learn through conversation.

Jason:              It is. It is indeed.

Daniel:            So let's talk a little bit about like, I want to talk about day one when you were acquired, because I love that you talked about that, your awareness of your emotional state. I'm really curious how you managed it, and a little bit about what you're doing now at Cisco.

Jason:              Sure. So, to back up to that story that we were talking about a little earlier. I was working for a startup called OpenDNS, which was a pretty big, three to 400 person, startup in the network security space. As a startup, your sort of end goal is you're going to either IPO or get acquired. That's what everybody's working towards. And in our case, we got acquired. We got acquired by Cisco.

Daniel:            Congratulations.

Jason:              I clearly remember-

Daniel:            That's not many people get the-

Jason:              Thank you. And that was a while ago now. That was like four, almost five years ago already, incredibly. But I remember waking up that morning and like, I'm sure many of us do. We get out of bed. We ended up looking at her phone right away, and there was this message from my CEO saying, "You're going to see this in the news today that we'd been acquired." And it was like, wow.

Jason:              Driving to work, it was all excitement. Like, this is it, we've got acquired. This is what we're all working so hard for. And then day two, waking up going, but we got acquired by Cisco and I'm a designer and I don't really see a lot of great design work externally from this big company. And I was really bummed about it. Like I was really torn about, should I be staying here? What does this mean for my career?

Jason:              I was wrestling with the idea of would I apply for a job at Cisco if I saw a design job posted? Like all these things we're going through my mind and having these discussions with my team and my colleagues. And fortunately for me, I had this amazing, amazing boss at the time, who talked me off the ledge by really going, "Hey, if you're not seeing the things that you want to see at Cisco, this is your opportunity to go in and change it, and try and be part of that change and be that catalyst."

Jason:              And I've really tried to embody that as I come in to this, what was pretty a nerving uncomfortable situation. And suddenly you open yourself up to these possibilities of actually... and it seems silly at the time. I'm going to have any influence on, a 75,000 person company. But you get in, I ended up finding my tribe internally within Cisco.

Jason:              There's group of like-minded design leaders who were really passionate about design thinking and really passionate about elevating the practice within this big company. And, next thing we're writing a book internally on design thinking and how it can be applied. We're developing this program that has training aspects to it and all sorts of materials that people can leverage.

Jason:              And now that's what I'm fortunate to do as my full time job. I'm responsible for what we call design transformation within the security business group. And this is a group of 5,000 people, that I am trying to equipped with these tools of, great conversation, great design and great facilitation. And it's all centered around, creativity and experimentation and really trying to help people understand that when you hear this thing design thinking, it really has nothing to do with design as most people think of it.

Jason:              It has nothing to do with how things look. It's not about pushing pixels around on a screen. And it's really at its core just about how do we find the most important problems to solve for the people that we're trying to serve? And once we find those problems, how do we generate solutions that are hopefully creative and novel, but also actually solves the problem? And how do we figure out whether our ideas or our solutions are any good as quickly as possible by running these experiments, using prototypes and the like? And so I'm like, I wake up every day feeling fortunate that I'm right now I'm doing my dream job. And I get to-

Daniel:            Hashtag Blessed!

Jason:              I get to focus on really cool work. Like I get brought into facilitating some really cool projects and workshops within this security business. And I also get this great pleasure from teaching these capabilities to others. So we've got an in house training program that we deliver. We travel all over the world, training people within our security business group on how to apply design thinking and how to think this way.

Jason:              And it's really interesting to approach it from the perspective of, not wanting to build an internal service agency. Like I'm not trying to build this empire of design thinkers who are working for me within the business. I'm truly trying to develop these capabilities in other people to the point where if I work myself out of a job in three, four years because everybody's proficient at it, that's great. I'll go find something else really cool to work on at Cisco or wherever else. And so that's where I am today and I'm really, really enjoying it.

Daniel:            That's really lovely. And it's interesting because with design thinking, there's so much criticism of it. On one hand there's people who feel like it's the sun, moon and the stars and there's other people who push back and say, design is for designers. And design thinking is... there's at least one talk that says design thinking is bullshit. And I imagine that you see that entire conversation. What is your feelings about that particular conversation?

Jason:              I believe that it's unfortunate that design thinking has picked up the brand and the title that it has because I think that, that brings a lot of baggage with it. So, yes, I get a lot of, pushback or friction from designers in some cases where they are nervous that I'm trying to teach other people how to think like a designer.

Jason:              But I think they get nervous about it because they make an assumption that these people are going to take these skills that I'm teaching them and go off and try and design their own products, or try and design their own user interface. And that's not at all what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to teach people that these skills that designers have and that they apply to designing products in UIs can be applicable to designing your PowerPoint deck that you're building for your boss, or this sales program that we're trying to roll out or, an offer structure that we're trying to build.

Jason:              And so as soon as I frame it to the design community and that way they get it. They're like, "Okay, you're not trying to get everybody to start talking to customers and start building their own, features into the product. You're trying to get people to just simply start thinking this way as it applies to their own jobs. And that helps diffuse it.

Jason:              And, I think the other sort of friction point, or negative reaction that people have to design thinking is that they say that it's like, well, it's obvious. Of course, you should talk to the people that you're trying to build for and understand they need, and prioritize those pain points and solve them really effectively and creatively. But if it's obvious, why isn't everybody doing it? Right?

Daniel:            Yeah.

Jason:              Like it truly is obvious and it's really easy when you start working this way, but not everybody's doing it. So we're just trying to nudge people in the right direction.

Daniel:            There's two things that, that brings up in me. One is that at the end of the day, design thinking can just look like mindfulness, right?

Jason:              Yes.

Daniel:            It can just look like intentionality and being, explicit about what you intend to do and what you're doing. And one of my realizations is that, that begins to create, safety for people to know that there is a container and a process for what we're doing. It's not just random chaos.

Jason:              It's not just random chaos, and it's being mindful about, oftentimes recognizing what we don't know or recognizing an assumption that we've made or recognizing a problem that we found, and being mindful about how we can take action on this. In my mind, it's about being mindful on how we can take action on it as quickly as possible to learn something. It's all about learning for me.

Jason:              So recognizing, okay, we have a big gap in our understanding on something, how can we fill that gap? How can we learn what we need to learn? Or, wow, we're making a big assumption about whether a user even wants the same or we'll use this thing. Okay, how can we as quickly as possible figure out whether it is valuable to a customer?

Jason:              And it starts, certainly the story that I've started to tell within Cisco is that it starts bleeding into all these other areas that people are familiar with, like, lean. Sort of lean startup approach to building products and agile development. And they're all sort of related. They're all very much related in many ways.

Jason:              And, so what I've realized even just very recently in my journey at Cisco is, there's a benefit to not talking about what I'm doing as design thinking. And sometimes it's just going in and having a conversation with an engineering team and saying, "Hey, I can show you how to kick off a project more effectively by doing these things." And not even mentioning design thinking. Or, "Hey, I have a framework that'll allow you to retro your team projects or your team activities more effectively by doing these things." And-

Daniel:            Talking about the benefit-

Jason:              ... once they-

Daniel:            ... instead of the... right?

Jason:              Exactly. Once they do it and they, hey, this was really great, then I can go, guess what, you were just doing design thinking there, and this whole thing around what you've done, and you can learn more about it. So the benefit before this abstract sort of notion of design thinking is a good tool that we use.

Daniel:            Well, so can contrast that with me or for me. Like I've seen the Cisco design thinking book, and I've worked with organizations where they'll say like, we want to have our own internal branded process versus we want to be agnostic about process or, to you use a weird word, ecumenical, or to browse many processes. What do you think the advantage for Cisco was of creating, putting that stake in the ground and saying, here, this is our book. This is our design thinking book?

Jason:              I think that we wanted to, first and foremost show people within Cisco that this is a thing, like that it's being funded. There's a lot of people thinking about it and trying to do the right thing. And so rather than just pointing at, hey, we're going to use the ideal process, or hey, we're going to use the, Stanford d.school process. Like, I mean, they're all virtually the same. They're just packaged differently.

Jason:              Or the IBM infinity loop and there's all these different versions of it. We chose to try and package it up so that employees would perhaps embrace it a little more. And now that, I have about two and a half years experience in trying to bring design thinking capabilities to Cisco. And in looking back on that, was it the right thing to do? Maybe in some ways that helped us be successful, in some ways that also hurt us.

Jason:              Like having a very rigid representation of a process can also be overwhelming for people. They see this process of discover, define and explore and these activities that occur within each of the phases, and they think, oh my God, if I'm going to apply design thinking, I've got to completely change the way that we're working, and that can scare people.

Jason:              And for that reason, we actually just over the past, even six or eight months have started changing the conversation towards the principles of design thinking that we're trying to get people to adopt. So rather than worrying about going through this sort of seemingly linear process of design thinking, we're like, hey, there's four principles we really care about, empathy.

Jason:              No matter what you're doing in your job, you're doing it for somebody else. Somebody else who's going to consume the thing or the thinking or the product that you're making. Do your best to understand that person so that you can build something desirable for them.

Jason:              Number two, going wide before going narrow, whether you're trying to choose a problem to solve or whether you're trying to find a solution to that problem, explore a little bit before making a decision. Try and reframe that problem and dig into that problem before tackling it. Try to generate multiple solutions before picking one. And it doesn't have to be a lot of work. You can get a lot of benefit from brainstorming solutions for 15 minutes before picking one and going in a direction.

Jason:              Number three is experimentation. As soon as you think you have a good idea, how quickly can you figure out what's wrong with that idea? And you do that by experimenting, putting it in front of people, having them react to it. And then the last one is this notion of diversity. Being really clear about and being really thoughtful about who you bring into this conversation around the problems that you're solving.

Jason:              Is it making sure that we have the appropriate sort of standard definition of diversity, that we've got enough men and women solving this problem or different ethnic backgrounds. But also, hey, are we including engineering and product and design? Maybe we should be including sales. Maybe we should be including other parts of the business.

Jason:              And by focusing on these principles, we're finding that people are like, I can make some pretty small changes to the way that I work. And it's showing some impact by just applying empathy or just applying experimentation or just applying brainstorming or going wide.

Daniel:            So I love having a compass instead of a map, and that's an interesting reframe. So there's a lot of things to unpack there. One is impact. Like, so if we're doing this process, you're training a lot of people. How do you measure the impact? Do you measure the impact of the process?

Jason:              Yeah. We're trying very hard to measure it in a number of ways. And so, in the sort of simplest form, we're using tools like MPS style surveys. So every time, we engage with a group to run a workshop with them. We're trying to measure whether they perceived it to have a positive impact on that project and a positive impact on the outcome of the project.

Daniel:            Got you.

Jason:              Same with when we do training. Do they feel as though it had a positive impact? Over time we're trying to measure things like the number of people who are engaging with aspects of our program. So how many people are we training? How many people are, moving through what I see as sort of a funnel associated with our training? So how many people, come in to an intro course and how many of those people convert to signing up for a two day, immersive hands on, training?

Jason:              How of those people convert to become catalysts that are out there kind of evangelizing for us? And how many of those people convert to becoming facilitators and developing a bigger practice? So we're trying to measure that sort of in the form of a conversion funnel. We're also trying to measure sustained sort of changes in behavior.

Jason:              So when we're working with, for example, when we put a group of people through a two day practitioner training, for 30, 60, 90 days after that training we're very hard to measure who's changing their behavior and applying these principles in the work that they do. So, like anything design-related it's always really hard to measure the impact of it. But we're trying to do as many of the things as we can to measure it.

Daniel:            Because sometimes there's a sense of like design thinking and good process can improve the quality of the experience of doing the work. And that's a completely different metric from velocity of ideas turned into opportunities and opportunities that improve our bottom line. And both have value to a company or can have value to a company.

Jason:              I think, in the earlier days of my program, the only thing we could measure was sort of the NPS style stuff. Because it was just, we're running workshops or we're doing training. And right now the only thing I can measure is how much these people are liking it. But now we've got six, nine months under our belt of running this program within the security business.

Jason:              And like this morning for example, I was in a meeting where a team was showing this new dashboard that shows, sort of health of our customers within one segment of the business. And this dashboard came out of a design thinking workshop that was done six months ago where they realized the way they were approaching a problem was completely off. And they actually took time to understand the needs of our customer success and renewals teams and understood that there was this big gap in what they knew about customers.

Jason:              And we went off and built this really simple version of a dashboard that's now showing them the information they need. And that feels really good because now I can see that, because of this program, because of this training, because of those workshop, these people found a problem that they didn't know existed or they understood the problem well enough to design something that they could deliver to a customer, which is an internal customer. And now that internal customer is actually doing their job much better than they were before.

Jason:              And so we're starting to see more of those examples pop up. And I'm starting, probably the most exciting thing to me is I'm starting to see workshops happen that are not driven by my team, or that my team is not contributing to in any way. You're just all of a sudden hearing about, this group they did a workshop or they're applying design thinking or you're seeing empathy maps pop up as artifacts. And so I'm seeing it take on a life of its own, which is really exciting.

Daniel:            So I want to go back to the funnel because, and I want to connect it to another question, because we talked about this offline, this idea of taking people who are keen on the process to people who have capacity to become catalysts or drivers of the process to go from being, I don't know, consumers of design thinking to being cooks or preparers of design thinking for other people.

Daniel:            And I guess one of the questions I have is like, for some organizations, the answer to this process is to have a standardized process. Like doing sprints, versus it's modular and we need chefs because we're running workshops of all shapes and size and we need people who are really, really masterful to shape those and design those experiences. Where are you on that spectrum of like, we have standardized workshop engagements to it's gotta be uniquely designed for this particular context challenge, et cetera?

Jason:              We're all over the map I think. We've definitely identified a number of opportunities to create what we're calling playbooks, or specific plays where it's like, hey, we know that we bought this sort of tried and true one day workshop format that is great for a team kicking off a new project. Or, we've got this two day format that's really great for a team to, review their strategy and understand what they need to be focused on for the next six months. And we've got a bunch of examples with that.

Jason:              And so we're trying to use those playbooks as much as we can. But they don't apply to everything. So we get like a great example is I had, two VPs come to me recently going, "Hey, there's this really exciting new opportunity we're exploring between sort of two new business units or two business units within Cisco. We think they would benefit from, a facilitated session on design thinking."

Jason:              And at first glance I looked at it and maybe I get a little bit too complacent sometimes and going, "Grab the play X and we're going to play this one." And I sort of tried a couple of my standard playbooks with them and it didn't quite fit and it wasn't right. And there was a lot of back and forth. And one of the things I realized that was really cool was that, in trying to plan a session, we were actually playing out the design thinking process.

Jason:              I was developing what I thought was the right agenda. I would give it to them as a prototype. They would react to it, it would help me learn, just a little bit more about what they're trying to do. And because when I asked them the first time, they didn't tell me everything. And it was only once I gave them this agenda to react to that they were like, "No, but we're really trying to discover this value proposition or something." And I said, "Okay. Do back to the drawing board, create something new."

Jason:              And so, probably the majority of the things that we can do would benefit from a playbook or a standard recipe that someone can execute. But there's like this probably 10 or 15% right now of engagements that really do result in, needing a chef to figure out how to deliver this experience that's going to satisfy, the needs of this customer.

Daniel:            And it seems like the only way you can really do it is in conversation with people who are, you can't just say like, I'm going to run this playbook no matter what. You need to know that dialogue of what's the need, what's the goal, where are you now, what are your capabilities, expanding that circle of understanding the context.

Jason:              And I think that's one of the ways that I've grown the most as a facilitator over the past couple of years because, there's no question. The past two years for me has been the most intensive, facilitation learning that I've had a chance of experiencing, because that's been primarily what I've been doing. Like I probably facilitate a session every one or two weeks.

Jason:              And so it's just a lot of practice and a lot of repetition. And the biggest learning for me has been to be able to have that conversation, to not come in taking that you need to be the guy with all the answers, or girl with all the answers, that you're trying to understand this customer that your stakeholder, you're trying to understand what their objectives are and you're trying to bring them a plan for how to achieve that.

Jason:              But whether it's in preparation for the workshop, you need to be able to have that conversation and adjusting, or even more importantly when you actually get in the room with these people, and two hours in you've realized, my whole plan for these two days has gone out the window because things have taken a turn. But it's an important turn to be able to call an audible, to be able to like pull your stakeholders aside and have that really quick conversation going, okay, here's what I'm seeing.

Jason:              Our plan is out the window. I'm seeing that, Bob needs to talk to Joe about whatever. Do I have your permission to let this play out because I think it's really important? Yes or no. You plan things really quickly. You go back in for the next two hours, and fight for your life and see how things go.

Daniel:            But you also invited the, you don't just make that choice. It seems like you create that opportunity to open up the conversation. And what I love about all of that is, I don't think either of us got into this even knowing what facilitation was, and it seems like there's this, I love that there's this growing wellspring of facilitation is an important mindset and skillset.

Daniel:            For me, I really just started with, I'm designing an experience and I use the exact same tools I was using of experience design to say, okay, well, this workshop is an experience and I'm going to design that arc. The way I would design any other arc of any other experience, and doing it iteratively with your customers. It makes perfect sense to me.

Jason:              Like I think that honestly, it wasn't until you and I have started talking over the past few months that this idea of, we're designing conversations in these sessions, because I was wrestling with this idea that a lot of the workshops that I was going into to do were not necessarily designed thinking workshops. Like, the people would come to me asking for a design thinking workshop, but at the end of the day, in many cases they were just, well, hopefully well facilitated workshops and conversations that led to the outcome that they were hoping to achieve.

Jason:              And so now, unless I'm truly focused on design thinking activities, I've started to use language that I picked up from you, which is, hey, I've spent my career designing products and now I help design conversations. And I've tried to be really thoughtful about how do I bring you this group of people in this workshop, through this conversation that's going to lead us to the outcome? And that conversation may change. It's going to evolve as we go through it. But that's really helped me wrap my head around really what I'm doing now, which is just having conversations.

Daniel:            That's awesome to hear. So unfortunately, like this time has gone by really fast, and is there anything else that we should talk about when it comes to building capacity for this stuff inside of the organization? Anything that any tips or tricks that you can share with the audience about how to really design that conversation on the organizational level, which is, you know-

Jason:              Yeah. I think that, and this is something that I picked up from, Matt Cutler. Matt Cutler was the guy who essentially started the current version of design thinking within Cisco. And I was fortunate to meet Matt when he was just starting out on his journey and bringing all this stuff together. And I sort of jumped on as one of his first followers and first advocates.

Jason:              And right from the beginning, he would drive it home. Two things. One was, we need to approach the coalition of the willing, or we need to build a coalition of the willing. So let's not waste any energy on trying to convince people they should be doing this. Let's find, even if it's just one or two people who want to do this, let's shower them with our love. And so that's one thing that we've really done.

Jason:              The other thing that really stuck with me from him was, a big part of my job as being an evangelist for what we do and design thinking and facilitation. And he used to tell me, "The first job of an evangelist is to make more evangelists." And so I try and give people the words that they can use to have their own conversations around this.

Jason:              So again, I think something that I picked up on from your most recent podcast was, crafting stories that are recalibrate. Crafting stories that people can pick up as their own and tell in their own way has been something that, I don't think we did it on purpose necessarily, but in hindsight, I think that we've done a decent job of it, and so people have been able to do that.

Daniel:            That's such an important thing because that's spreading the story of success. Like who doesn't want to be involved in that journey, once they hear that story.

Jason:              Right.

Daniel:            That's a really cool. So Jason, I want to respect your time and I really appreciate you coming out and sharing these insights. I mean, it's actually a really lovely conversation.

Jason:              Thank you very much. I've really enjoyed it as well.

Daniel:            Thanks man.

Jason:              It's just been a pleasure to be here.

Daniel:            Thanks man. Any parting? There's one of my favorite Tim Ferriss questions is, if there was a billboard on the side of the biggest highway nearby where you live, what would you want to put on that billboard?

Jason:              Oh man. The one thing that has stuck with me a lot, and this is kind of one of the things that I've been geeking out on a lot recently, is this Einstein quote that talks about, if he has to solve a problem, he would rather spend 55... If he has an hour to solve a problem, he would spend 55 minutes exploring the problem and five minutes on the solution. And I think that that's one of the things that I'm really, really, really trying to influence people to think about these days. So I would end with that.

Daniel:            That's awesome. That's a great place to stop. We'll call it scene. Thank you very much.

From Innovation to Transformation

Hey there Conversation Designers! Today I’m talking with Author, speaker and advisor Greg Satell about going beyond innovation to driving transformation. His recent book, Cascades, is about how to create a movement that drives real change and he’s teaching a workshop in Austin November 21st with my friend and podcast guest Douglas Furgueson.

Greg is also the author of Mapping Innovation, which was all about stepping back from a monolithic idea of innovation and turning it into a conversation - what do we mean when we say innovation? And by we, I mean whoever is coming together to make a change. A team, an organization, has to define for itself what change and impact means to them.

And this is the essence of the conversation Greg and I had - the importance of empathy across the board - not just with customers but with your internal stakeholders. It’s only through this kind of “mass empathy” that we, as change agents, can begin to find the shared values that will power change.

While we didn’t use these terms in the interview, the act of empathy and seeking shared values means you can shift your transformation from a ”push” effort to a “pull” effort - in other words, leveraging Invitation rather than Imposition. The core of any productive conversation, of any communication is invitation: the choice of all the participants to actually choose to participate.

There is one other idea I want to explore and that is making problems okay to talk about inside of a culture. In many of the transformation cascades Greg talked about in this episode, broad silence about a challenge was followed by everyone pulling in the same direction. What changed?

Some suggest that change only happens when we all feel like we’re on a burning platform, a phrase coined by John Kotter in the late 90s. But Greg is talking about change being driven by shared values, not just fear and panic. What seems to be happening in each of these instances is that stakeholder groups who initially thought that they had different goals and values suddenly saw a shared goal and shared set of values.The burning platform just makes the act of finding shared values easy - the need to focus on survival is a powerful motivator.  But understanding that the fear is just one type of motivation is clarifying. This makes the job of a leader of change simple - or rather, one of simplification. Change is about making the choice simple - simple to see (through storytelling) and simple to make (through clear shared values).

You can learn more about Greg’s work (including seeing the entire eight-step cascades process) and the upcoming workshop in Austin @ GregSatell.com Enjoy the conversation!

Show Links

Greg Satell on the Web:

https://www.gregsatell.com 

And

https://www.Digitaltonto.com

November 21st Cascades Workshop in Austin:

https://landing.voltagecontrol.co/cascades-workshop/

The Cascades Process:

https://www.gregsatell.com/workshops/

Cascades (the book):

https://www.amazon.com/Cascades-Create-Movement-Drives-Transformational/dp/126045401

Mapping Innovation:

https://www.amazon.com/Mapping-Innovation-Playbook-Navigating-Disruptive/dp/1259862259/

Gene Sharp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sharp

The IBM Turnaround 

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/lou-gerstners-turnaround-tales-at-ibm

Network Theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_theory

Instantaneous Phase Transitions in Physics and Culture:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/22/18277218/safi-bahcall-loonshoots-science-business-innovation-history-interview

Otpor And the Buldozer rebellion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87

Stakeholder Mapping:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_analysis

Women’s March Controversy:

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/12/21/18145176/feminism-womens-march-2018-2019-farrakhan-intersectionality

Amritsar Massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

Salt march

https://www.history.com/topics/india/salt-march

Values and Choices: Even/Over Statements:

https://academy.nobl.io/how-to-write-a-strategy-your-team-will-remember/

Transcription:

Daniel:            I'll officially welcome you to the Conversation Factory. Greg Satell, I'm so glad you're here. You're a titan. Your two books, Mapping Innovation and Cascades are lovely books that people should have not on their shelves, but on their desks, so thanks for spending time with me today.

Greg:               Thanks so much. That's great to hear. Really happy to be here.

Daniel:            Thank you. Let's go straight to it. What is your origin story? How did you come to care about these things that you write about? How did you get involved in these two topics?

Greg:               Well, Mapping Innovation was just really frustration, right? I spent most of my career running businesses, and I always felt an incredible pressure to innovate, but not so sure how to go about it. And whenever I looked for guidance, everybody had a different idea about how to innovate, and you would look at something like design thinking and you'd say, "Jeez, Steve Jobs swears by this stuff, and look at all the great things IDEO has done and Stanford, for God's sakes, has built an entire school around design thinking. This must be how you do it." Then you look into design thinking and it's like you focus on the needs of the end user and then you rapidly make a prototype and rapidly iterate towards a solution. You say, "That makes a ton of sense."

Daniel:            It seems logical to me, right.

Greg:               That's fantastic. That's how you do it. Then you read Clayton Christensen and The Innovator's Dilemma and Disruptive Innovation, and he says, "That's how companies go out of business. They're too focused on their customers and when there's a change in the basis of competition, that all goes out the window and they go out of business." So which is it? Both those things can't be right.

Greg:               Then there's open innovation, and then there's basic research people figuring how to split the atom, curing cancer. It all just becomes a confused mess. So that's the problem I was trying to solve, and what I found was that innovation's really about solving problems, and there's as many ways to innovate as there are different problems to solve. So what I created was a method of classifying problems so that you can choose the best fit strategy to solve them. And one of the things I noticed is that so many organizations, they say, "This is how we innovate. This is our innovation DNA," or something, and it works well for a really long time until they find a problem that doesn't quite fit, and then they just kind of spin their wheels. So that was really the problem I was trying to solve with Mapping Innovation.

Greg:               Cascades is I think a more interesting story and has really become my number one passion. The origin story of that was I was running a major news organization during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, so that was a really big experience and had a really big impact on me. It was an amazing thing to be a part of. One of the things I noticed was how thousands upon thousands of people who would ordinarily be doing very different things would stop whatever it was they were doing and start doing the same thing all at once in almost perfect unison.

Greg:               I thought to myself, "Gee, I'd really like to be able to do that." Here I am running this big company and with thousands of potential customers. Wouldn't it be great if I could get them to stop whatever it was they were buying and all buy the stuff that I was trying to sell them? I had hundreds of employees, all really smart and capable, all with their own ideas. Wouldn't it be great though if I could get them all to unify on the initiatives I thought were important? Same thing with advertisers and investorsGreg:               So I set out to figure out how that all worked, and it took be 15 years to figure out, and I found out that networks and network science has a lot to do with it, but I also found that there has been for decades an entire doctrine of how you create a movement, a lot of the ideas founded by a guy named Gene Sharp back in the '50s and '60s. I also found that we tend to have these three buckets when it comes to general change. We have political revolution, social movements, and then corporate or industrial transformation. And we treat them as completely separate, but what I found in my research is that they're incredibly similar, and the principles by which they succeed tend to be very similar.

Greg:               So that was a real eye-opener and that's one of the things that made the book so much fun to research and write.

Daniel:            That's awesome. I can understand why seeing structure underneath all this disparate phenomenon would be exciting to you, because you're clearly a structural thinker.

Greg:               Right. Well, also once you make that connection between social and political revolutions and corporate and industrial transformations, it opens up the whole subject to a lot more rigor, because we tend to find out about corporate industrial transformations usually very much after the fact, and usually only when they succeed. Then some business school professor or consultant interviews a half dozen people and writes a case study, where in social and political movements, we have often thousands upon thousands of contemporary accounts.

Greg:               And that really allowed me after doing the research on social and political movements and taking those principles and going into organizations and asking about those transformations, and as they were telling me their story I would ask them, "Did this happen?" They said, "You know what, it did. Is that a common thing?" Often they themselves didn't realize how much the Gerstner turnaround at IBM in the '90s mirrored Gandhi in the 1920s and '30s.

Daniel:            It's so interesting because in science running experiments is important, and the same thing in innovation, but it can be hard to define what a good experiment is and what the boundaries of that experiment are, and having other context to draw on, I can see how that would really be helpful, to say, "Here's all these simulations that have been run for us already and we can have some intelligence that we can glean from all that."

Greg:               Yeah, that was something I really tried hard to do in the book. I didn't want to, because I've read lots of books about movements, and I really, really tried hard to make the book more than a sample size of one. I have experienced a real movement. The Orange Revolution was very similar to the Arab Spring or the other movements within the Color Revolution, and it's so easy to treasure and admire that experience, that you don't acknowledge that that is your unique experience and it might not be others' experiences. So I really tried to expand that sample size and see how others experienced.

Greg:               For instance, the Orange Revolution was really an outgrowth of the similar revolution in Serbia. I called Otpor! The organization was called Otpor! and it was called the Bulldozer Revolution, overthrew Milosevic. So I spent a lot of time talking to one of the leaders of that revolution to understand how it was different or the same as the Orange Revolution, and then I went and talked to a gentleman named Irving Wladawsky-Berger, who was one of Gerstner's chief lieutenants in the '90s in the IBM turnaround, and what was fascinating was to the extent they seemed to be almost finishing each other's sentences. To me that was just so amazing.

Greg:               When you think about turning around a company, an enormous company, this historical turnaround at IBM in the '90s, and then you think about these kids, which they really were just kids, overthrowing a dictator like Milosevic in Serbia, and they're talking about the same things. They're finishing each other's sentences. It was almost like a mystical experience, like you're seeing some kind of unity in the universe or something. It was really amazing.

Daniel:            Yeah. So this is really interesting, because I think there's a story in Cascades early on where you talk about I think it was the woman you were with at the time where nobody was talking about the problem, she was not talking about the problem. Then one day she was just going out to demonstrate with everyone else. I think there's this idea of somehow nobody sees the problem or nobody's talking about the problem and then everybody is talking about the problem.

Greg:               Right. So that's really interesting. First of all, that was my fiancee at the time and now my wife.

Daniel:            Yeah. Congratulations. I'm glad that worked out.

Greg:               That worked out, that worked out. She's still working on her transformation, which is me.

Daniel:            That's a good project.

Greg:               That's her big project. What was so interesting is that two years after the Orange Revolution, I was in Silicon Valley and everybody was talking about social networks, and we had an enormous digital business, at the time about 40% of the digital advertising market in the Ukraine. So I said, "This is something I really need to know about." So I started studying network theory and I came across this amazing... This is what sort of flicked the switch for me and turned the light on. It was called an instantaneous phase transition, exactly what I experienced with my fiancee, where all of a sudden the world seemed to have changed, where all these links start accumulating and the system flips.

Greg:               That was a big revelation for me, that students and activists can protest. It's when the marketing managers and the accountants, when they start hitting the streets, that's when the true revolution begins.

Daniel:            Yeah, so just to make a sidebar, I think Loonshots from Safi Bahcall, he's...

Greg:               Yeah, he also talks about phase transitions.

Daniel:            Well, it's interesting because I love that physics and human systems also can mirror each other, that there's this idea of suddenly everything crystallizes. Something precipitates out of the solution.

Greg:               Right. I don't think we should take the physics too literally. He was talking from a physical point of view. There is actually, there was something called the Erdos-Renyi model, which just mathematically figured this out, that at a certain point you get enough links that an unconnected system becomes connected.

Daniel:            Yes.

Greg:               There's also a similar theory in mathematics about when disordered points become order, randomly become order, and there's a lot of interesting math that goes around predicting when that point will hit. And I think that's interesting, but from a transformation point of view, it's a really deep and important concept, because you think about how that happens. Like in the Orange Revolution, this organization called Pora. It was a students' movement, but it became powerful, not through the students' movement but through second and third degree connections. Aunts, uncles, older cousins. And that's how it became powerful.

Greg:               I think there's another concept in the book about local majorities and how majorities don't just rule, they also influence, and I think that's a key part of driving a transformation, that you're always building local majorities, but it's always dynamic. It's never static. Because if you just sit in your local majority then you're just preaching to the choir. You have to get out of the church and start preaching to some of the heathens.

Daniel:            Yeah, so this is where I want to start drawing these points together, because in Mapping Innovation, you talk about innovation as a novel solution to an important problem, and what was interesting to me about that story of your fiancee in the Orange Revolution is that there's a problem and nobody's talking about it, or nobody's... At least this was my memory of the story, is that the students are talking about it but the middle managers and the silent majority is sort of going on with their lives. And suddenly everyone is talking about the problem.

Daniel:            In your process, which I'm looking at, your Cascades process, the vision of tomorrow is this first step, and it seems like getting everyone to have a shared vision is a powerful moment in accelerating that change.

Greg:               That is a very important part of it, a shared vision, but also shared values. Shared values in many ways are more important than shared vision, because generally speaking, in a situation like the Orange Revolution, where you have this oppressive regime, they spoke to shared values. They spoke to stability. People really just didn't want to even think about it. I mean, when I first came to Ukraine, I would ask, "What do you think about Kuchma?", who was the ruler at the time, and they would say, "It doesn't really have anything to do with us." Everybody knew it was a problem but they didn't-

Daniel:            Sort of like, it's fine.

Greg:               Right, so part of it is the social proof, but part of it is in the Orange Revolution they changed how they saw the country, that they had the right to be a normal country, that it wasn't right that they have this election that was a sham. It wasn't right. And people got angry about it and they saw the possibility that it could change. Because when you see things that you don't like and you don't see the possibility of change you figure the optimal strategy is just to figure out how to accept that.

Daniel:            Yeah, which is a really hard position to be in as a human being, like that internal conflict between what you see and what you're experiencing and what you feel like you can say.

Greg:               Absolutely, yeah.

Daniel:            I mean, I guess this is what I'm driving towards, is inside of an organization, what makes it suddenly possible to start talking about a problem that people are seeing and feeling but not talking about? Because it seems like in order to accelerate transformation, at some point you have to make an unspeakable problem speakable.

Greg:               Right. The key is really to think about... What I see in the work we've been doing is that often people construe institutions far too narrowly and stakeholders far too narrowly. There is the sort of thing, like they say, "Okay, well, the middle managers, they'll never buy into this," or, "This particular department will never accept it," or whatever it is. But then once you start thinking more broadly about stakeholders... I'll give you an example from political revolutions, and then we'll go back to the corporate, give a corporate example.

Greg:               During anti-Apartheid, how do you convince these white supremacists in South Africa to give up power? One of the tactics that they did was a bunch of anti-Apartheid activists started a campaign against Barclays Bank in British university towns. Now, you can imagine what the white supremacists in South Africa thought of that. I mean, what do they care what a bunch of hippies in college towns in the UK are doing? But over two years, the Barclay share of the student market fell from 27% to 15%, and you can believe they cared about that. And they ended up pulling out all of their investments out of South Africa, and that kind of had a domino effect, because other companies who had investments in South Africa, they started pulling out too, because nobody wanted that to happen to them and South Africa just wasn't that much money.

Greg:               Once you start having-

Daniel:            Yeah, it wasn't worth the trouble.

Greg:               Absolutely. Once you start having businesses pull out, countries, the whole rationale for not sanctioning Apartheid sort of fell my the wayside. That's why Apartheid fell, not because somebody all of a sudden, white supremacists all of a sudden had this big change of mind. It just had become economically untenable, and the rest of South Africans were no longer willing to support it.

Greg:               So now if you think about your opposition, not the hardened die hard active opposition, but people who are neutral or passive opposition or apathetic, what influences them? You have all these institutional stakeholders. For instance, if you look at tech companies like Google or Microsoft or IBM, they invest significant amounts of money into their university programs. Why? Because universities are a key pillar of influence in technology. That's where graduate students, that's where research is done.

Greg:               If you think about education, look at Common Core. They got all their ducks in a row. They came up with the plan. They got all the internal stakeholders to agree to it, but then Koch brothers start sending thousands of people. They missed the media as a key pillar of support and influence in education. Just to sort of sum up, that's how you actually make change happen. You mobilize people to influence institution.

Daniel:            Yeah. I want to dig into this idea of a spectrum of allies, because I think when people are thinking or planning about change, they may not be thinking about all of the stakeholders in the space and how to make who's reachable and who's unreachable. Do you have tools that you use to think about mapping stakeholders? Is that part of the spectrum?

Greg:               Yeah, that's the spectrum of allies, and it's really just about getting down on paper. Much as a general maps out the terrain on which the battle is going to be fought, the spectrum of allies allows you to map out the battle upon which the change will be fought, the terrain upon which the battle for change will be fought.

Daniel:            What does that look like for you? Because what I find interesting about this is Mapping Innovation provides this space to talk about innovation in a really, really specific way and say of this whole universe, this whole field of innovation, I think we should go here. And someone else can say, "Yes, but I think we should go here." And we can have the conversation about what innovation means to us. Similarly, it seems like with a good stakeholder mapping process, a group can say, "I think we should be talking to these people," and someone else can say, "Yes, and I think we should be talking to these people." They can really have that big picture view of the space in which the challenge is happening.

Greg:               Right. Well, the first thing is being specific about it, instead of, "People like us, people don't like us." And the spectrum of allies, and this is a really important point, it's always about people. They're not stakeholders. They're just people. So you want to identify who are your most active allies, who are your passive allies, who's neutral, who's passive opposition, and who's most active opposition.

Greg:               Your active opposition you probably don't want to engage directly because-

Daniel:            Is there another axis that you... So I'm going to put a really find point on this by the way, because I see people stakeholder mapping and they do write departments and they write entire industries, and I often say you want to put a face and a voice and a name to those stakeholders, because you want to know what they care about. It's a person.

Greg:               Well, you also want to make a distinction between people and institutions. You mobilize people. Spectrum of allies, those are people you're trying to mobilize. You mobilize people to influence institutions. If you think about Common Core, the Koch brothers were masterful at mobilizing those people to go to school boards and influence those institutions. So you want to keep those two things separate. The spectrum of allies is about people who are mobilized.

Greg:               The other tool, pillars of support, is about institutions that you're trying to influence. So if you think about Martin Luther King, what was the subject of those marches? What was the purpose? To influence specific institutions, media, legislative pillar, judicial pillar. So it's really, really important, and one of the reasons that Occupied failed, by the way. You always need to ask, "Who are we mobilizing to influence what?"

Greg:               You think about that Apartheid example. Mobilizing British university students to influence foreign corporations, because that was a key pillar of support. Once you identify international investors as a key pillar of support to the Apartheid regime in South Africa, well, that's a much softer target, right? That's a much, much softer target.

Greg:               So identifying those key institutions is important, but then also you have to ask why did those British university students, why were they willing to protest against Barclays Bank? The reason was because they felt they shared values with the anti-Apartheid. That's why it's so important to be explicit about your values and really clear. We can see the problems that the modern women's movement has run into, because they weren't explicit about their values. So when one of their leaders had this appearance with Louis Farrakhan, many people were absolutely repulsed, where others said, "What's the problem? That has nothing to do with the values of the women's movement." And that created quite a schism because they didn't ask themselves the hard question, "What are our values." If you don't define your values to yourself, how can you build a sense of shared values and bring people in?

Daniel:            Yeah, and it seems like, I'm looking at the eight step process, and it's clear that this hinge point in the middle of values, allies, and the pillars is a fulcrum that takes you from where we are now to where we want to be. That's a really important moment in-

Greg:               Well, also values signal constraints, right?

Daniel:            Yeah.

Greg:               Great example of this is the IBM turnaround in the '90s, where they said the value shifted from technology to customers. We're going to shift our values from our proprietary stack of technologies to the customer stack of business processes. Because that said we are not going to force every piece of technology down your throat. We're going to constrain ourselves and do what's best for your business. That completely changed. That required an enormous cultural change within IBM, but that's the only reason IBM's still in business today, because they were able to make that change.

Daniel:            Yeah. So let's talk for a second, because time marches on. You're doing a workshop in Austin towards the end of November.

Greg:               The 21st.

Daniel:            The 21st of November. Where people are going to go through this whole process and leave with a game plan on how to, I don't want to use the word incite. For some reason the word incite is coming to mind. In order to incite the revolution that they would like to incite, is there a limit to the challenge of the problems-

Greg:               Absolutely, to drive-

Daniel:            ... the scope of problems that somebody could bring into that workshop?

Greg:               Sure. So digital transformation is a big one. I know that we've talked to other people who wanted to create a movement around user centricity within their organization. Another one, we were just talking recently about a state government that wanted to drive a change around making government agile, adopting agile tactics, throughout state government. You start thinking about, by the way, the possibility of that in some of those things. Think about making a department of revenue agile and user-centric. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine calling up your department of revenue and saying, "Wow, that was a fantastic experience."

Daniel:            Yeah, that requisition I filled out was great.

Greg:               Right. So I guess the process all starts with asking yourself, "What really bothers me? What really I don't like?" And then flipping that and saying, "Well, if I could make any change I wanted, if I was king for a day or if I had a magic wand, what would that change be? What would it look like?" Then we through the cascades process, we show you how to get there.

Daniel:            That sounds magical. Because I mean, once you know what the change you want to create is, then you can start working.

Greg:               Yeah, one of the things that I think makes the process so powerful is there's nothing magical about it. It's very deliberate and step by step, and a lot of it is thinking about and anticipating what happens next. I think we were talking before about what if Black Lives Matter had anticipated that they would be portrayed as anti-police? How might things have gone very, very differently?

Daniel:            Yeah. Well, let's back up and talk about that, because in our pre-conversation we talked a little bit about how political movements learn from their mistakes, and I'm wondering, learning from mistakes is, as Hamlet would say, a consummation devoutly to be wished. Is there an example that you can share of how a movement learned form its mistakes and adapted?

Greg:               One of my favorite examples is... And I should point out I found the same thing in corporate and industrial transformations, that they made mistakes as well, but they learned from them. But I think probably the most powerful example was Gandhi in 1919, where he started this campaign of civil disobedience, and things just spun out of control and it led to a disaster, a horrible, horrible massacre at Amritsar, and he would later call it his Himalayan Miscalculation. And it haunted him for years, and then in 1929, when the Indian National Congress declared independence from Great Britain in a document very similar to our Declaration of Independence, meaning it didn't mean anything, they just declared it. And they asked him to design a campaign of civil disobedience to bring independence about. He went back and thought long and hard about it because he certainly wanted to avoid making that same Himalayan Miscalculation again, and the result was the Salt March, which is today considered his greatest triumph and was really what broke the spell of British dominance and led to Indian independence.

Daniel:            People don't often understand the significance of this moment, because it was this absurd sort of prohibition and tax and it was such a simple act, and somehow it pushed against something, an absurdity, and that shook a surprising amount loose.

Greg:               Right, it was also about shared values. I mean, salt was something that everybody needed. It didn't matter whether you were Hindu or Muslim or Sikh or upper caste or lower caste. You needed salt to live, and the burden fell on the poorest people the most. It was instead of something like liberty or justice or something abstract, it was at the same time very visceral, but it was also an appeal to shared values. Even in Great Britain, the salt laws were considered by many to be fundamentally unjust, and I think that's such a powerful point when you're trying to drive change. Instead of saying, "This is the change I want," you think in terms of how can I make this an appeal to shared values.

Greg:               I think the LGBT movement is a great example of this, where for decades it was all about accentuating difference. We're here, we're queer, we're different. But when they made that shift from that to "We want the same things you do. We want to live in committed relationships. We want to raise happy and healthy families," things shifted enormously quickly.

Daniel:            It's hard to imagine how quickly marriage equality swept through the legal system, and I think they chose a really wise target.

Greg:               Just to give you a corporate parallel to that, I think a great one is Paul O'Neill when he took over Alcoa. It was in dire straits. This was back in the late '80s I believe. They said, "What are you going to do to bring Alcoa back to profitability?" He said, "I'm going to make Alcoa the safest company in America. We're going to go for zero workplace injuries." People thought he was crazy. They said, "No, we're talking about finances." He said, "You didn't understand me." But by talking about safety, that was an appeal to shared values, and in following up on that and letting people know, making sure people understood that safety was going to be how they were going to be judged, that created an enormous amount of shared values and shared purpose with the employees. And of course safety, workplace safety, and operational excellence go hand in hand. And many of those same processes that started off with workplace safety were then used to create operational excellence, and I think within a year Alcoa was back at record profits. Some other things went right as well, but that was an enormous turnaround of that business.

Daniel:            It seems like, if I can reframe this, when you're talking about digital transformation or when you're brought in, you're like, "We want to become more innovative and we want to move faster and be more agile." These are really, really ephemeral or intangible value. Grounding ourselves in something really, really clear, like we're going to be safe seems like a much, much more powerful way to incite or to weave that network behind you. How can we ground these big ideas of innovation and transformation in the daily lived human experience of people inside of organizations?

Greg:               Well, one of the things we ask in the workshop, we ask people to define their values. Then we ask what they expect those values to cost them. What costs are they willing to incur? If you say, "Oh, well, we value the customer." Okay, what costs are you willing to incur? When Lou Gerstner said, "We're going to focus on the customer as our core value," he made clear we are not going to make people buy stuff anymore that they don't need. So he was willing as the CEO to incur those costs. And that's because if you're not willing to incur costs then it's not really a value, is it?

Daniel:            Yeah.

Greg:               That's where you start getting really into the nitty gritty. If you say you want to be innovative, what costs are you willing to incur to be more innovative? Because there's always a tension between optimization and innovation. If you're honing processes, you're not going to be doing things differently. So once you start thinking about what costs you're going to incur and realize that there is no such thing as a free value or a free choice, that's where the rubber starts hitting the road.

Daniel:            Yeah, this is, like the even over statements that I've heard some people use. Customer centricity even over, I don't know what people are willing to give up, though. How do you get people willing to step away from what's comfortable? Because the idea that I'm going to focus on something to the detriment or the cost of something that we currently care about, that's a challenge.

Greg:               It is, and people need to be forced to make those choices if something's going to change. I mean, in our workshops people come saying that they're committed to change, right?

Daniel:            Yeah.

Greg:               So if you are not committed to making some sort of choice, then you are committed to the status quo and things won't change.

Daniel:            Well, can I dig into that, because I'm slightly allergic to the word force. Because I'm wondering when you talk about weaving the network, I can't imagine that you really force people to make that change, that there's more of a rotational. How do you invite them to really-

Greg:               In designing the movement, you need to make choices. This is the difference between... And this is really important, because when the Arab Spring was going on, people started talking about these leaderless revolutions and leaderless movements, and this whole idea that hierarchies and leadership had become somehow passe. Those were not leaderless movements. People were leading those movements, and those people made choices. So your point is very much to your point. There's fantastic research behind this when it comes to political uprisings around participation and the fact that you can't overpower. You need to attract, and that's how you build a movement. Another mistake that the Occupy movement made, right? Once you start getting into this idea that only the most pure of heart belong. You always want to be connecting out.

Daniel:            Purity politics. I mean, on the left and the right in the United States, it's pretty challenging. I imagine it's very hard to weave a network and to build a coalition if there's a sharp boundary drawn onto what kosher is or isn't/

Greg:               Right, right. It's not easy, but the way you do it is with an appeal to shared values, and I think it's not so long ago that Barack Obama came on the scene out of nowhere. In 2004, when our politics were incredibly acrimonious, here was this, as he calls himself, this black guy with a funny name at the Democratic convention having this amazing call to shared values. We are not blue America or red America, we're United States of America. That was powerful enough to put that obscure state senator from Illinois into the presidency four years later.

Daniel:            Yeah. It's so interesting, because one of the things we talked about before we started recording was this idea that resistance happens in change dynamics. Some people are still trying to legislate the Civil War, and some could look at our current political state as a pendulum swing wildly in the other direction from what former President Obama was calling towards. In Cascades, in transformations, does that sometimes, is that something that we should be looking at?

Greg:               Yeah, I call it the tennis match.

Daniel:            The sort of not just resistant but the tennis match.

Greg:               Right. So again, the LGBT movement, if you think about how that went, you could sort of date it to the I think it was the 2004 State of the Union address, I think, where George Bush got up at the State of the Union address and I think called for the...

Daniel:            We're going to get the actual, I love it.

Greg:               He called for a marriage amendment, and then Gavin Newsom, who was the mayor of San Francisco at the time, he was in the audience. He was so incensed he went back to San Francisco and started performing same sex marriages at City Hall, and it was called the winter of something or other. Of course, that got people so incensed that there was a huge campaign for Proposition 8 in California and that Proposition 8 was so cruel and got people so incensed that it created the new LGBT movement and the gay, the same sex marriage movement, which even at that time was quite controversial in the LGBT community. Then it was that appeal to shared values.

Greg:               You often get the pendulum swinging, or I say this, the tennis match of transformation, until you eventually hit on those shared values. We saw the same thing in Ukraine, by the way, where 2004 we took to the streets to keep Yanukovych out of office. Five years later, he's in office. That's what the concept we talk about in the workshops and in the book of surviving victory. When you think about your... One of the most interesting things I found in my research is that the victory phase is often the most dangerous phase, because those who oppose change, they don't just go away. Those who are working to undermine change, they don't just go away.

Greg:               And think about how many times we've seen in the organizations that we work with that we work so hard to make a change and get executive approval, and the program passes. Everything's agreed to, and then what happens? Everything falls apart and goes back to the status quo. Why? Because the people who opposed it in the first place, they never went away. They say, "Okay, you can say whatever you want, we're just not going to go along," because you never created, they didn't see it as a shared value, and that's what eventually breaks the logjam.

Daniel:            Yeah. This seems just like two people having a conversation where we can dig in into a bitter argument, and at some point somebody's going to have to pull the ripcord and say, "What are we doing here? What are we trying to accomplish? What's our shared goal? Let's go to couples counseling." I'm seeing this conversation, like the national conversation about gay marriage rights, it's just happening in the same way, just back and forth, and at some point somebody has to say, "What's the big idea? What's the big goal?" Similarly, we've got to do that inside of our organizations, is have those real conversations with people about why we're doing this and why it matters.

Greg:               Absolutely. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Daniel:            I think you have. We're running out of time. Is there anything we haven't talked about that we should talk about?

Greg:               Well, I think there are so many things that we could talk about that I feel like we could keep going for another hour, but I think that when it comes down to brass tacks, I think that we need to take responsibility for making change possible. And once you take responsibility for that, it almost necessitates thinking concretely about how you're going to bring that change about, and that's what we try and do in our workshop.

Daniel:            I think it sounds, I mean, to me I think about being intentional in designing the conversations we want to have in the world, and if there's a change you want to create, thinking through that entire arc and having a real game plan seems like an absolute must.

Greg:               Absolutely, absolute must.

Daniel:            I wish I could be at the workshop if for no other reason that it's fun to hang out with Douglas and it's been fun hanging out with you too, Greg. I'll ask you to stay on the line for a second after we close things out, but on the internet, if somebody wants to learn more things about all things Greg Satell, where should they go on the internet?

Greg:               You can go to my website, gregsatell.com, and to my blog, digitaltonto.com

Daniel:            And if you want to know the origin story for that, we can tell you the story another time. Cool. I'll put those links in the show notes, obviously. Greg, thank you for the time. It's really a delight to talk to you. You're a deep thinker about this stuff, and the rabbit hole goes pretty far down, and anybody who's listening to this, I would definitely encourage you if you can make it out to Austin to spend some time with these fine gentlemen, because this is an important topic for sure.

Greg: Thanks so much for having me, Daniel. It was fun.

Trust, Communication and Psychological Safety

Have you ever found a framework, a diagram, that perfectly summarized an important and subtle idea? That somehow made that important idea concrete and easy to talk about?

That’s why I’m really excited to share today’s conversation with Emily Levada, Director of Product Management at Wayfair. We’ll dive into a Trust/Communication Map that, as a manager of a huge team, helps her navigate an essential question - is our team talking too much or not enough?

On the conversation design, meta side, I want to point out this important idea: The power of a visual to focus and shift a conversation. All conversations have an interface - either the air, a chat window or a whiteboard - a *place* the conversation actually happens. 

A diagram creates a narrative space for a much more clear and focused conversation to take place - the diagram triangulates all of our individual inputs and ideas.

I stumbled across Emily’s medium article where she breaks down this trust/communication trade off using this simple visual map. She points out that the map we talk about is commonly attributed to technology entrepreneur and venture capitalist Ben Horowitz. In his book The Hard Thing About Hard Things he writes, 

“If I trust you completely, then I require no explanation or communication of your actions whatsoever, because I know that whatever you are doing is in my best interests.”

With Communication on the Y axis and Trust on the X, you clearly don’t want your team in the lower-left quadrant - low trust and low communication. Things will get pretty rocky there, fast. Increasing communication can help, but wow, will your team get burnt out, fast. The upper right quadrant, from a manager’s perspective, is waste - in this region, we’re having too many meetings. We can likely decrease communication, slowly, until we find a perfect balance - low friction, high trust teams. 

Emily, at the end of the episode outlines how she uses this diagram to have this crucial conversation with the teams she manages: Where does each member of the team feel we are on this chart? Are we spending too much time talking or not enough? If you use this diagram with your team, please let me know! Email me at Daniel@theconversationfactory.com.

As Emily points out, when there’s total trust, there’s a sense of safety - When my collaborators trust me to make things work, I feel empowered to find my own way, even if I take the long path, down some blind alleys.

Psychological safety is at the absolute core of teams that can make great things happen. We need trust and safety to make good decisions. Amy Edmonson, who coined the term Psychological safety, opens her book “The Fearless organization” with this amazing quote from Edmund Burke, an English philosopher from the mid-1700s

“No passion so effectively robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.”

With the right balance of trust and communication, teams can feel safe to act, learn and iterate. 

For all of this and a lot more, listen to the rest of the episode!

Show Links and Notes

The Trust/Communication Curve

https://medium.com/@elevada/the-trust-communication-trade-off-4238993e2da4

Agile at a large experience design organization

https://medium.com/wayfair-design/the-agile-methodology-of-a-large-experience-design-organization-178eccbb73c8

The Agile manifesto

https://agilemanifesto.org/

The Five Elements of User Experience from Jesse James Garrett

http://jjg.net/elements/pdf/elements.pdf

Minimum Viable vs Minimum Lovable Products

https://themindstudios.com/blog/mlp-vs-mvp-vs-mmp/

Making Time in the Morning

https://www.jeffsanders.com/the-5-am-miracle-podcast/

Project Aristotle and Psychological Safety

https://rework.withgoogle.com/print/guides/5721312655835136/

Amy Edmondson, The Fearless Organization

https://www.amazon.com/Fearless-Organization-Psychological-Workplace-Innovation/dp/1119477247

The Learning Zone

https://hackernoon.com/great-teams-5f15cb718c20

The Trust Equation from the Trusted Advisor

https://trustedadvisor.com/why-trust-matters/understanding-trust/understanding-the-trust-equation

High CUA Organizations, from High Output Management by Andy Grove

https://www.amazon.com/High-Output-Management-Andrew-Grove/dp/0679762884/

Helpful summary is here:

https://charles.io/high-output-management/

Transcription:

Daniel:                Emily, we're going to officially welcome you to the conversation factory. Thank you for making the time to do this and for waiting for me while I fixed all of my technical difficulties.

Emily:                  Thank you for having me.

Daniel:                Awesome. So can you tell the listeners a little bit about who you are and what your role is?

Emily:                  Sure, sure. I'm a director of product management at Wayfair. I own a set of technologies that sit at what we call the bottom of our purchase funnel. So, when you're shopping on Wayfair, that's the product detail page (the page that tells you about the things we sell), the cart and checkout experiences, and then some other things like customer reviews or financing--how you apply for financing, understand financing on our site--our loyalty program. Uand, I run a team of product managers doing that.

Daniel:                Yeah. And so we talked a little bit about: how do you get a hundred designers to all talk the same language? Like, cause you've got a big team. How do you get them all pointed in the same direction, as a were? Like tell us about managing that conversation cause like you literally can't have a conversation unless you're speaking the same language. And so like there's that step back that you're working with.

Emily:                  Yeah. So I just shared an article that my design partner had written about our written design process or design toolkit as you might say. I think, you know, in any organization that is scaling how you build the mechanisms for people to build shared vocabulary, to be using the same tools. It's one that we invest time in. I don't know that there's any magic to it besides you know, making the time to have the conversation of what's the language that we want to use.

Daniel:                Yeah.

Emily:                  ...And being really intentional about it, right? What's language we do want to use, what's the language we don't want to use? How do we want to talk to new employees about these things in ways that are simple and digestible for them? And then they can build on over time. And then creating the mechanisms to make sure that coordination keeps happening. And you know, I think as we get more into this, you'll see that for me, how, how people communicate across the organization is a big part of what I spend my time thinking about.

Daniel:                Yeah. I really enjoyed Jesse's article. We'll definitely link to it. One of the things that kind of blew me away was this idea that--because, I've worked with organizations where they're having a sense that, oh, we should have our own proprietary design thinking process. We should have our own flavor of agile. And he's like, we wanted something that anybody coming in would generally recognize. And so it's like, yeah, it's nothing. Here it is, it's kind of the double diamond. It's, it's the basics of design thinking, but doing it is the hard part.

Emily:                  Yeah. And I think one thing that's interesting is that we're actually not that dogmatic about how those things get applied. So really there's a lot of license to do what works best for your team. Designers are part of a cross functional team with engineers, and analysts, QA, product managers and the designer should bring the tools to bear that are gonna help us understand customer problems and talk to our customers and uprototype and test things. But we, but we're creating a toolkit that designers can pull from in order to do their work effectively.

Daniel:                Yeah. It seems like a lot of work went into, into building that, that toolkit that they can pull from, but also like, I mean, this is the, this is the essence of agile, right? It's, it's, it's people and interactions over processes and tools or am I misquoting it? That's embarrassing. It's something like that. So like, let's talk about your origin story. Like how did you get into this work? How did you get your start and you know, where are you hoping to sort of ...what's next on your journey with, with the work that you're doing? Sure.

Emily:                  Sure, so, um I, rewinding to, let's say collegeUh I have two degrees. I have a degree in psychology and a degree in theatre production. I'm a theatre kid.

Daniel:                That's amazing. I could see how that could prepare you for many, many, because everything's a circus and you know how to put on a show. Let's put on a show, like you know how to do that.

Emily:                  Keep the drama on the stage, as we say. Uh,yes. I actually, there are a tremendous number of parallels that I think are really interesting. But psychology and theatre, they're both studies of how individuals behave. One's scientific and one's artistic, but,uthat's a common theme. And as I transitioned in technology and got an MBA, I fell in love with the idea of customer insights--that we could understand it and influence people's behavior with the technology that you build. And so that's kind of one thread that pulls through here. And then that, that also fuels a passion for organizational behavior. How do I understand the behavior of the people around me and how we interact with each other in the conversations that we have in our organization? Uand then I think the other interesting thing about theatre, well there's a, there's a product management tie. Building theater is cross functional. You have designers, you have technicians. UI've learned over the years that the conversation that happens between a set designer, a stage carpenter and a scenic painter is no different than the conversation that happens between a UX designer, a backend engineer and a front end engineer.

Daniel:                Okay. Can we, can you break that down? Cause like I don't think many people know those roles in maybe, maybe those roles in either context. Yeah. Lay those out. Cause like this is the difference between like the, like the skin and the concept and how it works, Maybe....

Emily:                  Right...Well, so, so in both cases you have someone like a designer who's coming up with a concept or understanding maybe it's user behavior or the story that we're trying to tell. The content that we want to have in what we're publishing. And then but having the concept or having the vision is different than having the executed product. And so then you have a technician, right? You have engineers you have carpenters and painters and, and then really that's really just specialization, right? Those people are delivering on the thing that's been designed. And and they might have different types of specialization. And then I think where the thing that's the same in my role about that is that what you deliver is never going to be exactly the thing that you designed. And there's a constant process of learning and discovering the unknown and prototyping or having to cut to meet a budget or a timeline, um, changing scope.

Emily:                  And that's the same, right? It's actually the same conversation. So I found a lot of skills in software development product management that were skills that I had developed earlier and loved that, that managing that conversation between those people and that translation between the functions. Uand then the other thing that I think is super relevant to the trust part of the work that I do is that the theatre is a space, it's a workspace where coming to work emotionally available every day is part of what allows you to deliver the work. Like my, my early career, my conception of a business meeting was a bunch of people get in a room, and we'd watch a play. And if at the end of the business meeting everybody wasn't crying or laughing or right, whatever it was, then like your product was not delivering the emotional experience that you needed.

Emily:                  And so your ability to then work through you know, how do I build something that resonates more emotionally, it was a, it was a critical part of that experience. And so I think that in the business world that translates into being, you know, high EQ, whatever that means. But there are some notion that, that idea that you sort of come to work present and authentic and kind of with your emotional switch "on". That is something that I'm just really interested in and passionate about. That's kind of the way that I'm built. And and so how that translates into a different, you know, or into the world that I'm in today has been an interesting on, an interesting question.

Daniel:                Yeah, I mean, so like, let's, let's dig into that a little bit, because I think the idea that our product should turn the customer "on" like that it should hit them in the gut the way like a great production should is a provocative one. And then like, so there's, there's these, there's that level of the, it should have that effect on our, our end user, but we should also be excited about doing it. And then I also need to sort of manage myself through that whole process of, you know bringing my best self to that dialogue, that interaction with all the people who are supposed to be making this thing. But there's a lot of, there can be a lot of conflict and tension in that black box of making something that people are gonna love.

Emily:                  Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I definitely, I think sometimes it's surprising to people that even just this concept of, hey, I want to build something that people love, that hey have emotional reaction to that, that I might talk about ecommerce that way. Right? But you're selling stuff, right?

Daniel:                Yeah. But we all love to buy stuff.

Emily:                  Right. Right. You still want an experience that people really love. And also, you know, your home is intensely personal. And so for us, the experience of finding the right things for your home and crafting a space, crafting an environment that is a backdrop for really important parts of your life and your family and your friends your kids that's very emotional. It's a very emotional process. And so you want the tools that you're giving people to go through that journey to be emotionally resonant for them.

Emily:                  You know, I think this is, there's lots of conversations about this in the product world. This this sort of, you know, you're aiming for a minimum viable product versus a minimum lovable product, right?

Daniel:                Yeah.

Emily:                  It's that that difference. But I think for me the organizational side of it is equally as important. You know, we, we know that we, we all want to have teams that are creative, that are risk tolerant, that move fast. Um, and then we have these really complex organizations and at the end of the day, like how do you build teams that can do those things? Um, my point of view is that you really need to have the emotional, um, component in order to build teams that can, can embody those qualities.

Daniel:                Yeah. So I want to go back, I want to, I want, I want to go deeper into the trust and safety piece because that's, that's important. But I was trying to find this diagram that I just sent to you. In the chat window, I need to find who originated it. This was like one of my favorite diagrams when I was getting started in UX, just to like talk about the difference between like vision and concept and details. This is another version of it. Product is functionality. Product is information. There's so many versions of this just the idea that like, there's all these different layers in the process of making something real and my own sense that like everybody wants a seat at the table, right? Cause like even those people are highly specialized where they're like, oh, I'm just gonna make an "x". If they don't understand the vision, and if they're not bought into the vision, people feel excluded.

Emily:                  Yeah.

Daniel:                People feel like, oh, I'm just a doer. Like, so I guess my question is like, you as a leader, how do you make sure that the people who are part of creating that vision feel like they're all included? Like how do you create inclusion?

Emily:                  Yeah. I mean it's interesting because yes, they want to feel included, but I would actually go so far as to say that they need to be included if you want to get the right product. Because if you tell people what to build, they'll build you what you tell them. If you tell them why you want to build it, they're going to build something better than what you asked them to build... Right?

Daniel:                Yeah. I'm just...that's a solid gold quote right there.

Emily:                  Uh and so I think that the question then very tactically becomes when is the right moment in the process to involve which person? What pieces of information are you giving them? But I think really it is about orienting around why. Why are we here? What outcome are we trying to drive? Not what are we trying to build. And you know, ultimately the conversation shifts to what are you trying to build. But I think partly there's a, there's also a listening aspect here, right? You listen to the conversations that people are having and if people are getting stuck, and you start listening, and they are having conversation about the "what" you try to back them up to the "why", right?

Daniel:                Yeah. No I agree. Yeah. I mean there's so many avenues to go down because in a way like there's another piece which is like how are you seeing the patterns and all of that and all of those conversations that you're, you're, you're pulling together cause you're, you're looking at this at an organizational level as well, right? Like you're in a lot of different places and listening to a lot of different things. Like how do you make the time to start to weave it back together for yourself into a clear narrative like "this is What's happening?"

Emily:                  Some of it is I think about pattern recognition, right? This is true of all feedback. So one thing that I say about feedback a lot is that you know, any feedback, whether you're giving, receiving feedback, it's a data point. And if you, if every piece of feedback you get, you took immediate action on and treated as equal to every other piece of feedback, like you'd go mad. And so when you get feedback or when you hear a thing, it becomes a piece of data and then up to you to look at all of the pieces of data you have gotten and, see the patterns, prioritize which things you want to act on and then go act on them. And so I think, you know, as an organizational leader, as I'm doing one on ones or doing skip level meetings or listening to questions, people are asking in various forums, um, or listening to the water cooler talk. It's sort of data that goes into the pattern recognition machine, right?

Daniel:                Which is your brain?

Emily:                  My brain. That's right.

New Speaker:    Are you using a whiteboard or a like a dashboard or anything to track that? Or is it just really like just filtering, bubbling up in your brain?

Emily:                  Yeah. I have some, I have a notebook that I you know, clutch very tightly and carry with me everywhere I go. That I think is my primary, you know, hey, I'm just gonna write down things that I see or observe. I have a window of time. I get to work very early in the morning. I get to work at seven. And so from seven in the morning until nine when the kind of meetings start is my time to really kind of step back, reflect on what I need to do or what I've heard, what's new, where things are and get some focused work time. And so I think being able to just carve out the time to sort of step back and say, okay, is there anything here that I, that I need to be paying more attention to or taking more action on?

Daniel:                I have to say like in so many of the interviews I've done, one of the insights for me is that, of all the conversations that we have to manage and maybe design, the one with ourselves is maybe the most important one. And so having just, just having a notebook is like, like that's, that's huge. Right?

Emily:                  Yeah.

Daniel:                That's really amazing.

Emily:                  Yeah. You know, I'm also very lucky, I have a wonderful set of people around me who are great sounding board for all the times that I'm like, Hey, I think maybe there's a thing here, but I'm not really sure. And let me just say it out loud to you and play it back for me and you know, help me see if there's really a pattern or not.

Daniel:                Yeah, yeah. Analysis through dialogue. Super important. So I think it would be useful for us to talk about like, so I found this medium article that you wrote using this, you know, don't I just love visual frameworks of trust versus communication curve. And how did you, like where did that how does that framework filter into your life? Where did it come from for you and how do you, how do you actually apply that in your own work? Can you just talk to us a little bit about that little knowledge chunk and then we'll see?

Emily:                  Sure, sure. So, we, we first introduced the concept of psychological safety, which is related but not the same in 2017. I actually, so psychological safety I think was popularized based on Google work, Google's Project Aristotle. There's a New York Times magazine article about it that profiles a woman who's on Google's People Analytics team. And she was a classmate of mine in my MBA program. And so I had been following the work and thought it was really interesting. And we actually introduced a concept that is one level higher than the psychological safety concept, which is the Learning Zone. So the, the researcher who, who came up with the concept of psychological safety actually has a framework that's two axes and psychological safety is one axis. And the other axis is accountability, or, accountability to results. And, and when you have both of those things, you get this magic thing called Learning. Um, and I think that what was really important about that framework..

Daniel:                Can you actually explain that? Cause like I'm looking at that as a two by two, and like very accountable and very safe means I learn something? Put that together for me.

Emily:                  Yeah. So, very accountable means, like, there's pressure, there's pressure to do, right? Like you, you're gonna run fast because there's pressure. But if you have high pressure and low psychological safety, you get anxiety, you get fear of failure, right? That, that and that is a killer, right? Especially in an agile process where there's a requirement to, like, take risks and try things. And you know that every single thing you do is not going to be a win. What you want is for every single thing you do to teach you something. Right? And to be another step on the journey to understanding where you're going.

Emily:                  This is incredibly important in spaces where I remember it's it's Andy Grove. It's from High Output Management. He has this concept of high "CUA" organizations or tasks--that is complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity. Right? So you don't have a roadmap. You don't know where you're going. You have some idea where you're going, but you might be wrong. You don't really know how you're going to get there along the way. And there's a high degree of complexity? Um, hhat you need to be able to fail and you need to be able to challenge people's ideas. You know, we know that the creative process, it's not that people just have brilliant ideas, they actually have not great ideas that then other people add slightly less, not great things to. And then, you know, you build, you like you, you build on top of each other and you make connections and then all of a sudden there's an "Aha" moment that you, you've landed on something that has value.

Daniel:                Right! So I would say that these CUA things can only be done through conversation. It's only through like one person can't do it by themselves. Through that, you have to...

Emily:                  Right, right. And so you have to have a group. And that group has to be willing to say stupid things and to say that they disagree, to challenge the status quo. And you can't do those things if you don't have psychological safety. If you're afraid that you will be judged for what you say or for challenging, then you don't get any of that behavior. And so, so when you have psychological safety, that's when you get... And performance pressure. That's when you get, "Okay, we're going to try something and then we're going to learn from it." And so learning becomes the kind of cornerstone to continuous improvement with that flavor of, hey, we're willing to take risks. We want to move fast. We're listening to each other. We understand that the solution we get to together is going to be better than the solution any of us could come to individually. And so that, that, it was a few years ago that that really became an important piece of how my department was thinking about the culture that we wanted to build. And, and in that I was thinking about, okay, what does this mean for my teams and how do I figure out when my teams are feeling that anxiety and how can I help them have the right conversations to get them back into that Learning Zone? And one of the observations that I had is that we spend a lot of time talking about how we talk to each other, right?

Daniel:                Amazing!

Emily:                  I say to the conversation designerUm but, but that in the organization that often takes the format of, you know, do we really need to have this meeting? We should add this meeting. We should remove this meeting. I think we should write a new update email. We're getting too many emails. I, everybody needs to go into this spreadsheet and fill out this information. And there's just this, there's a cycle of "add a bunch of communication and process and then think there there's too much and take it away. And then I think there's too little and add more."

Emily:                  And there's a justification that that's sort of a natural cycle. And the observation that I had, uh, and I talk a little bit about where those pieces came from, but the kind of connection that I made in my brain at some point in doing this is that the amount of communication that you need is the dependent variable. The independent variable is how much trust you have. It's not an objective, hey, in order to do this thing, I need this amount of communication period.

Emily:                  The amount of communication that you need to be successful is dependent on how much trust already exists between the individuals doing the work. And so for me the interesting moment was, hey, let's reframe all of these, all of these conversations that we're having about communication into conversations about trust and what does that look like? What would that mean? And that actually you, you these, the costs of all of this communication, we call it coordination cost,uoften. That it's, that it's not a given. Like as your organization gets complex, you will need more communication. That is true.

Daniel:                So I'm gonna, I'm, like, gonna sketch this diagram just for the listeners. So they don't have to go any place else. Like, it's the, the Y-axis is "Amount of Communication Required". The X-axis, is "Trust Between Team Members. And in a way what you're implying is that there's a, a curve, a line that goes from the upper left to the lower right where, basically the more trust you have, the less communication is required.

Emily:                  Right. That's exactly it. To accomplish any goal, the amount of trust that you have and the amount of communication that you need are inversely related. So if you have very little trust, you need a tremendous amount of communication. If you have a lot of trust, you need way less communication.

Daniel:                Can I push back on this concept? Just like, cause I feel like in a way like when there's a lot of trust, communication flows really freely to. Like I can see on the graph anything that's above the line is inefficient use of resources and anything below it creates like friction or confusion or like, and I've seen this in projects where you're like waiting for someone else to like tell you it's okay to do what you think needs to be done. But at the same time I feel like my fiance and I talk a lot, you know, we, we have a lot of communication. There's also a lot of trust. Like I'm checking in with her and telling her my evening plans, not because I think she's worried that she doesn't, you know, who are you off with? She just wants to know and I want to tell her. So like maybe that's, maybe that's different cause it's, it's a personal context. I don't know.

Emily:                  Yeah. Maybe trust and communication are actually self-reinforcing. And so when I say you have high trust and low communication then that implies that you actually have a higher degree of communication. I think, you know, maybe you could think about this as sort of additional communication or required communication, formal communication, right? And there are lots of different ways you could cut that. Although I do think that you actually just see less communication partly because one of the primary pieces of that is--if I trust you, then I trust that you will understand when I need to be involved and you will proactively communicate to me and therefore I don't need to be doing the inbound communication to you. And so you know, I do think that there's an opportunity. I think the, and the really important piece of that is that we think we spend a lot of time talking about how we can add or subtract communication. And my thesis is that if you actually invest in building trust in teams, you can run more efficient organizations because you reduce the amount of communication that everybody needs to do.

Daniel:                Wow. So that upfront investment pays off. And your, I mean this is the classic go slow to go fast. Like you're like definitely has proved for you.

Emily:                  Well yeah, I mean you, you, you invest in trust that allows you to pull out this communication. It certainly makes people happier and it gives you more of these other things like a willingness to take risks. You know speed to delivery risk tolerance. Yeah. Some of those other components that I think are really important.

Daniel:                So can we talk a little bit about the mechanisms, cause you, we talked about this in the pre-talk, like what are the mechanisms of creating value for the company through that, but then there's also the question of how do you actually, what is the process by which you create this kind of trust and psychological safety in your teams? So this is like the two-sided, like how do you do it and then how do you show that it's, how do you prove that thing that we were just talking about that it's, that the investment is worth it.

Emily:                  Yeah.

New Speaker:    Cause people ask me all the time and I have a mixed answers for that.

Emily:                  Yeah. I think, you know, I do think it's hard, right? It's hard. This is why, the, some of these concepts like psychological safety and trust and vulnerability and EQ, they feel squishy cause it's hard to understand the value. But I do think that one of the things that's been interesting about this framework is that it is pretty easy when you start to look around and you start to diagnose, okay, where are my teams? And you start to actually selectively pull levers like, okay, I'm going to add communication here or I'm going to just remove communication here. That as a manager, having a framework like this just helps you be more active in how you manage those things, right? So if, if a manager can, if having this framework and diagnosing where their teams are effectively allows them to pull, you know, just a handful of pieces of communication out of the system without impacting the result that's being delivered. You're delivering value, right? Now, if you pull that communication out in a place where you don't actually have their trust, then you, you risk poor execution on the work. Right? And so the ability to make good decisions about,uwhere you can do that and where you can't I think is what I'm trying to help managers do. I think in terms of actually building trust,uI have one go-to tool that I share. Ualthough there's really many, many different ways to think about this. I'm a big fan of the Trust Equation, which is from the book "The Trusted Advisor".

Daniel:                Yeah.

Emily:                  "The Trusted Advisor" is really about building trust in client relationships. But there's this concept in it called the Trust Equation, which is just, uh, one way of breaking down what does trust really mean? And that Trust Equation says that trust is made up of four components. There are three things that create trust. Credibility, which is "I trust your words". You know what you're talking about. You say, "I don't know" when you don't know what you're talking about. Uhhat's one. Reliability is you do what you say you're going to do. Umhat's I trust your actions. And then the third is they use the word intimacy. That can be a loaded word in business contexts. Um tend to think of that as discretion is, is probably the closest thing. Like I, I trust you with a secret. Umr I trust your judgment. It can mean I, it can mean you sort of know me personally. Umnd then there's one thing that is sort of the great destroyer of trust, which is self-orientation. Umo if I believe that you will act in your own self interest instead of in my best interest then I don't trust you, mf I believe that you will take into account my best interest and think about my point of view, then we build trust.

Emily:                  And the really important thing or the reason that that's my sort of critical tool is because it allows us to give feedback about trust that's much more specific. So it allows us to give feedback, allows me to give feedback about communication that's happening in the workplace. That is feedback about trust, but using those underlying concepts. So, "Hey, when you bullshit your way through the answer to, that answer in that meeting and then had to go back and admit that you didn't know what you were talking about, you damaged your credibility with that stakeholder."

Daniel:                Yeah.

Emily:                  Right? Or "when you didn't respond to that email, you damaged your reliability" Or, right, then and then the positive version of that, too. "Hey, The fact that you thought to include that person in that meeting showed low self-orientation and helps you build that relationship. And so more than anything that's just given people the vocabulary to have a conversation about trust without using the squishy word of "trust".

Daniel:                Yeah. Breaking it down into components. Use the word "levers", which I, like, I talk about that a lot in my conversation design work, which is like, wow, how do we actually grab hold of this squishy thing and say like, oh, how do we manipulate it? How we actually move it? And you're like, at least you and you can focus on reliability, credibility, intimacy--and intimacy is important. Like, I, I've begun to realize like the importance of actually spending time getting to know people. Like you forget this, otherwise people think it's just transactional. And that's, that's really, really critical.

Emily:                  Right. And, and uI think that also,sorry, I just lost my train of thought for a moment.

Daniel:                I mean it's amazing by the way, like, I don't know like that you had the Trusted Advisor equation in your, in your brain. Like, so you get, you get a total pass, it may come back to you.

Emily:                  It may. That's okay. We can keep going.

Daniel:                What's that?

Emily:                  I said we could keep going...

Daniel:                Oh, so we, yeah, we are actually getting close to our time. So like I usually ask the, what haven't we talked about that we should talk about, which may or may not jog your memory...

Emily:                  Oh, I remember what I was thinking.

New Speaker:    Yeah. There's the key - distraction!

Emily:                  So the other thing about the Trust Equation is that it's actually true that different people value different parts of that equation. So, the other thing that it allows you to do is have the conversation of saying, you know, sometimes like I've had situations where I'm kind of not connecting with someone or we just seem to be missing each other and not building the kind of relationship that I want. And then the ability to have a conversation that's like, "Hey, I, what I'm looking for really is, you know, intimacy". And the other person says, "Well, I really want reliability and I don't really care about intimacy in this relationship". That that allows you to,ufigure out what matters for trust in that relationship more effectively.

Daniel:                It does. And so when you, you talked about how you spend a lot of time in your team talking about conversations like this is, this is the conversation about what matters to you in your conversations with, the conversation about how often you want to be talking, the conversation about all of these different pieces of it. And I just did an interview with my dear friend Jocelyn Ling which we'll publish soon as well. She was the first person who ever I sat down in a meeting with who said, let's talk about how you like to work. Are you a calendar person? I mean this was almost 10 years ago, so there was no Skype, there was Skype, there was no Slack, there was, there were fewer tools, but it was still an important conversation to have.

Emily:                  Right, incredibly.

Daniel:                Like I have a calendar/ spreadsheet orientation and that's like if somebody is making something in a word document that could be a spreadsheet. It, it, it, you know, cause me hives.

Emily:                  Right, Totally. And you know, it's important to know if you're working with someone who really needs time to digest before they get into a room, then writing that preread is going to be that much more important. Right? Or if you know, obviously understanding the intimacy part, understanding what parts of the day are more difficult for people. You know, for me, I get in super early, but then I leave, I need to get home to my kids. And so, you know, if you catch me while I'm walking out the door, I'm not going to be... I'm less likely to take the time to stop and have that conversation right.

Daniel:                And don't have an extra five minutes!

Emily:                  I really don't.

Daniel:                Yeah.

Emily:                  Uh so I think that that's, those things are super important and, and actually just giving people the ability to have those conversations really openly, really directly or giving them tools to do that.

Daniel:                That's awesome. So is there anything we haven't talked about that we should talk about around trust, psychological safety, organizational conversations?

Emily:                  Yeah, there's, there's no one big thing. I think, you know, my, the thing that I hope is just that people feel like this is a tool that they can use and, and to really think about that the next time they hear somebody having a conversation about communication, to think about, hey, are we really having a conversation about, about trust? Right? So somebody is asking you for communication, is it really because they don't, they don't trust some piece of this, they don't trust you're going to deliver something or we've missed an opportunity to keep them informed and vice versa. If people are complaining about having too much communication. Is that really because there's more trust than you're giving credit for and how do we, how do we change the conversation a little?

Daniel:                Yeah. Well that's awesome. We, I guess, I mean I'm, I'm going to try and squeeze in one more question cause like I said, I'm looking at that framework and I'm thinking to myself is that a framework for Emily to think more clearly and to talk with another manager about stuff or is it a conversation that a team can have? Like it's not like a two by two matrix. I'm not looking at it as like a importance difficulty matrix where somebody is doing an exercise with it.

Emily:                  It is. It is both. So there's definitely a piece of it that is as a manager, I want to have a sense of where my team is or where different project teams that I work with are and be able to actively manage. But there's definitely a team component here and I think it's a really interesting exercise to do--it requires a really good facilitator--which is get your team in a room, draw the framework on the board, two axes and a line, right? Make sure people understand it and then say, everybody grab a marker. Where do you think we are? Or, or if you don't think your team has enough trust to do that, everybody grab a sticky note and draw the framework on your sticky note and fold it up and hand it to me, right? We'll do this sort of anonymously and then you plot on the graph like where does the team think we are? And the interesting conversation is not about coming to objective alignment that "we are here today", but actually that some of your team members think your team has a high degree of trust and some of your team members don't.

Daniel:                Right.

Emily:                  And how do we, you know, some, some team members think that we've got too much communication and some think we have too little because they actually have different communication styles. And, and communication isn't connecting the same for everybody. And then how do we use that as a lead in to this conversation of, "Hey, how do we work more effectively as a team?"

Daniel:                I'm so glad I asked that question because I think that's a really, that, that's a, it's a classic visual facilitation move of where are we, where do you think we are? And then the, the benefit is not, oh, we need to get into the same place. It's like, Oh wow, you think we're here and I think we're there. Let me hear more about what you think, why you think that. And you talked to the other person about why they think they think that's what they think. That's awesome. Okay, then we're definitely out of time now. Emily, I really appreciate you making the time for this. This is really delightful conversation. I think this is super duper important stuff for everyone to get a grasp on.

Emily:                  Thank you for having me!

Daniel:                Awesome. And we'll call it "and scene!"

Disciplined Imagination

Today’s conversation is with my dear friend Jocelyn Ling, a tremendously talented Business Model Specialist in the Office of Innovation at UNICEF. She’s  currently on sabbatical from the Organizational Innovation consultancy Incandescent. She’s been an interim biotech CEO, an investment consultant at the International Finance Corporation, the private investment arm of the World Bank Group, and even an instructor at Stanford’s DSchool.

The Show Notes section of this episode are pretty epic, since Jocelyn dropped a lot of knowledge and wisdom on me and you - frameworks aplenty for you to get a handle on designing the innovation conversation and leading the process, with, as she says, healthy skepticism, suspended judgment, and disciplined imagination. 

I wanted to give that Hubble quote it’s full space to breathe, because it’s so lovely...I’m going to read it in full here:

The scientist explores the world of phenomena by successive approximations. He knows that his data are not precise and that his theories must always be tested. It is quite natural that he tends to develop healthy skepticism, suspended judgment, and disciplined imagination. 

— Edwin Powell Hubble

There are a few subtle points that I want to tease out and draw your attention to as this all relates to conversation design and shaping them for the better.

Invitation

Jocelyn highlights one of my favorite ideas in conversation design - invitation. A leader invites participation through their own openness, not through force. Anyone can lead that openness to new ideas, even if they’re not an “authorized” leader, through their own example. Invitations can look like asking the right questions or hosting teams or creating physical or mental space for the conversation.

Cadence

Jocelyn talks about the tempo of a team or an organization, and these larger conversions do have a tempo, just like a 1-on-1 conversation does. Leading the innovation conversation often means slowing down or speeding up that tempo to create clarity and safety or progress and speed.

Goals

Conversations start when people have a goal in mind. Each participant in the conversation will have their own idea of what that goal is and the innovation conversation is no different. Jocelyn points out, rightly, that it’s critical for a team or an organization to develop their own clear, shared definition of innovation. I did a webinar recently with Mural and my partner in the Innovation Leadership Accelerator, Jay Melone, on just this topic, and you can find a link to the templates we used in the show notes...I think you’ll find those helpful, too.

Narrative

Storytelling and coherent narratives are core components of everyday conversations and the innovation conversation is no different. What Jocelyn asks us to focus on is the idea of stories as memes - what happens to your story after you tell it? Does it communicate or convince? Great. Does that person retell that story and evangelize it for you? That’s even better. Leading change means being able to tell the second type of story - viral anecdotes.

That’s all for now. The full transcript and show notes are right there in your podcasting app and on the website.

Show Links and Notes

Jocelyn Ling on the Internet

http://jocelynling.com/

Making a Team Charter if you want a template (or just have the conversation!)

https://blog.mural.co/team-charter

https://www.unicef.org/innovation/

http://www.incandescent.com/

Michelle Gelfand’s Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire our World

https://www.amazon.com/Rule-Makers-Breakers-Tight-Cultures/dp/1501152939

All in the Mind Podcast:

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/the-power-of-social-norms/11178124

Clayton Christensen, Disruptive Innovation

http://claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/

Steven Johnson: Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation

https://www.amazon.com/Where-Good-Ideas-Come-Innovation/dp/1594485380

A blinkist version

https://medium.com/key-lessons-from-books/the-key-lessons-from-where-good-ideas-come-from-by-steven-johnson-1798e11becdb

Square Pegs and Round Holes in Apollo 13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry55--J4_VQ

Google vs Apple in One Image, their patents map

https://www.fastcompany.com/3068474/the-real-difference-between-google-and-apple

Edwin Hubble Quote:

The scientist explores the world of phenomena by successive approximations. He knows that his data are not precise and that his theories must always be tested. It is quite natural that he tends to develop healthy skepticism, suspended judgment, and disciplined imagination. 

— Edwin Powell Hubble

In Commencement Address, California Institute of Technology

10 Jun 1938

More on Hubble: 

https://www.spacetelescope.org/about/history/the_man_behind_the_name/

The Innovation/Ambition Matrix

Core, Adjacent, Transformational

How to have the Innovation Conversation:

https://blog.mural.co/innovation-leadership

The 21st Century Ger Project:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/unicefusa/2018/07/05/redesigning-the-mongolian-ger-to-help-solve-a-health-crisis/

Doblin’s Ten Types of Innovation:

https://doblin.com/dist/images/uploads/Doblin_TenTypesBrochure_Web.pdf

Six Sigma and the Eight Types of Waste

https://goleansixsigma.com/8-wastes/

The Forgetting Curve (Distributed Practice!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgetting_curve

Behavioral Design with Matt Mayberry from Boundless Mind

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2018/6/6/behavioral-design-in-the-real-world-with-matt-mayberry

Transcription:

Daniel: 

I'm going to officially welcome you to the conversation factory. So we're going to start the real, quote unquote real conversation now. Um, because I feel like every conversation we have is like, is interesting and insightful for me and it's never on the record.

Jocelyn: 

Lets make this on the record!

Daniel:  

We're going to make this on the record! And if you ever want me to, if you want me to take any pieces off the record, you just let me know. I think the reason why I wanted to have this conversation with you about innovation leadership is, I'm going to go way back. One of my earliest memories of you is back when we were co-designing early, like an early iteration of what the design gym was going to be. we were sitting down with, you Me... Maybe it was Andy, it was probably Andy and you were like, let's have a conversation about our working styles.

Jocelyn:  

Oh Wow. I don't ever remember that. Yeah, that does sound like something that I do and I did. I still do it till today, with any new team

Daniel: 

Yeah. Well, so like that was my first time somebody had invited me into that conversation and it blew me away because I'd never really, I mean this is going back. I mean this is 2012 I guess this is a long time ago. I had never really thought about how I work. Nobody had asked me that question. I'd never had that conversation about how and where do I like the, what I would now call the interfaces of my work conversations to happen. And I'm just wondering like, who introduced you into that conversation and where did you learn some of these soft skills? I mean, this is a quote unquote soft skill. Where did you learn some of the soft skills that you do in your work that you use in your work?

Jocelyn:  

That's a great question. I think that probably learned a lot of my soft skills through day to day interaction. I think I've had the privilege, like in my job, given that I was an investor before, as well as in consulting to have exposure to a very broad range of working styles and leaders. And particularly so in the consulting world, you are especially attuned to how clients work. And so I always try and make sure that I am not only understanding how teams come together, but also how individuals work because as a consultant it's up to me to match and really tap into what is an invitation into their world. So I think that's how I survived, absorbed it over time. I think specifically maybe at that point in time and I continued to refine how I work with teams over the years, but maybe back in 2012 likely from, um, a really wonderful mentor in Boston, mine who I worked at International finance corporation at the World Bank. Um, my boss at that time, BG Mohandas is and continues to be an amazing person in my life. Uh, probably taught me that specific question and style.

Daniel: 

That's amazing. And like, do you ever feel like, um, that that's an unwelcome conversation or is it ever hard to bring that topic up for you?

Jocelyn:  

I often find it's as easy and very welcomed conversation and that is an investment of even 20 minutes with a new team member goes a very long way to setting the tone for their relationship and for the partnership.

Daniel:  

Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting this idea of, of a pattern matching like perceiving patterns in somebody else's behavior and then making that effort to sort of like alter your own.

Jocelyn: 

Oh, absolutely. I think that, um, and this is something I learned in my incandescent work. It's like the concept tempo. And I think you and I might have even spoken about it before, that not only understanding the tempo of an organization and by tempo I mean like the speed of how a team comes together and moves and how an individual does work. So you can imagine and overly generalize and say a startup has a really fast tempo comparatively to a larger fortune 500 company, which runs a little bit slower. And it's in the more that you're able to understand what Beat and Tempo you're stepping into, I think the more than you can learn to be effective in the kind of work that you want to achieve.

Daniel: 

Yeah. Well so perceiving that tempo and then the ability to do something about it. I was literally, I'm bringing it up right now, so I'm just listening to a podcast, um, called all in the mind and they're interviewing. Who are they interviewing? Why is it so hard to find the show notes on these things? This is ridiculous. I can't believe I'm doing this on the phone. Um, Michelle Gelfand, she, she wrote a book, um, about um, making and breaking cultural rules and she has this idea of tight and loose cultures like cultures where social norms are tight and people follow all the norms and loose cultures where people don't. So I love the idea that you're also noticing, you know, there's, there's probably tight and loose work cultures but fast and slow ones. Right

Jocelyn:  

Absolutely.

Daniel:

I'm wondering, this seems like a good time. I feel like I have a tendency to like plop people in the middle of a conversation. Um, if you want to backtrack and tell the folks in radio land a little bit about your career journey, like what you're doing now and what brought you into what you're, what you're doing now.

Jocelyn: 

Yeah, sure. So my background, it's sort of like a combination of different things. Um, I like to think that, um, any exploration that I take always leads me to another interesting opening. Um, I started out my career in finance, um, with the Royal Bank of Canada and then followed a slightly untraditional path in that I then moved, um, from where I was living at a time from Vancouver and I moved to New York to then, uh, be in full exploration and ambiguity mode. And that's when you and I met Daniel to start this, start the Design Gym, which was something completely new, entrepreneurial in a new field. And that's also where I got introduced to the world design and absolutely fell in love with it. We started an accidental company together.

Daniel:  

Yup.

Jocelyn: 

And then along the way ran into visa issues. And got kicked out of the United States, if you remember that, too!

Daniel: 

I do!

Jocelyn:  

And then found myself in Kenya where I then work in impact investing with an amazing nonprofit and then later on the World Bank and then found my way back to New York. The US couldn't get rid of me that quickly! Came back to the US legally with a visa in hand and, uh, worked for a strategy consulting organization, design firm called incandescent. And I've been there for the past, uh, five plus years now and, and right now I'm on sabbatical with the firm and have taken up residency at a UNICEF innovation team. So it's been a meandering path, but all for wonderful teams and causes.

Daniel: 

So not everyone will know this, but like, I feel like, um, you are amazingly one of the many people try to get in touch with you through me on Linkedin. Um, when they're, when they're interested in organizational design and organizational innovation...incandescent, like is, uh, is a decent player in that space. Um, I don't know how they, how they managed to build their name. Maybe it's...I'm assuming they do good wor

Jocelyn: 

Oh, I hope so!

Daniel: 

I don't know none of it from firsthand, but like five years. Can you tell me a little bit about what, what organizational innovation and uh, and some of the tempo work that you're doing with that you did that incandescent? I'm asking you to sum up five years of work!

Jocelyn: 

I'm going to reframe your question slightly because I think that what might be more interesting instead of me naming off projects for folks is to share some first principles of how we work, which could be interesting cause we bring that into every single client engagement that we do. So Indandecent was founded by a man called Niko Canner, a wonderfully brilliant individual, also a mentor in my life. Um, and I've learned so much from him and joined the firm when it was just him and another individual. So I was his second hire. Um, and it was found with the focus of how do we understand, how do, how do we build beautiful businesses? Um, and how might we build this in an intentional way that you're really looking and thinking about the whole system from the start? So that's one of the principles of how we look at things.

Jocelyn: 

It's like how do, how does a organization as a system work together? I think oftentimes when consultants like step into a project, their worldview is a very specific task or project that has been carved out for them. When Incandescent steps into a project. We always ask the question, how does this touch our other things and how do we ensure that all of the nodes that it touches works together? So they were designing something that sustains and lasts and not just some designing something for in the moment.So that's one, one of the mindsets and principles are how we bring, um, things in l

Daniel:  

Long term thinking!

Jocelyn:  

yeah, absolutely. Long term thinking. The second one would be, um, we literally do our work in principles. We will spend a lot of time upfront, um, whether we're designing, uh, how a team comes together, whether we're designing a strategy. A lot of it, a lot of our time that's invested upfront is in what are the principles of how a team would work together, what are the principles of strategy? Um, and once you clarify that, it just unlocks so many things. It has a waterfall effect, um, in terms of just like designing everything else from that. So I think that's another way of how we work. And I think the third is probably a high amount of, um, intentionality and co-creation. So we always designed something with the client. Um, and I think that part of that then hopefully leads to really great work because we're not designing in a vacuum.

Daniel:  

Yeah. So a lot of it goes to like, this is, uh, I've, I've just recently been reintroduced to the term prejecting. There's the project and then there's the preject. But it seems like the prejecting phase where you really think about the whole system and the team principles and Co creation, a lot of that just sort of falls, falls into place from that, right?

Jocelyn: 

Yep, absolutely. And let me give an example of that, just to bring it to life. So about two and a half years ago, we were approached by three major foundations like the gates foundation, the Hewlett Foundation and Ciaran investment foundation and they came to us were referral and they said, we're interested in designing, we're interested in putting together a conference in the world of adolescent sexual and reproductive health and to bring together designers and global health folks and put them a conference together and on the call with them we set food. That's really interesting, but we're not really just conference folks and event planners. There are many people who do that, but if you're interested in what the representation of what this conference is, which is if you see this as a watershed moment for how design can be brought into the world of adolescent sexual reproductive health, let's talk about that

Jocelyn:  

Let's talk about like what this conference is enabling a strategy which hopefully the three foundations would might have or is interested in doing and the three program officers were really interested in having a conversation. They had an Aha moment on the call and said, we want that. You want to think about a larger strategy and how us as funders can come together. And um, that kick started two years worth of work where we did end up designing a convening and a conference. But we also ended up really bringing to life a strategy that, um, was unique to the field. And that was very much co-created with these three program officers through lots of working sessions remotely and we were all in different locations over time. So hopefully that example brings to life some of the things I think I've spoken on before.

Daniel: 

It does. And it also like is a wonderful case study of reframing and engaging stakeholders in conversation. Like not starting from a no, but starting from a, Oh, isn't that interesting? Or Oh well why is that important to you?

Jocelyn: 

Yeah, it's like my favorite Albert Einstein quote, it's like if I had 60 minutes to save the world, I'll spend 55 minutes defining the problem and five minutes coming up with a solution. So like if you're solving for the wrong problem or if you don't even realize what you actually really want. I think there's a lot of room to think through that together.

Daniel:  

Yeah. Well, so I mean this goes to this, this question of like what innovation even means, what problem solving means and it seems like it's really attached to systems thinking for you and at least in your working in Indandecent like defining what the boundary of the problem is is really, really essential. In that sense it almost makes a like a linear or simple definition of innovation really hard I would think.

Jocelyn:  

I mean innovation is such a complex topic of which there are many, many definitions. Like you can range anything from Clay Christensen's disruptive innovation definition to um, I don't know, Steven Johnson's book, which I really like... Where good ideas come from. He defines innovation in a different way. And all that really matters is that the organization that you work for and the team that you are on has one single definition of which all of you agree on. And that's clear.

Daniel:  

We'll wait, hold a second.

Jocelyn:  

There are so many!

Daniel: 

Well, let's, let's roll. Let's roll it back. Cause like I'm, my, my brain is remembering Steven Johnson's book... It's like, yeah, I think of it as like, um, that moment in a, I think it's Apollo 13 when they like dump out all these, the bucket of parts that they're like, this is what the astronauts have on board and we need to literally make a square peg connect to a round hole. Like let's figure it out. And it always felt to me like Steven Johnson's definition was the more parts you have, the more pieces you can put together. Um, it's like, it's, it's having a wide ranging mind and absorbing lots of influences.

Jocelyn:  

Yeah. I mean, Steven Johnson, I think he talks about, I don't know whether he likes specifically names a concise one sentence definition, but I think he talks about the fact that innovation happens within the bounds of the adjacent possible. In other words, like the realm of possibilities available at any given moment.

Daniel:  

Yeah. Right. And that we build on those adjacent possibles. So I guess maybe where I would, I'm backing myself into agreeing with you cause like I was like, Oh, do we all have to have the same definition of innovation? Um, we, we do, in order to try something we have to say like, Oh, here's all these things we could try. I think this would be more, uh, impactful. Right. And that that's a conversation that, that somebody needs to be able to dare I say, facilitate in order for the innovation conversation to proceed.

Jocelyn:  

Yup. Agree.

Daniel:  

Okay. Glad you agree with me! Well, so then like what, um, what, how, how can I be more provocative and get you to disagree with me? What, like what, what do you, what have you seen in terms of like a leader's ability to, uh, foster, uh, or, or, or what's the opposite of foster disable innovation inside of a team, inside of an organization, in your own experience?

Jocelyn: 

Um, I mean, I think the role of a leader, I have a feeling you're going to agree with me, but I think the role of a leader is very simply to create the conditions that, that foster and support innovation. What I mean by that is openness. Um, and to extend invitations out to their teams, whether that's actually literally or even in a physical space or to, uh, lead by example. I think once you create the leading by example and the creation of conditions, there could be many other elements to that. But those two are to me, feels core to what a role of a leader should do.

Daniel: 

Yeah. Well, so then this goes to the, the idea that a leader doesn't necessarily have to be authorized.

Jocelyn: 

No, not necessarily. Yeah. On that note, I actually think that it really depends on the organization and, and how far the authorization can take you. So for example, if I compare contrast and apple versus Google, um, and does a really wonderful graphic of the number of patents that each organization has filed over the years. And in Google's, it looks like it's all over. You can see sort of like patterns that emerge like literally visually from all over the organization and from our authorization standpoint. Like folks are welcomed and encouraged to explore ideas and invent new things. And you see that through patents that had been filed across the organization versus apples, it's a lot more concentrated because it's a lot more centralized and they have much more of a stage gated process. I would imagine. I'm not to say that one is correct or wrong, it just, again, it depends on the kind of organization and how clear you are. Um, overall on how innovation is being fostered..

Daniel: 

Yeah. Well, I mean, how, how, how does a leader maintain that clarity I guess? Is, is, uh, it's an interesting question.

Jocelyn:  

That's a great question. Um, maybe they can think about in clarity in terms of creating a discipline and a ritual where, I know it sounds counter intuitive, but I think a lot of, when a lot of times people think about innovation, people think about it as serendipitous moments that come to you. I actually think that innovation comes to you in a much more disciplined way when you actually continuously put sustained effort, um, into exploring x, whatever that x might be. Um, again, very close. I'm gonna bring up Steven Johnson again. But like I think that his ideas around the exploration of the adjacent possible, unless there's sustained probing, you're not going to suddenly one day come up with a huge Aha if you've never thought about that topic. You know, for example, like I have never thought about a topic of um, the reinvention of, of uh, space rocket,

Daniel: 

I love that you're struggling to think of something you've never thought of!

Jocelyn:

Right! Like...How to I reinvent a space rocker, I don't know! I've spent hardly any time thinking about that. And so it's highly unlikely that I am sitting here with suddenly come up with something breakthrough right in that area.

Daniel: 

Whereas there's people who are literally pounding their heads on that boundary constantly. And of course those are the people who are going to be like, what if we...?

Jocelyn:  

Yeah, absolutely. And so as a leader, if you create the space of, Hey, every week we'll have a ritual and this is just a very specific tactical example of I'm going to solicit ideas from the team around the boundaries of building a new space rocket. Then maybe it will have interesting ideas. They eventually come up over time.

Daniel:  

So there's like my, there's a couple of things I want to probe on. Like one is we were talking about cadence and tempo of organizations and then you use the term ritual. Uh, and I feel like those two are really intimately related to, I'm literally working, the podcast interview I'm working on right now is all about ritual, uh, and designing rituals for people in it. And it's sort of an interesting thing to think about what the cadence of these, um, innovation rituals, uh, could be like. And, and what are you find are some, I don't know, do are, are there some that you're like, oh, here are the basics. Here are the essentials of innovation rituals. We talked about one, which was like the team.

Jocelyn:  

Yeah.

Daniel: 

Team alignment conversation. It's like a really powerful ritual for at least making sure that we're all working in this in, in ways that are harmonious, which is really, really valuable.

Jocelyn:  

...great question. Well, one ritual that I really like is something that I know, uh, the design gym that we do. And also folks that I you does as well is that they have inspiration trips. Um, that teams would go and say, hey, we're starting something new and here's a new topic that none of us have really thought about before. How, how might we go and get inspired? And if you have that as a ritual when you start, whether it's a new project or even midway when you're stuck, I think that could be a really powerful thing to get unstuck. Um, instead of churning internally. And I really liked that concept. Um, overall to just look externally, whether it's true, take a moment and actually physically be in another location or to learn by having conversations with others that are different.

Daniel:  

Yeah. Yeah. I think the, and behind that is this idea of being able to identify what the real need is. I think about it in two ways. One is like, let me go see where else this problem is being solved. Like specifically like, and then there's like, let me see in a broader sense like what other types of problems are similar to this? And, and this could be like, oh, let me, like if, if any other countries willing to share with me how they're doing rocket flight, then maybe I can learn the totality of the problem. But you can also do the thing where like, hey, let's look at what bees do and let's look at what seagulls do and let's look at other types of propulsion. Um, and so I feel like that's like that that definitely goes to the like the breadth of, of inspiration...

Jocelyn:  

absolutely.

Daniel: 

Well I think, and I guess that's where like, you know, cause what I was excited to talk with you about is like good leadership and bad leadership skills. And it seems like a really, really powerful leadership skill is the willingness and the interest, the curiosity, but also the willingness to sort of like look at the boundary of the possible and say what else is possible.

Jocelyn: 

Yep. Absolutely. I also think that a great leadership skill in when leading an innovation team is, um, knowing what bets to place at any given period of time. So one of my favorite quotes is by Edwin Hubble. Um, and he says, and he said this in like a 1930s in his cal tech commencement speech being says that a scientist has a healthy skepticism, suspended judgment and disciplined imagination. I'm going to say those three things again because I love the combination of the three assigned. His has a healthy skepticism, suspended judgment and discipline imagination. And he talks about it specifically in the world science, but I think it's actually really applicable in the world of innovation because he describes a way of being, which is kind of strange. You're supposed to be skeptical, but you're also suppose to suspend your judgment. You're supposed to have the imagination, but this upland because you don't want me to go too wild. And I think that, um, the balance between the three of how do you actually observe ideas that come in, gathering facts, understanding it, testing your expectations against them, um, is I think a quality that I would hope anyone who's leading innovation would have.

Daniel:  

Hm. That's really beautiful. I, and when did you absorb that quote that's like, it's seems really close to your heart, which is beautiful.

Jocelyn:  

Um, great question. I learned here when I was interim CEO of a biotech company in incandescence portfolio, I'd taken over and I was new to the world of science, also new to being an CEO of a startup. And one of the biggest lessons I took away was that quote is I think that there is such a beautiful orientation in terms of how scientists discover things. Um, it's really their way of being. Um, and my brother actually is a scientist and I see how he thinks about problems and how he approaches them. It just, that combination of when is it the right moment to imagine something really amazing. Because a lot of scientists, they don't know what they're discovering. They're just out there. Yeah. Um, oh, when is it? The moment when you were gathering back a set of data and you're saying, hmm, does data's actually telling me that it's not that great and that is not the direction that I should go in? And just being, and really refining the balance between the three modes whenever you're faced with facts or contradictory pieces of evidence, I think is, um, something that I will always be very grateful for for my time. And as a biotech CEO,

Daniel:  

something I can't say at all, I've never done that,

Jocelyn:  

hey, one of my other lives, you know.

Daniel: 

Well, so this actually goes back to, um, like an organization has got to have multiple bets, right? And they need to have, uh, uh, a roadmap of, you know, crazy bets and less crazy bets. And in a sense like I would, I would integrate that as an innovation leadership skill. 100% is the ability to like, uh, you know, what would you call it? Handicap, um, various items on the roadmap, but then also like to, to, to, to make sure that those bets are spread out.

Jocelyn: 

Yup. Have you heard of the ambition matrix before or seen the framework of it? The ambition matrix?

Daniel:  

No. Illuminate me!

Jocelyn:  

so it's a pretty simple framework. Um, where I think on one of the axes is solutions. The other axis is challenge, but in any case it's basically concentric circles like moving out of core, adjacent and transformational... and where it talks about how do you actually categorize your bets in terms of innovations or core innovation is something that's very different but also very needed comparatively to something transformational. Um, and I think visualizing it that way could be really helpful when facilitating a conversation.

Daniel: 

Have, have you utilized that in your, in your own work?

Jocelyn: 

Uh, we are actually looking at the application of it at UNICEF right now where we're looking at how we're, how different projects could be core, adjacent and transformational.

Daniel:  

Uh, can you, can you say a little bit more about that and maybe tell us a little bit about, uh, the, the role you're, you're doing right now? because I don't know too much about it yet.

Jocelyn:  

Sure. I mean, and now we're getting sort of like a little bit into the new ones of like how has variation different in the world of international development versus in the world of the private sector? Um, there, there are different lenses that one might me take. Um, at UNICEF and my role is as a business model specialist on the scale team, the current innovation team is divided into three pillars. We have a futures arm where we look at what are new landscapes and markets are sort of shaping out there. We have a ventures arm which looks at um, deploying capital in frontier technologies. So think block chain, drones, all fall under the ventures arm. And then we have a scale team and that's where I sit. Um, and the way that we think about innovation is like how might we accelerate projects or programs that are demonstrating a lot of practice but need to go to scale and actually spread a lot faster than your current rate of expansion. So those are three different lenses. The very definition obviously of innovation varies depending on the lens that you take. Because like a venture's lens for example, is they're using capital...an now we're getting a little bit more into the strategy side, but were they using capital as an accelerant versus ... we are using actual internal capabilities on the scale team to uh, accelerate innovation.

Daniel: 

Huh. That, that's interesting. Well, so like can capital accelerate the innovation itself or can capital accelerate the spread of the putative innovation or learning about whether or not it is in fact effective at scale?

Jocelyn:  

Probably both. I think that UNICEF takes the fans that we are a catalyst in an ecosystem and if somebody else is doing something that's really wonderful, like what is the best role that we might be able to play? And in that case it could be the provision of capital. Um, in some other areas like in scale, it might be the deployment of internal capabilities and in the futures team it could be putting out a thought leadership piece on how urban innovation works or, um, one of our other projects is, you know, just to give you an example is, um, what we're calling a 21st century Ger project where we have brought together different partners in the private sector and academia. Um, Arc'Teryx, North Face, University of Pennsylvania to help us redesign a Mongolian Ger, uh, which is those Yurts that, uh, folks live in. It's a materials design project in order to increase an improved installation of these structures that folks live in, which would help with air pollution. Because right now these yurts are not insulated very well and families end up burning a lot of coal internally, which causes a lot of health issues. Um, but if we're able to actually improve the installation, then we're able to, uh, help from a health perspective for all of these different families. But that's a futures project... no one else is doing that in the market, it's pretty niche but much needed in terms of urban innovation. And we have a really fantastic set of partners that are working with us on it.

Daniel: 

That's so cool. And, and what that really illustrates for me is like how many levers there are for a change. Like, cause obviously you could also be working on the combustion side, right? Or on the electrical generation side.

Jocelyn:  

Absolutely.

Daniel:  

And, and doing and it sounds like there's been a decision and it makes a lot of sense actually. Cause this I've known about this problem, it's like I never once thought about it from the installation side, which is really subtle.

Jocelyn:  

yeah. Um, there's a really wonderful framework. I feel like I'm throwing a lot of frameworks,

Daniel:  

I love frameworks!

Jocelyn:  

I figured it's you, so I'll just throw out all the frameworks in the world because they know you love them. Um, if you haven't seen Doblin 10 types of innovation, sure. I would highly recommend that you take a look at that because he talks about, uh, it breaks it down into basically three large categories, configuration which is made out of your profit model and network structure process you're offering. So product performance, product system and you experience, so like your service, your cattle, your brand, your customer engagement, you can innovate along any of these things, um, and have it be a really wonderful type of innovation. Or you could even combine different categories together to actually have something more transformational. So for example, a core... Just use the ambition matrix against this new types of innovation.

Jocelyn:  

A core innovation for um, a, let's see, a channel or brand could be a new campaign that they have never thought about before. And it's fundamentally, you know, people, or a brand might choose to use Instagram, which is a channel they may not have ever used before in terms of reaching a completely new segment of audience. Or they could combine different things together, like a profit model combined with product performance combined with customer engagement, which are three different things, which is the example of the Mongolian Ger project that I just gave you, which is how do we actually improve not only on the product or on the distribution on it and involve the Mongolian government to help with the profit model side and then also engage users as part of the understanding from a health care standpoint that burning so much coal, um, would affect your health x ways.

Daniel:  

So this really goes back to the, the idea that this can be a discipline and Yup. And, and, and my mind is going back to, like, six sigma. Like here are the types of wastes and yeah, you could also think like, okay, well how can we improve this system? And what you're doing is you're reducing the loss of heat, right. As opposed to focusing on the efficiency of the generation of the heat. That's just really cool. Um, but at the same time, I feel like sometimes these, the, the discipline is not a replacement for somebody seeing potential. Like, so this goes back to like your skill as a business designer, which is like how did you do this? How does one decide if something's got a putative legs? You know, you're like, oh, this has got, this is there's some juice here that's worth the squeeze.

Jocelyn:  

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I think that, um, on that particular project, I, I really have to credit the team behind that where it was not only the partnerships team that, so a lot of potential, but it was the futures team and also the head of the scale team that said, oh, there is something really interesting here. I think that this reframing of how we relate to heat could result in something really breakthrough. And we have a really fantastic partner arc'teryx who said, great, let's try it out. What's the worst thing, you know, in the spirit of design thinking, let's try out a prototype and see what happens.

Daniel:  

Yeah. Well, so then, yeah, this, this is, we're like building out a, a lovely model of innovation leadership here. Why don't we just like a fearlessness, a willingness to prototype, but I think there's also another piece which, which we're like getting towards which is like storytelling, which is like the ability to communicate to somebody an opportunity that you perceive that maybe they don't perceive.

Jocelyn:

Yep. How do you think that, given that you work so much in the conversation side of things, how do you think that storytelling or facilitation changes with this innovation leadership lens? Does it change or does it not change from a skillset standpoint?

Daniel:  

I mean, I think storytelling...you just reverse interviewed me, Jocelyn! I mean I believe that a storytelling is like really fundamental. Like I, my, my love for storytelling and narrative is like one of the reasons why I made a narrative phase in the design gym model. There isn't a narrative phase in ideas model, which I think is actually a major failing. It sort of stands outside of the design thinking process. Whereas I think that it is, it is design thinking is a way of telling stories. Um, I have to think in when we talk, each phrase that we respond to each other with is forming a story and like, what's like, if I say a non-sequitur, it's like we define a non-sequitur as something that's not linked to the rest of the conversation, it doesn't, it doesn't connect or it doesn't relate. So I think, um, great story telling makes things seem obvious, right? Like it, which is sort of like, hey, here's this amazing opportunity and here's this huge problem and we should do something about it right now. Like that's just the fundamental innovation storytelling model, right? That I know, like, I dunno what, what, what's your, what your core story telling you know, framework is like, when you want to make sure that you're communicating that value to someone else. Like what, what you, how do you make sure that rises up from all of the, the, the charts and figures.

Jocelyn: 

Yeah. I don't know if I have a storytelling of framework per se, but what I do think storytelling needs to be, are powerful anecdotes that somebody else can tell the story on behalf of you. So you maybe it needs to be memorable enough. Yes. And one of the stories that comes to mind, um, and this is not a client that I've worked with and is more of an anecdote that a colleague of mine has told me is that, um, when he was visiting the headquarters of Alcoa, which is a mining company, um, and he was running late for a meeting and he was in their London offices and arrived like just on time. They made him sit through a 10 minute training video on safety, even though they were in the middle of London. There were no mines around anywhere.

Jocelyn:  

They were in professional building. But you have to sit through 10 minutes of training because that was one of their core values, um, that it, that they really wanted to talk about in Alcoa. And the reason for that is when the new, and this is, um, this is definitely a couple years ago when a new CEO of Alcoa came in to take over the company. At the point in time, he decided that the way that he was going to turn around the company was through a message of safety. And so every single call that he did with his earnings, with his leadership team, um, with employees that he would meet, he would ask them, how are you actually talking or implementing safety in your teams? Um, and it's one of the safest places to work right now. Um, which is kind of insane. Well, for a mining company and even more so than than, um, other mining companies that are out there. But then he just really drove that message home by building it into one of the core values of the organization. And that culture is spread through asking that simple question and that people could retell and say, here's how a CEO and a thinks about it. Yeah. It's not really sort of like on the innovation lines, but I think it goes to your storytelling point around how the things get told, um, and emphasized upon.

Daniel:  

Yeah, it's that drumbeat. Uh, and whatever you are talking about is what will be on top of people's mind and it's what will happen. It's really cool. What a great story. I'll retell that. I don't think people often think about storytelling, uh, in terms of what will happen after I tell the story. Um, yeah, and designing for retelling is definitely a really important heuristic for, for, you know, if you're going to architect the narrative for sure. simplify. Um, so Jocelyn, we're coming up against our, our, um, our time together this time together. Is there anything else that, um, that we haven't talked about that you think is worth bringing, bringing up, uh, on these topics? Any thread that we've left loose that, that's, that's, uh, sticking out of your mind?

Jocelyn: 

Um, the only other thing that comes to mind is the topic on learning, which I feel like could take a whole other session on its own. Um, but I wonder whether there's anything that you would like to unpack around there because I think so much of creating a discipline in ritual for yourself is also paired from a complimentary standpoint of how does one learn and how does one practice? Because that's it goes hand in hand. You can't really create a discipline without actually practicing something. Yeah. Um,

Daniel: 

well you talked a little bit about this in terms of like, uh, uh, the organizational capability is part of the innovation, but then inside of that capability are people and people, uh, change at the rate of, uh, people, human conversation developmentally happens. Yeah. I don't know, at a certain pace, um, in which case like, how can you, you know, increase that for an organization? How can you increase that for, for a person. But I think it seems like you're, you're positing and I agree with you that like, um, having some, some discipline around it, having some frameworks about can, can really help people.

Jocelyn: 

Yup.

Daniel:  

Couldn't agree more. We just tied a bow around that. Yep. How do you feel like you've grown in your own capabilities? Like I feel like you've, you've gone from strength to strength, your increase in your career. How do you stay focused on, on your own growth?

Jocelyn:  

great question. I think, um, from a practice standpoint, I think something that I do, and I don't know how intentionally I truly do this, but definitely it's woven into, uh, my day to day is that I practice, I do a lot of distributed practice. I don't know if that's an that's an actual term. I don't know, maybe I just coined that.

Daniel:  

Well, it is now!

Jocelyn: 

And what I mean by that is, um, I try and make sure, like whenever I learn a new concept or a new skill set that I, I, uh, practice it sporadically and in a very spread out way. So for example, I'm not in the world of design thinking right now and neither am I a designer. There was a period of my life where I was very immersed in it and that was all I was reading and thinking and speaking about on a day to day basis. Now I have a different lens and focus, but I still upkeep my design thinking side, um, to whether that's like sporadic engagements or, um, and I teach stuff like at the d school and that's pretty nice, like longer term cadence to force me to actually think about like new concepts in design or I go to design events or read books and there isn't....it's no way near the intensity's uh, we read it, my intensity a hundred back then.

Jocelyn:

It's like now it's probably about 15 to 20% of my time and attention, but I kind of keep that on the back burner so that I don't actually lose touch of that. Um, and to also make sure that I remember a lot of the things that I've learned because I think it's easy to pick up something and just let it go and never touch it.. And what's learning something if you don't actually retain things that you're interested in?

Daniel:

Yeah. This is like, you are using the forgetting curve to your advantage. This is the forgetting curve. I'll, I'll send you a link. I'll put the link in the show notes. I, well, I interviewed somebody, a behavioral, a guy who works for a behavioral Science Company called Boundless Mind and behavioral change works with the, like if I tell you a number today like your, it has no emotional impact but you may remember it in two or two or three or five or 10 minutes, um, the odds of you remembering it next week and very slim. But if I call you up tomorrow and say, Hey Jocelyn, I'm going to call you tomorrow and I'm going to ask you what the number is, you might remember it. And then if like I call you up in, in like another week and I'm like, Hey, you remember what that number is? You're like, oh yeah, I remember the number. Or at least like what the range is like. So it's about like, just like, like, like the radioactive decay curve.

Jocelyn:

Um, oh, got it. Okay....that's the name of the concept. Not really distributed practice,Daniel:

but I like distributed, I think distributed practice is much better. But yeah, that's like, that's the idea is like you're making sure that you are being intentional about keeping it... As my father would say, a used key is always bright.

Jocelyn:

There you go. Yes. I love that.

Daniel:

Um, the, the fact that I got into a quote from my father means that it's time for us to stop.

Jocelyn:

Um, thank you so much for having me. Really Fun as always.

Daniel:

Yeah, it is. We enjoy our conversations. Likewise. I really appreciate you making the time.

Innovation is a Conversation

Innovation. We love to talk about it, everyone wants it. Innovation is critical for people and organizations to grow. But we all mean different things when we say it.

Today I have a conversation about how innovation is a conversation with Brian Ardinger. He’s the director of Innovation at Nenet (which owns my student debt! Hi Nelnet!) and the host of InsideOutside.io, a community for innovators and entrepreneurs that produces a great podcast and a conference that brings together startup and enterprise organizations to talk innovation.

There are three key conversations worth designing that we discuss and I want you to have your ears perked up for each as you listen to this episode. Each conversation can help you navigate the innovation process inside or outside your organization. 

These three are the pre-conversation, the conversation about where to look for innovation and the conversation about patience. Brian specializes in a unique perspective on where to look for innovation. More on that in a moment.

The Pre-Innovation Conversation

Before you even start to talk about ideas or technology, it’s essential to start with the end in mind. What kind of innovation is the company really looking for? Skip the pre-conversation and you have no idea of where you’re heading. As Brian points out “without having that definition, then it's sometimes hard to know if you're playing the right game to begin with...the process itself of level setting... I don't think it takes a long time.”

Brian and I didn’t dive into tools to help with that conversation, so I put a few into the show notes. Mapping the innovation conversation can be done in lots of ways. One is thinking about evolutionary vs revolutionary change, another is about tangible vs intangible change, like rethinking policies or business models vs remaking product or space design. 

I *just* did a webinar on this topic with my partner in the Innovation Leadership Accelerator, Jay Melone, hosted by the amazing people at Mural. Templates of the two innovation leadership frameworks we outlined are there in Mural for you to download and use, along with the webinar video to help you along.

Also check out Mapping Innovation, by Greg Satell. You can download his playbook free here. 

Where to look for innovation

Brian’s Inside/outside perspective is that innovation can be a conversation between the inside of a company and the outside world. Some innovation will happen internally, and some innovation can be brought from the outside in: the exchange and acquisition of ideas and technology from outside your organization is an important conversation for enterprise organizations to be having.

When you’re trying to innovate, it can be tempting to look in familiar places. If you’re a financial technology firm, it can be tempting to look to fintech startups for what’s next and to try to innovate through acquisition. But you’ll also be looking were your competitors will be looking. Try an innovation approach based on Horizontal Evolution - look to the sides and edges of the landscape. Brian describes this approach as “playing a different ball game”. 

The conversation about patience

Innovation does not happen overnight. Real change takes time and that takes real patience. Brian also points out that organizations need to be having a bigger conversation, about what else needs to change to make real innovation flourish inside the organization. Hint: it's generally more than you bargained for. 

As he says “Corporations are doing exactly what they should be doing...They figured out a business model that works and they're executing and optimizing that particular business model...And to radically change that, the people, the resources, the compensation, all of that stuff has to kind of morph or change to play in a different environment. And so I think that's where the challenge really begins.”

Often people think innovation is about the idea, but it’s a much, much longer conversation. That is, in fact, the first “Myth of Innovation” from Scott Berkun’s excellent book: The Myth that innovation is about an epiphany, not hard work.

It was a real treat to have a conversation with Brian about some of these key issues...I hope you enjoy the episode and happy innovating!

Brian on the Web:

https://insideoutside.io/

https://twitter.com/ardinger

https://www.nxxt.co/

Innovation Leadership Models from the Mural Webinar

https://blog.mural.co/innovation-leadership

Mapping Innovation by Greg Satell

https://www.amazon.com/Mapping-Innovation-Playbook-Navigating-Disruptive/dp/1259862259

Download the Playbook for Free: https://www.gregsatell.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Mapping-Innovation-Playbook.pdf

Horizontal Evolution

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/08/horizontal_gene/

An amazing summary from Scott Berkun about his solid book, Myths of Innovation:

https://scottberkun.com/2013/ten-myths-of-innnovation/

A few more gems from Greg Satell on the Rules and questions central to innovation:

https://medium.com/@digitaltonto/on-december-9th-1968-a-research-project-funded-by-the-us-department-of-defense-launched-a-ee063b7585f0

https://hbr.org/2013/02/before-you-innovate-ask-the-ri

Transcription:

Daniel: Welcome to the conversation factory. Brian, I'm glad we made the time to make this happen. Um, the reason I'm excited to talk to you is, is that not everybody is, is open or interested in the, the analogy that a company has to have a conversation with the outside world that they can't just, you know, put up some walls and just figure everything out inside those four walls that they have to go outside and have a dialogue with the world in lots of different ways. And the way you do that is, is through helping companies think about inside innovation versus outside innovation, which is my way of like teeing up the how you, how do you talk about what you do with people when you, when you meet people, like how do you contextualize what it is that you do?

Brian: Well, I think a lot of things, uh, Daniel around this particular topic, it's this whole inside/ outside innovation. It's kind of come to us over the years of working first on the outside with startups and trying to understand how do they develop new ideas and, and build things. And then, uh, you know, as I was having conversations with startups and helping them navigate that, I kept having conversations with corporations and bigger companies saying, you know, how are you doing this? How are you taking these early stage companies and through an accelerator program and that, and, and kind of getting them traction in that faster than we can do in our own walls. And so that started to have conversations with the corporations and the people inside organizations and saying, hey, how can we interact with the outside world and, and think and move and act more like a startup or, uh, become a little bit more adaptive in how we do that. So I think it was an evolution of just having conversations and figuring out what's working, what's not working in this world of change and disruption that we're living in.

Daniel: Yeah. So like there's two layers here, which I think are interesting to unpack. I've learned this new term, the idea of an accelerated work environment and this idea of like, let's speed up the conversation about innovation and let's not just put our feet up and look into space and hope a great idea comes to us. Like, let's structure it and let's do it faster. And so can you talk a little bit about like how you structure an accelerator? Like what does it mean to accelerate people through the innovation process from your approach?

Brian: Yeah, so I think a lot of it, like when I go in and talk to bigger companies, first thing I like to do is kind of do a level set of what does innovation even mean to the people in the room. Uh, because innovation has become such a word that's, you know, so limp, so to speak. It can mean anything to anybody. Uh, and so kind of understanding that level set of what does innovation mean to the company? How do they define it? Um, is it transformational innovation where it's, you know, we've got to become the next Uber and disrupt our industry? Or is it a innovation from the standpoint of value creation where we're looking at ways to optimize and incrementally improve what we're building? And so from that perspective, you know, it's, once you have that level set, then you can start thinking about, well, how, what are the particular tactics that you can work through depending on what kind of objectives you want to have and, and what you're trying to accomplish.

Brian: So I think that's the first place we start. And then how we do that. Um, again, I think a lot of is trying to help them understand that you've got to place a lot of bets on innovation and innovation is not, um, you know, it's by default working in the new, it's working in this area of gray and this area of uncertainty,

Daniel: which means there's got to be failure, right? Like there's going to have to be failure.

Brian: Yeah. So, yeah, this uncertainty by default, requires you to figure out and make assumptions and, work through this... Areas of the unknown. And that's very difficult for, a lot of folks to work through. You know, especially at companies and people who are used to having a plan or having an execution model that, that they just execute on. Corporations are doing exactly what they should be doing...They figured out a business model that works and they're executing and optimizing that particular business model…

Brian: And to radically change that, the people, the resources, the compensation, all of that stuff has to kind of morph or change to play in a different environment. And so I think that's where the challenge really begins.

Daniel: So...I'm comfortable with taking this seemingly simple question of like, we want to innovate more and turning it into this, really stretching it out into a much more complicated conversation. Like I'm wondering if people you deal with ever get frustrated with, (you): "well, Brian, you're just making this complicated. Like, we just want to innovate. Just teach us how to innovate. Let's get started." Versus like, let's talk about your strategic goals. Like I can see how some people might get a little impatient with the, with the bigger picture, with the strategic thinking approach.

Brian: Sure. Yeah. And I think, and I think it doesn't have to take a long time on to go through that particular process, but I think if you don't start off on that common definition, then you run the risk later on. And you know, why are we doing this? Why is it not working? You know, we said that, uh, you know, we need to have x, Y, z outcome and these brand new bets that you're putting on the table are not getting us an outcome that we want. Um, but you know, without having that definition, then it's sometimes hard to know if you're playing the right game to begin with. So I think, so the, the process itself of level setting I don't think takes a long time to, to make that happen. And I think, but I do think in general, to change a culture or to move the company towards having that innovation mindset set or innovation as a competency to so to speak, does take a long time. Um, but you can do that through a variety of tactics and in ways that doesn't, um, change, change it all overnight. You know, it doesn't have to be something where, um, you know, you're basically creating something brand new and, and throwing out everything that you've done in the past and, and hoping that the new thing works. Uh, it's really a series of iterative bets that you kind of de-risked these new ideas as you're, as you're approaching them into the world and seeing what happens.

Daniel: Yeah. Now, now here's the, the piece that I think that, that we were talking about that's interesting is that companies can innovate through outside acquisitions or through outside collaborations, like through working with startups. And maybe that makes it seem "like, wow, that's neat, there is an easier way to do this". we don't have to do it all ourselves. We can, we can turn outwards and see, uh, not just learn from other people, but actually like bring that outside innovation inside. Like, and that seems to me like, uh, a complicated process to navigate. Like how do you facilitate, how do you facilitate that conversation and make it smooth for people?

Brian: Yeah. So I think, at least for a lot of folks, you know, the idea of looking outside is not become, it's not a novel concept anymore. You know, maybe five or six years ago it was like, oh, what's one of these things called startups out there? And you know, we're, we're seeing more and more hearing more and more about it. So it's, it's not a novel concept that, hey, the ability for two women in the garage or in a dorm room to spin up something and get some traction and create something of huge value in the world...that's, that's there and that's not going away. And that's speeding up. And so I think, uh, that, uh, first part of the conversation happening, having people understand that, people have the power and tools and capabilities and access to markets and cheap technology, et Cetera, to really disrupt things is there.

Brian: So if we understand that, then what can we do to kind of help navigate that? And, and I think the first thing is just, you know, raise your hand and say, Hey, there are things going on outside. Let's, uh, let's take an inventory or a map on discover what's going on...and one of the, pitfalls I see a lot of companies jump into is let's look in our industry. You know, what's happening in our industry. And that's great, and that you should do that of course. But, um, that's also probably where 99% of your competitors are also playing in that same field. And so I find a lot of times it helps to look at adjacent industries or industries far and away, uh, different from your own to see what's going on, and look for clues or models or technologies or, or talent that may give you a different advantage, if you put those pieces together differently than playing, in the same ball game as your competitors are playing. So, you know, I, I see a lot of people going to these conferences and looking for startups in the fintech space and all you have are corporations in the Fintech area looking at Fintech startups where a lot of times I think, it's better to maybe go to a more of a horizontal conference and looking at AI or uh, you know, different types of data conferences and that would give you a different perspective on how those technologies could be used in your industry or in somebody else's, industry, for example.

Daniel: Do you have a story like, cause it's funny as you're telling me the story, like I'm realizing this is, this is the classic innovators trick, right? Which is, yeah, it's, and it's a classic trick from nature, right? Which is, people don't realize that evolution isn't just, um, vertical where you adapt and survive. But there's horizontal transfer of, of genes in nature. Like literally the reason we have mitochondria is because we ate them, you know, a billion years ago. And all of the energy in our bodies is made by an alien organism that has its own DNA, which I find a very, it's always just like an extraordinary fact. Um, but you know, and I've been telling my clients this for a long time too. Like what do you, do you have, uh, a story to share of a surprising transfer of, of innovation from industry to industry in case there's any doubters in the world.

Brian: Yeah, it's, let, I'm trying to think of one off the top of my head, but I know I've seen it on the reverse side. For example, we've seen, because I run a conference called inside, outside/innovation. And, one of the things we do is we, uh, go out and find startups in a variety of different markets, bring them to a showcase and then bring corporations around to kind of see what they're building and why and hopefully make some connections for that. And where I've seen it happen is a lot of times where, a startup will be working in a particular vertical market, early stage, uh, and they think they've got a solution in, you know, retail or whatever, and a corporation conversation will come around and they'll say, hey, I love your technology, but you're looking in the retail space. Did you know that you could apply this to insurance?

Brian: And the light bulb will kind of go off in the entrepreneur's mind. It's like, oh, this is an opportunity for me to potentially go into a different market or get traction with an early customer that I didn't have before. And so I need to happen that way. Um, and I'm sure the reverse could happen as well where a corporation, uh, is, you know, looking at a variety of startups out there and say, hey, that startup's, not in our industry, but we could definitely apply that technology to what we're doing and leverage it in some way.

Daniel: So that actually sparks, I mean, I definitely, I want to make sure we talk about the conference before we, before we leave, but in a way, like you said, this thing that was really interesting about startups, you know, they're, they're trying to, uh, you know, iterate and build their own, um, you know, their own growth engine. Right? Um, I would imagine that some of them are not necessarily open to this idea of like, well look, we're, we've got our roadmap and we're trying to build our own flywheel and move it, get that moving. This, they may not be open to this, this pivot or this expansion. Uh, there's like, oh, you know, well, we're just focusing on market X and like, do you want me to also like expand our, our code base so that we can also take advantage of, of why and collaborate with these guys. Like I how do you sort of, I know you've done a lot of work on building community through, through the conference. Like how do you find startups are expanding their perspectives to being open to this collaborative conversation versus like, nope, we're just doing our thing.

Brian: Yeah. And I think a lot of it depends on where the startup is in their lifecycle. A lot of the folks that we bring in are probably seed stage and so they, they haven't figured out their business model. They haven't figured out the exact markets sometimes. Uh, and they're looking for that early traction. And you know, one of the reasons we hold this in the Midwest is because, you know, venture capital and the traditional ways of kind of scaling a business in Silicon Valley don't exist out here. And so you've got to find customers. You've got to find ways to, um, to, to get that early traction. And a lot of that means, you know, getting out and finding those early customers. And so having conversations with customers, uh, real people out there and trying to define what problems are out there in the marketplace and then create a solution, uh, to meet those problems and then meet the market where it's at, I think is more effective way a lot of times in the Midwest here or in places outside of your core tech hubs that don't have the, the against the, um, the advantage of getting a venture capital and being able to have a year or two young, two year runway to figure out, uh, how, where that market is.

Brian: So I think, I think so part of that is that, um, I think when I'm talking to start ups, you know, I put my "accelerate" hat on and working as a person who is helping startups through that process, a lot of times I'll quite frankly tell them to stay away from corporates until they, until they figured out some of that stuff. Cause it's very easy to go down the rabbit hole of um, hey, if we just get this one big customer on our plate, we'll be good to go. But a lot of times you know that the timing of the two types of organizations don't match up and it can very, very easily kill start up really pretty quickly.

Daniel: Yeah. And it can kill them in that what they're, they're focusing, they'd lose their focus or their, they spread themselves too thin. You know, so like what, what sort of, I think beautiful about what you do is that there's this symmetry in a way you have a community driven approach to innovation through the conference you do building community, but building community so that you have a group of startups who are interested in this type of thinking so that companies can have an innovation community. So they're not just going it alone, that they have a view to what's, what's open in the world for them. I mean, I guess my question is like, have you always been so community driven? Like how did you come to value community as an approach, as in a solution to, to these challenges that you're seeing?

Brian: So, I mean, I guess I've always felt community is, is a way to accelerate your learning. Uh, and I think early stage ideas, no matter what they are, whether they're inside a startup or inside a corporation, the key to a lot of those taking place in actually taking hold is that the speed of learning. How fast can you, um, take your assumptions and navigate those and understand where you're on the right track or not, and, um, get to that next stage that you need to get to. So, um, community's always been away from me, uh, personally and otherwise to help accelerate those learnings, whether it's, you know, again, connecting somebody to somebody else who can, uh, an expert in a different field or, um, someone who can help me navigate to something else that I didn't know I needed. Um, and so I think it started from that perspective and it started because, uh, you know, quite frankly, when I started a lot of this stuff seven, eight years ago, uh, the, you know, entrepreneurship and startups were, were smaller, uh, both, you know, nationally as well as in our own backyard.

Brian: And so part of it was like, well, if we're going to do this, we're going to, we can't do it all are ourselves. So how do we create a community that allows startups to raise their hand and first say, Hey, I want to be entrepreneurial. I want to try some things. I want to build something. In my backyard. Yeah. And then what do I need and what am I missing and how do I then can be that catalyst to help, um, folks figure that out. Uh, and so it was an evolution of just having conversations, going to different cities, uh, meeting different people, starting a podcast, you know, telling stories, um, you know, starting a new newsletter and then, uh, eventually a conference and everything else around it. Um, and then all the while, you know, consulting and helping companies kind of figure it out on both sides.

Brian: And, um, it's been fun. It's been fun to see that journey and continue to figure out what the, what the next phase is as we build it out.

Daniel: Yeah. Well, I mean, I guess I'd begs the question, what is, what's the next phase? Can you talk about it? Is it Secret?

Brian: Yeah, no! Um, so yeah, so inside, outside innovation, you know, we started four years ago actually with the podcast and the original idea was it was called inside, outside, and it was an inside look at startups outside the valley with the idea that their stories, outside the tech hubs that need to be told and how can we help our entrepreneurs, uh, figure that stuff out. And so that's where it started. And again, it'll happen with further conversations as, as we built that particular audience and had conversations around those particular topics, we kept getting asked by innovators in bigger companies, you know, it's like, how are we doing this?

Brian: How, how's this working? We want to be connected to startups. We want to understand this new way of innovating things like design thinking and lean startup in that work, uh, becoming methodologies and tactics that could apply to, you know, start ups outside of a big corporation or, or startups within a corporation that were trying to spin up new ideas. So through that we started the inside outside innovation podcast as the, as the way to have those conversations and talk about corporate innovation and how we're corporate matching with startups and how corporate venture play out differently and how we're internal innovation accelerators popping up all around. And what were the different tactics that folks were using through that. We've kind of created this weird community. It's almost like two communities, but the, the advantages by bringing them together, they both learned from each other. So that's kind of how, that's how it's kind of evolved. What's next? We're trying to figure out the third year of the insight off the innovation summit. Uh, we haven't got the dates and, and that solidify, but it's looking like we're probably going to do it sometime in the end of October. I'm in the process, I'm looking at writing a book around this concept of collaborative and innovation and this innovation as a competency. And then, um, we'll just continue with the podcast and the newsletter and keep growing our conversations with great people out there.

Daniel: You know, Brian, it's really, it's, I mean it's, it's lovely to talk to you about this stuff because, you know, the, the ecological approach you have to this, to this processes, you know, it's, it's clearly organic. Like, like anything else, it's starting a conversation and then you've gotten feedback from the world and over time you've, you've built more than you've added to it. Like it's, it's a, it's just guy. It's a wave that is sort of, it has its ups and downs clearly. But you're just continuing to, to ride that wave, which was really awesome.

Brian: What the, it comes back to, you know, my feeling is that obviously with the world changing in the, in the speed of change that's happening out there, everybody is going to have to take on some of the skillsets of, of the early innovator. You know, again, a startup entrepreneur or, um, or innovator are going to have to have kind of core capabilities or characteristics that allow you to adapt and be nimble and, and, uh, execute.

Daniel: Unless you want a robot to do your job!

Brian: Yeah. That's executing different ways that, that you didn't have or that were different in the way that you could execute in the past. So things like, you know, curiosity having a bias towards learning characteristics like having a, an a customer focus and this bias towards problem solving for that customer. You know, the, the skill of collaboration and you know, knowing that you can't build everything yourself.

Brian: There's bias towards team, um, you know, some of the characteristics of just speed, you know, how can you have this bias towards action and experimentation. And then finally having kind of the reverse of that you are having patience and that bias towards that long term value creation. You know, I think those are some of the core concepts that make up, um, this new world that we're living in. And the more individuals, whether you're, you know, a traditional manager or a entrepreneurial founder, those are the skillsets that are going to take you to the next level in the world that we're living in.

Daniel: It sounds like a good book already, Brian. I don't know. I like it.

Brian: I'm still outlining.

Daniel: It sounds like a pretty good proposal to me. Um, so listen, I, I, we're, we're up against our, our, our time together. Uh, is there anything I haven't asked you about that I should, that we should talk about? Any, any, any final thoughts?

Brian: Yeah, I'm curious for, you've obviously been in the space of helping people have conversations and that I'm always curious to understand what have you learned from helping companies and people kind of navigate a, this world of change, uh, and in this world of innovation, what are some of the things that are obstacles or things that stand out that, uh, I could take back to my audience as well? Well,

Daniel: I mean, do you have a hard stop in the next three minutes because, no, go ahead. We can go over a little bit. Well, I mean, for me, what really resonated in what you were talking about is the necessity for patients. And I think this is one thing that's really, really hard, um, for people because we want to go fast and we want to have results. Um, but we also need to slow things down. So one of the things that like I'm becoming more aware of in my own work is psychological safety, which people, you know, Google identified as like the main characteristic of effective teams. The ability, the willingness, the openness to saying what's happening, to be able to speak your mind, to say what's right or to say what's wrong. And that, I don't know, that stuff doesn't really come for free. Uh, it's a really, you have to cultivate that environment.

Daniel: And so for me, you know, my angle and entry point is always that somebody, somebody has to design that conversation. Um, if a group of, you know, if a group of people is gonna talk about what we're going to do next and how to innovate, we can either contribute content or we can contribute process. Um, if the, to me, the most important and precious conversation is when a group of people is coming together, the fact that you're willing to, that you have a framework, I'm guessing, to stretch out the conversation about what's our innovation roadmap and where are we placing our bets allows people to say like, okay, what's my holistic view of this? It creates, it creates safety, right? It creates a moment where, where we can have the conversation about innovation, we can have the conversation about how we're gonna brainstorm.

Daniel: We can have the conversation about how we're going to, uh, evaluate ideas and how we know if they're good or not. Um, and so for me, I think, um, I feel like I'm ranting now, but I was at a problem framing workshop, uh, with my, my friend Jay Malone, who has a company called new haircut. They do a lot of design sprint training and he was teaching a problem framing workshop. And at the end of the workshop, he presented, uh, you know, on one hand, a very straightforward, like, here, this is what problem framing is in the essence. Like, uh, who has the problem, uh, why does it matter? Um, when does it happen? Uh, like, you know, think about like, where to play and how to win. And this one woman said like, well, yeah, what about, uh, uh, how do we know when it's been solved? You know, how do we know if it's working? And this is, I think one of the biggest challenges with, with companies is we don't know like what good looks like. We don't know when to start. We don't know how to stop working and grinding it out. Um, well, and the metrics

Brian: are so different from existing business model versus a new business model that you don't even know who the customers are and the value proposition you're creating at the beginning.

Daniel: Yeah. So I mean, for me, like I find the, one of the biggest challenges of innovation is that people bring me in to say like, okay, let's help this team coach through this process. Meanwhile, they've already got a job that takes 100% of their time. Um, and they look at me and they're like, this guy has just given us extra work to do. You know, the workshop that I come in is taking them away from their quote unquote real job. The, the work that I asked them to do to go out and do the interviews and to, to get customer contact looks like it's taking away time for them. And so this idea that that innovation's like something you can buy or pay someone else to do. To me, I want people to be earning their own innovation. But the problem is that most people are at 110% capacity.

Daniel: And You bring in somebody like me who says, okay, let's do some design thinking stuff. Let's do a, you know, even if it's a week long sprint, which doesn't give you everything you need, you know, if it's a six week process, it's people are like, Oh man, that was great, but oh, that was hard and I never want to do that again. It's like, it's really, really challenging to get people to find time to innovate. And that's frustrating to me.

Brian: Absolutely.

Daniel: As a person who just really wants people to get their hands dirty with it so that they value it and, and participated in it. So, I don't know. I don't know what the balance is there. That's... I don't know. I don't know if that's a question with an answer, but

Brian: I don't know if there's a clear answer for that one. No, no.

Daniel: that, oh, so, yeah, I mean that, that's, that's, that's my perspective. I don't know if that, if that's helpful to you at all, but that's, that's…

Brian: Very much so, very much so.

Daniel: Is there, is there anything else we should I this, this is definitely the shortest episode. You know, I'm, I'm sort of enjoying or slash you know, floundering in the, in the 30 minute time zone. So I just want to make sure that we've covered everything that you want to cover …

Brian: No, it's been great, thanks for having me on the show and the opportunity to talk about insideoutside.io and everything we're doing.

Daniel: Yeah. So like that's the, that's the final question. Like where, uh, where can people find all things insideoutside and Brian Ardinger on the Internet.

Brian: Yeah. Thanks Daniel. Yeah. So, uh, obviously you can go to the website insideoutside.io that has our podcast, our newsletters sign up for that. Um, and obviously I'm very, um, out there on Twitter and Linkedin in that happy to have conversations. So reach out and say hi.

Daniel: Well we will do that. Um, Brian, I really appreciate you taking the time. It's really, it's always interesting to have some patience and just slow down and have some of these conversations about this stuff, that's I think really, really important. Like you said, the future is unwritten and uncertain and all of us need to have skills of adaptability, the inside and I think both sides of the ecosystem that you're a co-creating - the innovator, the startups need to learn from big companies how to scale and big companies need to learn from startups, how to be more nimble. So I think it's really a really important dialogue that you're facilitating. It's really cool.

Brian: Thanks for having me on the show!

Power , Ritual and Wayfinding

Today I’m sharing a conversation with Larissa Conte, who I connected with last year at the Responsive Conference in New York.

Larissa is a transformation designer, systems coach, and executive rites of passage guide through her business, Wayfinding. Larissa specializes in facilitating aliveness and alignment across organizational scales to cultivate power that serves.

In her talk, she did a physical demonstration with the conference host Robin Zander that really inspired me to connect with her and have her on the show. (Also, you can check out my conversation with Robin on asking better questions here).

She and Robin did a sort of “push hands” play to show how you can push back against a force coming at you, or let it flow past you while holding your center of gravity. It was a powerful physical metaphor for dynamics we have all experienced in our relationships and work and illustrates different choices we can take in these tense situations.

Larissa and I have a far-ranging conversation about power, structure and ritual in our work as consultants in team and organizational transformation. I want to draw your attention to a few interesting ideas:

Rituals can be designed.Teams run on rituals, day in and day out. Week by week, patterns are followed, usually without question. Re-designing those rituals takes time and consideration, but it’s worth doing.

Facilitators can use ritual to create comfort for themselves and others.There are lots of patterns and exercises I use to build safety or energy for myself and others.You can create your own safe space and the more often you do, the easier it becomes.

Power can be taken, given or used. You can also choose your own response to power sent your way. I like to say you can fight the power or dance with the power.

Larissa makes an essential point though: there is power that is socially or culturally conferred or inferred based on stories we tell ourselves and each other. These stories are based on nothing more than what we see: skin color, gender or other body characteristics. Power that is given through these cultural stories is privilege. Power taken through these stories is oppression.

One of the most powerful things we can do as change-makers is to notice and question these stories.

Seeing is the first step. Larissa points out that if you can’t feel the energy in the room, it’s hard to do anything to shift it. If you don’t see the effect these stories have on our day-to-day lives, it can be very hard to change them.

Wayfinding is seeing signs and finding our way on poorly marked paths. Wayfinding has it’s roots in traditional cultures: The Polynesisans could use the stars, wind and waves to find their way across tremendous ocean distances. Similarly, Native Americans used signals of all sorts to find food, shelter and sacred spaces.In her Wayfinding work, Larissa is calling our attention to these old ways of seeing and asking us to use our own senses to see the signposts in our lives and work.

Inner sensing is valid. One thing I always try to convey in my facilitation masterclasses is that you are in the room and you experience what is in the room. It can be hard to know if we,ourselves, are anxious about our role as facilitators or if the room is experiencing anxiety. It’s only by getting in touch with our inner sensations that we can ever tell the difference between our own experience and our experience of what’s happening in the room. Larissa points out that there can be a stigma to that which is felt and that which exists“only” in our interior,beyond the reach of measuring tools.

I hope you enjoy the conversation as much as I did.

Larissa Conte on the web:

http://www.wayfinding.io/

Larissa’s talk at Responsive 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Lf2uOzr78

Robin Zander on Asking Better Questions: What's Your North Star?http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2019/4/23/robin-p-zander-asking-better-questions

The Future of Work

https://www.oecd.org/employment/future-of-work/

The Teal Movement:

http://www.reinventingorganizationswiki.com/Teal_Organizations

for more on Self Management check out my episode with Sally Sally McCutchion on Holacracy and Self Management at all levels of organization

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2017/6/6/sally-mccutchion-on-holacracy-and-self-management-at-all-levels-of-organization

Othering and Belonging:

http://conference.otheringandbelonging.org/

Alan Watts on The Intelligence of the World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZbThJg6ehU

Jon Young

http://8shields.org/about/

Wade Davis: The Wayfinders:

https://www.amazon.com/Wayfinders-Ancient-Wisdom-Matters-Lecture/dp/0887847668

Tom Brown

https://www.amazon.com/Tom-Browns-Science-Art-Tracking/dp/0425157725/

Kate Quarfordt On the Seasons of Creative Conversations: http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2017/9/19/kate-quarfordt-on-the-seasons-of-creative-conversations

Transcription

Daniel: (00:00)

All right, Larissa, welcome to the conversation factory, then! We're here...

Larissa: (00:04)

That you so much, Daniel! So happy to be in the factory!

Daniel: (00:10)

You know, so I don't normally talk about this, but it's like, it is this really sort of confusing analogy cause it's like it's this thing that's organic and then you, yet, here we are, we manufacture them. Which you do, right? So you, you design rituals, which, um, which seem to be, uh, what sort of I'm looking for inherently paradoxical, which I've never, you know, we didn't talk about talking about this, but that's something interesting. Can you, can you, when, when you're at a party, uh, what do you tell people you do when they ask you that really horrible question of like, what do you do? They're like, oh, so Larissa, so what do you do? And you say...

Larissa: (00:49)

I usually will respond based on how we've already been speaking. Yes. Because I'm aware of the listening they're bringing to the conversation. Yeah. And so, um, I often share that I have my own business called wayfinding and that I work with people to cultivate power that serves through bringing forth aliveness, connection alignment across scales of self, relationship and organization. Oh and I love the quality of the noticing you just had about ritual and the, the paradox in it. Um, in my designs, what I'm doing rights of passage with people, um, and I'll share about this and we can see how things unfold from here. Um, I try to find the minimum necessary structure to hold the space. It's very Goldielocks and the three bears. Yeah. It's like not enough structure.. Like you don't get the fire. It's very similar to starting a fire. It's like if you have like four pieces of kindling that are spaced very far apart, like that thing's not going to start. And if you have too much structure and there's too much wood jammed in there, again, there's not enough air. So you need a balance between structure and space for the flow of like the creative life force and the beings participating and in life itself to do its dance. So I try to find like, what is the tone of what this person or this group needs to support their unfolding.

Daniel: (02:22)

So, so we're going to go back now... That's like... Wonderful because there's like, there's a ton of stuff to unpack there. And, and so like I have, um, one of my, uh, I'm gonna, I'm in a men's group and a men's community and one of the leaders, he, he sort of like sometimes puts up all like a little flag where he's like, okay, so we're going into the "woo woo" part. And for some of you who are not into the woo, this is woo, but there's still stuff in here that is that one needs to know because when I come into facilitation stuff, some people think about energy and energy in the room and some people don't. Like some people can feel the energy in the room and some people are like, what are you talking about? Right? And like you're talking at the analogy you're using of like it's a fire and you kindle it and you maintain it and you don't, you make sure it doesn't burn out. And I add more fuel to it. Like, like as a metaphor. It's really, really powerful metaphor.

Larissa: (03:16)

Yeah.

Daniel: (03:18)

Do you, do you ever find that like where's the fine line between people who are like, this is too much, this is the right amount or I want more woo from you in your work. Cause I know you do work inside of companies as well. And like companies have different appetites for, uh, you know, the age of Aquarius, right?

Larissa: (03:41)

Which like I'm not necessarily like waiving the age of Aquarius banner. And yet the things that I bring in my toolkit and my experience and my consciousness to people can get labeled in the "woo woo" which is hilarious to me because ...um....so I have a, I did my master's with a cultural focus, a cultural anthropology focus to understand the origin of the idea in western culture that humans are separate from nature. And I track the unfolding of that through Europe and colonization. And then as it's spread across what is now the United States. And so I'm constantly listening. It's fascinating that we call things "woo woo". And I'm going to, we're getting there. Yeah. Um, because it connotes a stigma to that which is felt and that which exists in our interior.

Daniel: (04:33)

Yeah.

Larissa: (04:34)

And all of my work is fundamentally based in helping people recognize that our sensing intelligence.

Larissa: (04:42)

One is actually an intelligence and two that it's not, um, that is not secondary to our intellect. So one, it exists and two it is incredibly powerful. And so how do we begin to build muscle with sensing and recognize that, um, and I, the way, so the way I find this edge with groups is I listen and I do so much work to make the invisible visible. Because all of these energetic dynamics, if we're, so we're in a, we're in a meeting, let's say you and I are in a meeting and we have another colleague and we all happen to be in a company and we're discussing like the budget and we're just going over the numbers and you say something that triggers me based on my background, based on the two physical bodies and identities we inhabit all of a sudden something else's in the room.

Larissa: (05:40)

And something else is happening. But we keep using words that refer to the budget. But there's another silent conversation, that takes the foreground, it takes the stage. And so a lot of what I do with people is I help them gain the awareness and the capacity to recognize the invisible conversation of power and connection or disconnection that is always speaking. People can be like, oh, that just got so weird. And it's like, well, like here are all the reasons why that's just got weird and here's what we can do to come back into connection. Yeah.

Daniel: (06:20)

So like there's several things I want to unpack there. Yeah. Cause this guys, I think this idea of talking about making the invisible visible is really cool. And this goes to where we met. So the thing that I think would be interesting when you, when you talked about making the invisible visible and power dynamics, I've thought what was really cool was the, let's call it the physical play that you did with, with Robin at the, at the Responsive Conference last year, which was last year now where you, you did a power play, um, with your bodies. And I'm wondering if you can potentially talk a little bit about that and cause you definitely made this invisibility visible.

Larissa: (07:15)

Yeah. Yeah. So I can describe that experience. It's something that I've found really immediately makes these things go from the subtle to the obvious and they like pop into the foreground. So the first thing that I did with Robin was I demonstrated how there are two primary like responses that humans can have when they come into a situation where like their boundaries are pushed upon or which we can call conflict. Um, and, and, and like, um, neuroscience... It's (inaudible) like fight, flight or freeze from the Amygdala. But physically what really happens is someone will either, like I had Robin come up and I put my hands up in front of me and I asked him to push me and I demonstrated one response. And one response is like taking a step back and, and losing your ground,

Daniel: (08:10)

taking the hit basically.

Larissa: (08:12)

Yeah. Taking the hit, um, which can be like flight or freeze. And then the other one I said, okay, now I'm going to show you the other end of the spectrum. And I asked him to come push on me and I pushed back really hard.And he was like "agh!"

Daniel: (08:25)

Cause he didn't expect it. Cause I think the first thing you'd demonstrated, to him is like, I'm a pushover

Larissa: (08:33)

I am literally a pushover. And then, and then like I'm a push backer, which is like I'm a fighter. But there's a third way that we get to practice is how, how to stand in our center. And then when a push comes, um, to like disarm the patterning that we hold internally, that the other person is our adversary. It's like, no, we're just having tension. And like, I'm not gonna fight you, but I'm also not going to, to give way on my needs and my space and my boundary in here and I want to be in conversation with you.

Daniel: (09:15)

Yeah. Yeah. And, and that sort of, uh, it's like when you, let's push hands, right. And it's, it's using your center of gravity to flow with their center of gravity. I, I, what I loved about that was it is a physicalization of what's my relationship to conflict. Yeah. Yeah.

Larissa: (09:36)

And what, what are the subtle things that comes through that is when I've had, I've led many groups through doing this and I only, I'm just, you know, spoiler alert, anyone who might do this with me, um, I'll have groups do it and I won't tell them what we're going to do at first because your body just does, it just responds naturally. Like people just do with their bodies what their wiring is. And that's actually doing all the time and conversation anyway.

Daniel: (10:09)

Well, so how do you set it up? Do you say like, oh, try to push each other over or are you like, so how do you, how do you try to

Larissa: (10:14)

I have people like take up the amount of space that feels good to them with their arms and they're like air shape it and like feel what feels good and were kind of laughing cause it's ridiculous and people look like idiots. And that's a very good way to like disarm people. Um, and then it's also a very good effective way to get people to walk into what feels woo and recognize there's wisdom in it. So I have them shaped the space. And then I have them stand in front of a partner and for one partner to volunteer to receive a push first, but by taking up the amount of space that felt good to them and then to just notice what their body does notice, like talk about what both of them saw and then they do it. to the other person. And then we have a room conversation.

Daniel: (11:00)

Yeah. Yeah. And, and just sort of unpacking people will have their own natural responses to those two things to, to, to that pushing and maintaining boundaries.

Larissa: (11:09)

Because the way we do anything is the way we do everything. So it's like you can't undo it. And it's also interesting because the two similar to the Yin Yang symbol. Um, they fold into each other. Yeah. So if someone's a pushover, there'll be like a pushover, a pushover, a pushover, right. And you could, you may have experienced this personally or in a relationship or like someone will take the hit again and again and then there'll be this like explosion of resentment and push back.

Daniel: (11:38)

Yeah. Yeah. And so people are then reflecting on that experience, right? What I love about this is that when I teach facilitation, I often talk about the difference between an icebreaker and an eye opener. And

Larissa: (11:54)

Oh, nice.

Daniel: (11:56)

And very often I feel like there's a lot of people who are like, oh, I need to break the ice! Like how do you do that? Like, I want an icebreaker for this, this, and this. And you're like, what would you really want to do? Is like what's an activity that can get people to be energized but also get them an entrance into something deeper. And I think, um, this is a really interesting example of like something that, you know, how to like this, I'm guessing for you, if you do this often it's potentially a ritual for you and your workshops. Like it's something that is comfortable for you to lead.

Larissa: (12:25)

It's an easy time, a little doorway to walk through. You know, cause then people are like, oh, with like my parents and my boss and my like that friend of mine, I'm like, that one teacher I had, you know, they just start seeing the map of their life in a different way. And a lot of my, like what I love about that is because I like supporting people to redraw the maps of their life. Two questions. The lines that have been drawn, the territories that they're told are, um, like successful to aim towards the territories that they're told to avoid and to instead reconsider and start to become more proactive authors of the maps of their life and the routines of their life and their relationship habits and their self talk and what they create in order to bring out more aliveness in their own being. That's my number one metric is alive.

Daniel: (13:27)

So I think this is where we can do the entry point into the pre-question of what's the conversation you're trying to create in the world and how are you designing it? Because wayfinding is a, is a powerful analogy but also like a very different way of talking about personal leadership and some of the, there's, there's more traditional ways and then there's this other entry point which are bringing in like talk to me about this metaphor and how you came to it. Like take me on your journey into this being your entry point to wanting to this to be your conversation with your, with, with the world.

Larissa: (14:05)

Hmm. Yeah. The heart of the conversation that I aim to foster in the world is greater awareness of worldviews and behaviors that support disconnection and worldviews and behaviors that support connection.

Daniel: (14:25)

Hmm.

Larissa: (14:27)

And to understand the, how these patterns live and breathe through our relationships, our society, our storytelling, our values, the things we consume and where we're habituated to and how power in particular in changing our relationship to power, how we can cultivate a relationship, power that serves connection rather than disconnection. Yes.

Daniel: (14:58)

So what, like in this context, like what does wayfinding mean? That's, that's a, that's a, it's a different metaphor for what you're, what you're asking people to do, what you're offering. On their path... I mean, I can see when we finding and path ...like they are, they're like, I can see how they're, they're related, but it's, it's, it's sort of a surprising way to talk about it.

Larissa: (15:24)

Yeah. So then the reason why I chose wayfinding, um, is that I mentioned my masters that I did, right. I basically mapped, I was unknowingly mapping the main historical points that kept nudging this unfurling of disconnection patterns from the, like European experience that then cascaded over the entire world and affected all people in all ecosystems.

Larissa: (15:55)

So one of the first untruths but can be held is like people of European descent were never indigenous and it's like, no, that's not true. Like everyone at some point in their ancestral line had indigenous ancestors meaning to be deeply have a place and to meet in a culture and that was based on connection based on relational understanding and rhythms. And that's just like we are nature. There is, we're not, we're not like in these little glass boxes outside, we are also animals. And in the course of my curiosity after my master's, um, which happened to coincide with my dad dying, I became intensely curious. Yeah. I became curious...

Daniel: (16:47)

Yeah, I know that Dad''s die, but like that's, that's sad... Yeah.

Larissa: (16:51)

I just, I was saying "yeah" 'cause I saw what happened on your face and I appreciate the empathy because it mattered. You know, I had this intellectual side happening simultaneously at this personal life side and, and Ha, which fuse together to inspire me to follow the question of like, what is connection feel like in life? And I have an amazing family. I love my family so much. I'm so lucky to have had the dad I had for 22 years and...

Daniel: (17:25)

yeah, I saw you went on a trip with your mom to like Ireland. Was that like, yeah, to Ireland. I was like, wow...vacation with folks, amazing life goals. You know, that's the thing is that, is that your indigenous..? Is that your, your, your, your place of origin?

Larissa: (17:46)

Um, Ireland is one of my family's place of origin. Dad's side was all Italian. My mom, Irish, Scottish, um, like mainland Europe.

Daniel: (17:56)

I'm gonna loop back around on something if you'd ... have you seen the series "Salt Fat Acid Heat" Um, which is an amazing food documentary series ...when she goes to Italy and you just talk to these people who've been farming olives and making pesto. There's just like, yes, they're talking about the quality of a fat in like what's you know, alive about it. Um, yeah, but I also want to put a link in here. I don't know if you've ever watched Alan Watts. Um, somebody's Matt Parker and, uh, wait, I'm mixing up their names. Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the guys from South Park did a video where they animated an Alan Watts video, a speech where he talks about how if you go to the planet, this planet, you know, a billion years ago with like aliens, they visit the planet. They're like, oh, it's just some dumb rocks. Um, there's nothing interesting happening here. And they are like, whatever, let's keep going. And then they come back in a billion years later, they're like, oh look, the rocks of peopled. Interesting. There's people now... We thought they were just dumb rocks, but now they're, they've peopled. And he talks about this idea of like, um, you know, watch out. You never know when something, this idea that we are a smart things that came out of a dumb world, it's clearly not the case. It's just a question of timescales.

Larissa: (19:16)

Yeah. Yeah. And, and really like questioning: well where does intelligence sit? Is it a dumb world? And that that's also part of this larger question. So, um, got to power and got to way finding through recognizing, you know, so the wound of disconnection that happened, um, that was happening in different places around the globe. You know, there was like adversarial warring and different aspects, but then Europeans took it to a whole other level with colonization and starting to "other" people too, um, subjugate people to build overseas empires based on oppression and subjugation and then like, Tada the United States. Um, that's, and, and so all of these facets of the question of what brings our wholeness back. You know, in the future of work community and the Teal Organization framework, wholeness is one of the fundamental values of a teal organization. So we cannot possibly address the future of work and self management and wholeness without asking "what are the ways in which I have fractured myself in my own lifetime. And what are the culturally inherited wounds that I am inhabiting and benefiting from or being like massively unbenefited by, wounded by".

Larissa: (20:55)

And that I see the leverage point of working with leaders and raising consciousness around power and all of these aspects of identity because power can be um, we all have inner power and then there's socially conferred power and we're at work...

Daniel: (21:18)

is that your term? is that like a fundamental bifurcation when you think about types of power? Cause I was hoping we would have this conversation

Larissa: (21:23)

I make that like I have thought about my own definition of power. I've looked at the etymology of power. Om power is sometimes used to describe physics, sometimes used with like a controlling warfare-based Paradigm.

Daniel: (21:40)

Yeah, force and power are not necessarily the same thing, though

Larissa: (21:42)

Precisely. And so my definition of power is power is the capacity to move energy through systems.

Daniel: (21:51)

I'm just going to let that percolate for a second. Power is the capacity to move energy through systems.

Larissa: (21:57)

Yeah. So power doesn't have a valence in terms of being positive or negative.

Daniel: (22:04)

Yes. Yeah. It just stays. It's like a gun.

Larissa: (22:07)

Exactly. Or it's like a big tree. Yeah. Or like a big mountain or like the ocean or like lightning or like a rattlesnake and ...

Daniel: (22:17)

Let's just keep naming things. No, no, I like this game!

Larissa: (22:19)

Exactly. Or like a paperclip!

Daniel: (22:21)

or a moose!

Larissa: (22:24)

I was trying to name things that like we culturally associate power with.

Daniel: (22:29)

Yes. Oh, you mean like a good or badness, too. Like, a volcano.

Larissa: (22:34)

Yes. So we can tell. Um, so in our society we can tell a story that power has... Is like a is like a negative thing. Even though it's something we hunger after. And I, in my personal understanding, when we clear and create alignment in our own beings to move, move energy through the systems of our life, that's something every single person, regardless of their background, has access to. It's just part of the human experience.

Daniel: (23:05)

Okay. So this is like, I really want to unpack this...I'm so so excited. We're talking about that because there's the inner power, like I talked about this with regards to conversation where it's like we all have the power of speech. If we, you know, have physically working bodies, like you can't actually, unless you use force, you can't stop somebody from speaking. And so there's this fundamental inner power of I am here, I can participate, but then there's this other part which is systemic or... Uh, you know, based on authority. Um, but then I think there's this other piece which is like distributing power versus taking power. And I don't know, cause I know for myself, like I sometimes feel uncomfortable taking power. Um, and so I reflexively distribute power, which is a kind of taking a power.

Larissa: (23:53)

Yeah. So my current working hypothesis and the way I deal with it is like inner power, you know, which is connecting to my deepest desires...

Daniel: (24:02)

She's gensturing towards gesturing to her, to her core.

Larissa: (24:08)

For all you listeners, all you listeners.

Daniel: (24:10)

Yeah. There was no video for you.

Larissa: (24:14)

And then the other distinction I bring is societaly or culturally conferred power. Yes. Which are the rules we make up about what it means to interact with other humans. And one of those sets of rules can exist in like the type of conduct we have in a particular organization. So, and like the future of work community, we're talking about organizations and primarily businesses and there is um, there is a very common pattern of power arrangement in businesses today and people who are like the CEOs or the leaders or the executives have generally the most power and capacity to move energy through the system.

Daniel: (25:07)

And that is how we define their power in a way.

Larissa: (25:10)

Exactly. And the movement towards self managing systems requires a transformation of that state. Another very, very important aspect of culture and socially conferred power are the stories we tell about the bodies we're in, the identities we inhabit, the um, like religious and spiritual practices we have, our able-bodied-ness or not, um, all the facets of body being like the color of our skin, our, um, gender, you know, all of these aspects of identity. Then we tell stories and create valence about those identities.

Daniel: (25:52)

Sure. Like we assume types of power based on what we know about somebody.

Larissa: (25:59)

Right. And so just to get explicit, like in the United States of America, the fabrication of Whiteness is something that has been reverberating through this country for 400 years. You and I both inhabit bodies that are classified as white. And so we both privilege from that.

Daniel: (26:19)

Totally. And so again, and when I was in college, I remember reading the wages of Whiteness, which I'll try to dig up a link to where even the lowest class, you know, white trash, dirt, poor dirt farmer was still better than a slave, like hours. That was the wages of whiteness. Like even the lowest of the low totem pole. White Guy. Still one tick above. You know, and that is, and that's one of the things that helped reinforce the system. Obviously fear comes up when we try to the...oh man, we're going to talk about this now, like the, the making of a quality makes, feels like dis-equality to people who are that one tick above. And now it's like, Oh shit, I'm just the same as everyone else. I no longer even have that.... Just terrible.

Larissa: (27:11)

Right. And still how so in this like very large conversation that I feel is, you know, I'm just like one tiny little helper in it and there's millions, millions of people around the world and around the country contributing to the connection/ Disconnection conversation ...is to recognize like there are consequences and costs of the disconnection story and behaviors to every single person operating under the illusions told and the disconnection stories. It's like, oh, sure. Like, so if we look at privilege and oppression, it's like obvious how, um, any group of people inhabiting like the oppressed vector side are not winning in the disconnection story. But then when we look at the privilege, um, the....my experience, uh, I have a very embodied experience in my life.

Larissa: (28:18)

I've experienced near fatal accident and healing for eight years and the somatics of, clearing trauma. Yes. And I believe the human organism. And I've experienced how the human organism, when we are not connected, we're not, we don't, we literally don't have as much life force accessible. And the burden of what, um, hate does in the body to organs, and to our systems, and to our creative capacity, and to our energy and to our hearts. And what fear does and what, um, what like deep, like long held anger

Larissa: (29:14)

In traditional Chinese medicine...So I, um, we'll bring this in. I did a medical Chigong practitioner training last year cause medical Chigong was very important for me and healing my own body. Traditional Chinese medicine, they're, they're, um, like five, at least five. There are more. But like there are at least five main organ systems that are looked at and they all have what's considered a psycho-emotional aspect. So if we look at the liver, for example, the original nature of the liver is kindness. The acquired nature of liver is anger. When we do not have clear boundaries because the liver is the organ that filters our blood when we're not like correctly filtering... Than we feel violated. And that can make us angry.

Daniel: (30:05)

Hmm. So when we can release those, those negative experiences, that positive experience is available to us.

Larissa: (30:13)

Yeah. And that so many aspects, I mean there are plenty of scientific studies that have better demonstrating that deeply held emotional experiences in our body have physical ramifications.

Daniel: (30:29)

Yes. Yeah.

Larissa: (30:32)

So, so like it's all, it's like one thread pull on this whole system and the reason to come back to like why wayfinding is because the sensing intelligence...see, getting there! we didn't lose it.... Um, the sensing intelligence in our beings just like a plant that is sun-loving is always moving towards the light. It's always moving towards that which feeds us. And so when we tap into that listening, it will tell us how to navigate into deeper relationship with each other, into greater trust, into clear understanding of what our needs are. Um, the grief that we haven't yet released, the forgiveness we need to embrace. And when we clear away the blockage or stagnation, then that creates the space for flow.

Daniel: (31:30)

Yes. Yeah. Well, so I want to ground this because this is really, I know that this stuff is valuable and you know, just from the simple aspect of when a company thinks that when we think we're separate from nature, it's okay to pollute nature, right? When we are separate from other people, it's okay to create, um, more unequal, more inequality by our practices. Right? Um, and the question of like is this, you know, I have a friend who's, who's an engineer and he's at inner conflict with himself because he's automating jobs and he knows it's create stress in him where he's like, I'm an engineer and I'm doing my best work and I'm creating misery in the world so that I can make money and pay for the coaching and the retreats and my own growth. And like what the actual f about that. And so my question for you is, um,

Daniel: (32:33)

I know that people need some of this work. I know that what companies generally ask for is how do we go faster, cheaper, and smarter. And you know, when I come into an organization, it's like, okay, facilitation skills, we need those. Because it helps us sell better and build better, you know, innovation, product design. Like that's my entry point. Um, how, where do you start the conversation with an organization? What are they asking for and what do you want to offer, right? Like what's the balance of like of the conversation of like, oh we are think we're getting this but I slipped, you know, you're putting spinach into the brownies versus like maybe I'm, maybe I'm, you know, cynical or, or small minded and companies are like, "yes, Larissa show us how to wayfind!" But I'm guessing that people are like, Hey, can we talk about inclusion and power?

Daniel: (33:30)

Like that's something I know. Do you know what I mean? Like there's an anchor point for every consultant who's listening and then there are many like how do you mix the like here's what I, here's what they're asking for versus like here's, here's my north star. Cause I'm guessing that not every company is, is where your, there's not enough teal companies in the world who are asking for that. Is that wrong? Like, do, do you under, do you, do you follow them?

Larissa: (33:58)

I totally understand that question.

Daniel: (34:00)

And a lot of people are asking for conversation, help us redesign all the conversations at our company. Right. That's not, that's not a, that's not a thing. It's like the secret sauce. So I'm just assuming that that's potentially of your context too.

Larissa: (34:14)

Yeah. So I worked for several consultancies, um, and I also had a business prior to wayfinding. Um, and we're at this interesting moment in cultural evolution where if you look at the phenomenon of companies caring more about their people, companies caring more about the earth. But also if we like just look at companies caring more about people. When you start pulling on this thread like this desire to be a more human work workplace to value culture, to value the human experience at work, to make meaningful work, to have purpose driven work, you start pulling on that thread and what you surface are all of the tensions around disconnection. And so what comes up is an integrity moment.

Larissa: (35:25)

And I tend to accelerate the consideration of that question.

Daniel: (35:30)

That is the most wonderfully euphemistic phrase! "I accelerate the consideration of that question" ...you are a catalyst for crying. That's what I'm hearing.

Larissa: (35:43)

Well...it's basically like...So here, here's what I, here's how, here's an example of a conversation cause I will work with people at different levels and through the course of my career I have had a shifting baseline of, of um, base requirements. So now one of my base requirements for, um, engagement is like if I'm going to do a deep engagement with the group and this is excluded from if I'm like doing a workshop for them or we're doing a ritual or a ceremony or like things that are even more "entry". Um, but if they want to step into longer deeper work, one of my requirements for being in relationship is to have permission to mirror the points where I see, um, ego being surfaced and how it impacts the infrastructure of the company.

Daniel: (36:44)

Yeah. Being willing to call out.

Larissa: (36:46)

Yes. Because if I don't have permission to do that, then I'm dancing around the whole conversation that I can see that I know is impacting every other conversation. And so what I illuminate is, look, you can either invest in a brand new strategy, which is like building a house on like a rotting, like set of a rotting foundation or broken foundation. And so like you can sync like the money and the time and the energy and like the branding campaign for the new strategy and then the internal employee experience branding campaign and then like, oh, like it's, we still have a leak. Or we can do the courageous thing, that is uncomfortable and that will require us to put down aspects of denial. And to go on the exploration to see what courageous and connected leadership looks like.

Daniel: (37:51)

Yeah. So what I love about that is the thing that I've been thinking about lately is in any conversation, any interaction, there's uh, there's surface, there's, you know, we can have a fact based exchange where there's a willingness to go deep and to go even deeper. And,,, It's just interesting to hear how you're looking for signals of their readiness and availability to talk about the real stuff. And to create a boundary for yourself of, Hey, listen, I'm not going to make myself vulnerable and participate in a toxic culture. Like I don't care, you know, if you want me to come in and do a ritual a week for the next 10 years, it's like, whoa, there's no interest in what's really going to matter about that. So it's just really, I love hearing how you're sensitized to that

Larissa: (38:43)

it is a really nuanced conversation because, um, because then it raises the question of compassion and engagement. So I, I have a deep belief in human beings and I also know how the structure of the human ego operates, you know, and so that it's, um, I love supporting people who are open. I am not in the business of like, I'm not brought alive by the act of Oh, of opening, of being like, oh, I don't care about this at all. To then being like, oh, maybe like there's a, there's a level of commitment or current operating investment of energy in the disconnection, in disconnection patterns that there, um, so many practitioners and service providers who their contribution to the cycle is like, is like, let's start considering more connection based worldviews and paradigms without using that language.

Larissa: (40:00)

Um, and my sweet spot, I also just know like my, we can't live in all parts of the ecosystem, you know, and my sweet spot is have you started playing with some things and do you really have this longing? Because also there's this amazing aspect in human beings, once we start to experience more aliveness and creativity and connection and more power in self and in group, and to see what becomes possible, then we're like, let's go. And it gives us, that gives us the motivation and the fuel to encounter what is uncomfortable and to heal and to be courageous and to try new things. And that's, and then, and then when like people start seeing it working, they're like, oh my gosh, look at this. And so also in the grounding, I can give an example.

Larissa: (40:57)

I worked with the founding team of four partners for nine months, did a cascading rite of passage from their relationship constellation to their relationship constellation, um, with their six reporting directors and then how that like respired out to the rest of their organization. And that we did relational healing and um, asking like, how are, what are we bringing to the table that gets in the way and what are the unconscious aspects of our inhabitation our and to acknowledge what's occurred to date.Because we can't move on very well if we don't acknowledge.

Daniel: (41:40)

And that requires tremendous slowing down and tremendous noticing, which is uncomfortable and people would rather not do it mostly. So I, I feel I'm looking at as the facilitator of this conversation...We're getting close to our time together and so on. I'm wondering is, with all of that time thinking about, um, two things, one, what happened, we talked about that we should talk about, is there something that we haven't touched on about your work that's important. And one thing that I'm thinking of is we haven't really talked about ritual and designing ritual. We just seeded that in the beginning and we're like, oh, that's another thing. Because rituals are things that sometimes I think we think of as given and wrote and like Passover, which is a ritual. Versus like designing ritual. And I think for me, I'm trying to think about how teams do need to have rituals and, and I'm wondering like where your ritual work. That's something I'm interested in talking about. Maybe you want to talk about something else, but that's, that's sort of what's on my mind of like something I really want to get from you before we, before we go, what else is on your mind that you want to touch on before we go?

Larissa: (42:48)

I'm happy to go there. Okay. I have one thing I want to say before....

Daniel: (42:53)

She''s moving her fingers like a Mr. Burns sort of way

Larissa: (42:57)

So, um, one thing, so the story of wayfinding, um, that name, which this is important and the honoring.. Wayfinding is, um, if you look it up online, it's like considered the skill of being able to navigate, um, like poorly marked paths or unknown territories. And it can be like dead reckoning or value across landscapes are how you cross oceans. And, um, I, after my master's I had the wonderful fortune to learn, um, you know, skills of becoming of a place again. So animal tracking, wilderness survival, wildcrafting and, um, learned from a man named John Young.

Daniel: (43:54)

Can you give us some links to that where people can learn more about that stuff?

Larissa: (43:58)

Sure.

Daniel: (43:58)

I remember reading Todd brown stuff where it's like,

Daniel: (44:00)

John Young was mentored by Tom Brown... He was Tom Brown's first mentee and he was the first one who received this like deep, deep nature connection mentoring. Tom Brown is a man who lives in New Jersey who was mentored by an Apache Elder names Stalking Wolf

Daniel: (44:17)

which makes them, doesn't sound as interesting as he is. Like, he's from Jersey, not New Jersey.

Larissa: (44:24)

Hey, let's not dump on New jersey for a minute...they take a lot of heat

Daniel: (44:25)

Sorry. I'm from Manhattan...it's part of our story.

Larissa: (44:27)

No, no, no. I get it. I get it. It's part of the story.

Daniel: (44:33)

but I mean for me, like when I think of Tom Brown...the thing where he's touching your chest and like using yourself as a pendulum to try and understand where to go to next. Like there's some really deep stuff when it comes to wilderness... Being in the wilderness and, and not losing your way. Hashtag not a metaphor

Larissa: (44:52)

exactly like the, um, to recognize the indigenous lines that John was representing, this teaching to me. So like a Acumba of east Africa. I'm Hawaiian Culture, Lakotas and Apaches of North America. Um, the, these like different traditions of, of understanding how to read the signs of place and life. And wayfinding specifically was a role in Polynesian navigation culture. And so that they're, uh, anthropologist named Wade Davis wrote a book called the wayfinders about different wayfinding traditions. Um, in like the largest aspect of the definition. And I grew up as a sailor. And the conversation between wind and water was in a lot of ways, the beginning of my understanding how to listen to subtle, very clear, but also complex patterns. To find our way. And so that's, that's like the line and that's the honoring that I want to give and naming that.

Larissa: (46:06)

And that's also how it connects to ritual and ceremony because in that, um, training and this, it was a similar part of my life and my dad died the first ceremony, I designed was my dad's memorial service. And it was a really amazing opportunity and I realize like what a beautiful creation of love it got to be because we, it was, uh, you know, we weren't following a rote religious form for my dad's memorial service. Um, and then since then having the experience of ceremonies from different traditions and realizing this erosion of symbolic acts where as symbolic animals, when we externalize an experience with /through metaphor or um, you know, whether it's like where you were working with fire or, um, like I did an initiation ritual with a philanthropic board the other day where I had them use redwood seeds to symbolize the seeds that they're planting for this large vision they hold and then Pacific Ocean water because it's the water that unites their countries of the members present and then the branches to represent like, what are you putting down as you start this? So there can be more space.

Larissa: (47:41)

When we do that, it actually more deeply imprints into our being the consciousness of our choices and the updating of the stories and the internal conversations we have. So I choose ritual as, um, as an important vehicle to bring people into spaces of coherent awareness and meaning and to let their aliveness breath through in ways that we're not used to. And I also know that we are, we often feel like ritual and ceremony are like need to be deeply steeped in tradition because of those, the like disconnection reverbs that have been happening through time, a lot of ceremonies and rituals have been lost. And one of the beautiful things about human beings is we can listen to the energetic needs of a group and create an experience that meets them there. And in that way we're reweaving what's needed.

Daniel: (48:52)

I think it's beautiful and very much in line with my thinking of how I design a facilitative experience as an experience of where are they now and where do they need to get to. But we're speaking not just to their intellectual needs but to their emotional needs and providing them with metaphor to ground them. that is really powerful.

Larissa: (49:16)

So I have a question for you.

Daniel (49:18)

A question for me?!

Larissa: (49:19)

Yeah. For you! So when you, cause we, we have a similar frame and I'm curious, what are the things you consider when you see where a group is at present and where they need to go and how do you decide what to put forward to help get them there?

Daniel: (49:39)

Hmm. Well, I mean like you said, it's a question of like what they're ready for. It's a question of like the aperture, like what, what their level of interest is. Also like, you know, a nine month engagement with, with the six person leadership team, like that's great to get that level of buy-in. Um, in my own work, uh, stretching it out from this is not going to be a two day workshop. It can't be a two day workshop. People love it for just be a two day workshop and it's so much easier to do that. And so to me, like very often I still do think about the like, hey, how do I fit this into the smallest amount of space possible? For me, I think it's a question of when I teach facilitation stuff, I, I talk about how, um, the metaphor, the model you use determines what ingredients you put in.

Daniel: (50:31)

And so like, I'll reference and if you haven't listened to it, it's one of my favorite interviews, um, with Kate Quarfordt. Um, her, she uses this four seasons, a wheel that she co-created with one of her students. And when I teach people the four seasons, we all, they're like, wait, celebration and, and reflection are, are the part of the, the, the, the cycle? And I'm like, yes it is. And as a winter in my mind, I had my palate on when I was, when I was a teenager because, because of my mother, um, who will listen to this? Thanks mom. I love having my colors done, but it was weird. Um, winter is about regeneration, right? You can't, you can overwork soil, right? It's not doing nothing in the winter, right? It's you, you, you plant mustard grass and Dandelion and you just turn it over and then it's good again, like you, it needs to rest.

Daniel: (51:26)

And two years ago when I did a facilitation masterclass with my friend Mathias, who does a lot of visual thinking stuff, he's super into reflection and I don't think I was, I don't know if I'd done the, the, the interview with, with, with Kate at that point. He really spearheaded, he's like, no, we're going to do this if we're going to this masterclass, right? We need to have like 30 minutes of reflective journaling before lunch on day one and like 10 minutes of reflective journaling... after lunch on day two, and I was like, wow, nothing, right? Like people are paying money for this experience. We have to do things with them and teach them things. Um, but like giving them time with themselves is, is regenerative. Right? And so to me, it's actually like what's in your spice rack at all, right?

Daniel: (52:19)

You have some things in your spice rack that are not in my spice rack. Um, like water from the Pacific Ocean, not on my spice rack, right? But reflection is, and celebration is like, I've seen people run innovation days and workshops where, you know, at least they know that everyone in the group should high five each other, right? Like at least like the littlest moment of like, yeah, we did it. Versus like, no, we need to share the story of our project and I've, I've done this, made this mistake myself where people have created this thing and you're like, okay, great, let's do the critique. And it's like, well, no, they need to share it out. They need to get the, the reinforcement that they did a good thing, right? And so to me like it's about what are your, what are even your ingredients of the experience?

Daniel: (53:05)

And so to me, like my fundamental ingredients are opening, exploring and closing, generating, supporting and then landing and then like what you put into those things are whatever. But to me, like I think celebration and reflection are now will, like because of Kate just baked into my brain of like those two seasons, autumn and winter are just essential to me. Kate if you're listening you, you're the best. And that wheel, even if I don't use it explicitly, it's implicitly, always part of what I do. Where there will be celebration. There will be a reflection. Does that answer your question at all? I don't know.

Larissa: (53:43)

It totally answers my question. I also learned the wheel. The um, you know, many, many cultures have a four part, um, in particular many Native American cultures you know, medicine wheels...And what Iearned from John Young, It was like what are the eight directions or these energies that like flow to each other? Cause we can, and this is why to make this accessible. If someone's like, what are you talking about? I don't like what are the seasons? Um, this is the reason why ergonomically when we show up to a meeting, if we dive straight in, yeah. Straight into the content. It's interesting because if you think about showing up to someone's house and you get in the door and they're like, welcome, completely sit down for dinner, you're like, Whoa, whoa. Was that like, where was the arrival?

Daniel (54:42)

Where do I hang up my coat? I take my shoes off. What's going on?

Larissa: (54:47)

Exactly. Hi. Nice to see you. We need to have opening just like we need to have sunrise just like we need to have spring.

Daniel: (54:55)

Also like I don't think anybody would argue that...Well, what's interesting about Kate's approaches, like obviously there are these moments in the year, but this is when we'd go back to your, your not your thing. Um, but like the thing you mentioned about how we are disconnected from nature is like what really pisses me off about daylight savings is this idea that like that we should just like have the same working hours all year long, but we aren't connected to nature. Like there should be winter out. Like, you know, it's like summer Fridays. Like there should be Winter Mondays, right? Just get to stay home and be depressed, you know, or just can I sleep later on a cold day like this? Like I just need some more time with my oatmeal. And so we, we obviously work, it's a very, it's a privilege to say the lake that my work should flow with the seasons. There's a lot of people have jobs that like we all rely on people showing up and doing what has to be done right. Regardless o f how they feel. But we also need to talk about the cost of that...Wow we're just spiraling. I love it.

Larissa: (56:02)

I like it because these things...one of the patterns I've seen in our conversation (This will be the last thing I say) is the capacity for these topics to expand to like great, take up great space and to occupy, you know, a lifetime of work or long engagements with clients or hours of conversation... But they can also pack down, they can like go down into a little seed yes. Into a little high five. Into five minutes of journaling that there are ways to start and sprout and keep going. And I am, uh, I have loved this. I am so grateful to you for the conversations you host for the reflection that you host on how we have conversations. Um, and when, when I learned about conversation factory, uh, and your work, I was just so excited that you invited me to participate. So thanks.

Daniel: (57:04)

Thank you. Okay, well, so like I want to ask you one more question. This is those as this is one of Tim Ferriss' favorite questions and I, and it just, it, it sparked in my brain. So I'm going to ask you like, cause we're talking about seeds and Compacting it down and planting that seed. Um, one of his favorite questions is like, if you could, if I'm going to give you a billboard. Hmm. You know, on a very, very, you know, well traveled highway, um, what's Larissa's message to the world that belongs on that? Like the, the thing that you want people to, you know, and I remember they have to be able to read this, uh, at at 65 miles an hour and not die.

Larissa: (57:44)

MMM. Okay.

Daniel (57:48)

Her left eyebrow has gone up ladies gentlemen. And

Larissa (57:52)

I'm gonna, I'm gonna give you two variations of it cause I'm like, oh, this 60 miles an hour, um,

Larissa: (58:02)

Tend your aliveness like a precious flame... Or variation B...

Daniel: (58:09)

That was good. I liked that.

Larissa: (58:10)

Thank you. Or: Tend our liveliness, like a precious flame.

Daniel: (58:19)

That's really lovely. Thank you. And, and being aware of and sensitized to that alive in a room and a group in an organization that is the skill of all the people who want to create change like you first, which was to your question of like, how do you even know what's going on? You're like, well, I have to, I feel it. I detect it. You know, looking for little little twitches and putting two and patching together a narrative from that.

Daniel: (58:50)

Well, it's been a wonderful conversation. I really appreciate you making the time. It's really lovely to have this reflection time with you. Um, I will call ...and scene!

Organizational Change is a Conversation

Buckle in, ladies and gentlemen, for some straight talk about the future of work, the nature of the universe and the power of changing systems to change behavior.

Today I’m sharing a deep and rambling conversation I had a few months back with Aaron Dignan, author of Brave New Work and founder of the Ready, an org transformation partner to companies like Airbnb, Edelman and charity: water. He is a cofounder of responsive.org, an amazing community of like-minded transformation professionals. If you haven’t checked out their conference, it’s great. I co-facilitated some sessions there last year and I can highly recommend it. You should also check out the episode I had recently on asking better questions with Robin Zander, who hosts the conference.

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2019/4/23/robin-p-zander-asking-better-questions

I owe a debt of gratitude to Aaron. It was his OS Canvas, published in 2016 on Medium, that got me thinking differently about my own work in Conversation Design and led me to develop my own Conversation OS Canvas. His OS Canvas clarified and simplified a complex domain of thinking – organizational change – into (then) just nine factors. In the book it’s evolved into 12 helpful prompts to provoke clear thinking and to accelerate powerful conversations about how to change the way we work – if you are willing to create the time and space for the conversation.

Aaron doesn’t pull any punches – as he says, “the way we work is badly broken and a century old”. And he figures that “a six year old could design a good org, you just have to ask the socratic questions.” His OS Canvas can help you start the conversation about changing the way you work in your org and his excellent book will help you dive deep into principles, practices and stories for each element of the OS.

You’ll find in the show notes some deep-dives on the two core principles of org design from the book. The first principle is being complexity Conscious. The second is being people positive. For more on complexity – dig into Cynefin (which is not spelled the way it sounds). And for more on people positivity, there’s a link to Theory X vs Theory Y, a very helpful mental model in management theory.

Another powerful idea that I want to highlight is Aaron’s suggestion that we all have our own “system of operating” or “a way of being in the world” which is “made up of assumptions and principles and practices and norms and patterns of behavior and it's coded into the system.” 

Aaron goes on to say that “people are chameleons and people are highly sensitive to the culture and environment they're in. And the system, the aquarium, the container tells us a lot about how we're supposed to show up. And over time it can even beat us into submission. And so we have to change the system and that's hard to do when we're reinforcing things that we ourselves didn't even create,”

From my own work on conversation design, it’s very clear to me that communication is held in a space, or transmitted through an interface – the air, the internet, a whiteboard. The space your culture happens in is one very key component of how to shift your culture. Check out my episode with Elliot of Brightspot Strategy for more on changing conversations through changing spaces:

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2017/7/24/elliot-felix-of-brightspot-strategy-on-changing-conversations-through-changing-spaces

Changing your physical space is easy compared with shifting power and distributing authority more thoughtfully in your organization. To do that, we need to shift not just our org structures, but our own OS:  we need more leaders who can show up as facilitators and coaches rather than order-givers. And that takes, as Aaron points out, a brave mindset. 

If you want to become a more facilitative leader of innovation and change in your company, you should definitely apply before August to the first cohort of the 12-week Innovation Leadership Accelerator I’m co-hosting with Jay Melone from New Haircut, a leader in Design Sprint Training. It kicks off in NYC with a 2-day workshop in September, runs for 12 weeks of remote coaching and closes with another 2-day workshop. We’ll have several amazing guest coaches during the program – a few of which have been wonderful guests on this very show: Jim Kalbach, author of Mapping Experiences and head of Customer Success at Mural and Bree Groff, Principle at SY Partners and former CEO of change consultancy NOBL.

Show Notes

The OS Canvas Medium post that started it all for me:

https://medium.com/the-ready/the-os-canvas-8253ac249f53

The Ready

https://theready.com/

Brave New Work

https://www.bravenewwork.com/

Complexity Conscious: Cynefin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework

Being people positive: Theory X vs Theory Y

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

Capitalism needs to be reformed: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/04/05/capitalism-needs-to-be-reformed-warns-billionare-ray-dalio.html

The Lake Wobegon Effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon

Game Frame

https://www.amazon.com/Game-Frame-Using-Strategy-Success/dp/B0054U5EHA

The Four Sons as four personalities at work in us: 

https://reformjudaism.org/jewish-holidays/passover/which-four-children-are-you

MECE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MECE_principle

Fish and Water: 

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/97082-there-are-these-two-young-fish-swimming-along-and-they

The Finger and the Moon:

https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/i-am-a-finger-pointing-to-the-moon-dont-look-at-me-look-at-the-moon/

also from Amelie!

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/am%C3%A9lie

Zen Flesh, Zen Bones

https://www.amazon.com/Zen-Flesh-Bones-Collection-Writings/dp/0804831866

Agile

https://agilemanifesto.org/

Open Source Agility: http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2017/6/23/dan-mezick-on-agile-as-an-invitation-to-a-game

The Heart of Agile 

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2017/7/19/alistair-cockburn-on-the-heart-of-agile-jazz-dialog-and-guest-leadership

Lean

https://www.lean.org/WhatsLean/Principles.cfm

Open

https://opensource.com/open-organization

Information Radiators

http://www.agileadvice.com/2005/05/10/bookreviews/information-radiators/

Asking better questions:

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2019/4/23/robin-p-zander-asking-better-questions

Loss in Change: 

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/season-three/bree-groff-grief-and-change

Mapping experiences:

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2018/2/5/jim-kalbach-gets-teams-to-map-experiences

Interview Transcript:

Daniel: So I'll officially welcome you to the conversation factory. Aaron. I really do appreciate you making the time to do this. You are in the long, you're in the long tail of your sprint, getting your book out into the world,

Aaron: ...almost there, almost there, and happy to be here. This is going to be fun.

Daniel: Thanks man. I mean obviously like I think back to like when I met you and we're like sitting in the park and...

Aaron: Yeah, you had an instrument of some kind?

Daniel: yeah! ....And you had this dream, like you were building this new thing and you're like, I feel like you've just crushed it .... in the most beautiful nonviolent way of crushing it, building this thing.

Aaron: Well, it looks good from afar. It's actually been, you know, difficult and fun and challenging and you know, up and down. But uh, it is, it's working. It's, we're doing the work that we want to do in the world.

Daniel: Yeah. And so like that's ... So I think that's actually a great transition because like the call to action on your book is strong. Like it's like, are you ready to change your organization? Like I could see how this is pushing out the idea that you're really passionate about. That's what this book is about, is trying to like, get people to say like, yeah, I am ready to do that. Tell me how!

Aaron: we had a, we had a big debate actually at the, at the publisher about, you know, what's the right subtitle for the book. And obviously as you're alluding to the message of the book is that, you know, the way we work is, is badly broken and, and, and you know, in most cases a century old and needs to be changed. I'm to something more adaptive and more human. But um, but the question of how to say that was, was really a challenge. So we tried all these different subtitles that they all felt like sort of traditional business bookie, sort of titles, you know, ditch bureaucracy and change your life forever. It Dah, Dah, Dah, Dah, Dah, Dah

Daniel: "A five part manual to blank, blank, blank, blank and blank."

Aaron: Exactly. And then someone said, why don't we just do a question? Like no one's done a question as a subtitle in a long time, why don't we do that? And then it became really clear because you know, the work is, is curiosity led. It's about questions. It's about asking yourself things we don't always ask ourselves. So it was cool to start with, are you ready to, to reinvent your organization? And you know, for most people the answer might be no. But for a lot that I run into the answer is hell yes.

Daniel: Yeah. And you're definitely this rallying cry like, and then here's the tools, here's how to do it.

Aaron: Right, right. Here's the way to start at least. I mean, I think one of the, one of my big goals with the book is not necessarily for everybody to have some "from to" journey cause I don't think that's what it's about, but it's really just about like, you know, are you ready to start being more deliberate and more considered in the way you work as an individual, as a team member, as a founder? Like are you willing to sort of take this stuff seriously?

Daniel: Well, so this is, I didn't actually think I would start this conversation this way, but like I think one of my theses in, in looking at things through the lens of conversation is that conversations are organic, ongoing and iterative. And as opposed to, you know, one that's mechanistic...

Aaron: They're not speeches

Daniel: yeah, they're not speeches. And in a way like starting with the question is starting the conversation of like, well are you ready to start changing your organization and what does that mean and how do we start and what does it look like and what does done mean? Does done ever happen? Like it seems to me that changing the organization is, is a conversation.

Aaron: Absolutely. And I mean in many ways an organization is nothing more than a set of conversations. Right? Like the, the main, the main fuel that flows through any gathering of people is communication.

Daniel: Yeah. It's like a bundle of like, I think of it as like a topography, like, uh, you know, like water flows and certain valleys in and other places. And it's like, so this gets to the question of like, what can you change about the topography, right? What's changeable?

Aaron: Right, What can we change about the structure that changes the conversations. Yeah. And the nature of the relationships, right? Cause if we can change the relationships, then we've changed the entity. So how do we change the relationships between us? And that means looking at, you know, our relationships and how they touch to things like power and information flow like we just described and structure and resources and you know all the other things that we get into.

Daniel: Yeah. It's like, I mean my mind is crackling with you know, cause power. It's something I want to understand better but which parts of this is not, I'm not leading the question, where are those questions going at all, but like which parts of the conversation are hard, where does the conversation hit a snag. And I would guess that power and shifting power is one of those those things

Aaron: For sure. Yeah, I mean I think one of the things I find surprising is that the first and foremost snag is to have the conversation like that at the time and space and, and a commitment to say, hey, let's stop working.

Aaron: Let's stop rushing. Let's stop our never ending quest for growth for one hour and talk about how the way we work is serving us or not serving us. That already is, it would be a huge step forward because we just don't have the conversation.

Daniel: Yes.

Aaron: You know, people go from meeting to meeting project or project week two week job to job until they retire or die. Yeah. And, and it's sort of like, you know, how do we actually make pause and make space and they're out the drawer a little bit so that we can think and we can observe and reflect. And so I think that's the first impediment to the conversation. And then, yeah, I think the second one is about, you know, identity and ego and power, which is, you know, if, if we're moving to a model as, as I'm sort of proposing and observing frankly in the book, it's not like I'm just making this stuff up.

Aaron: What I'm, when I'm observing in the book is organizations moving to a model that is more decentralized and requires more, um, you know, sort of more power and more ways and more transparency, um, and more participation in shaping the, you know, not just the work, but the way of working in the organization than a lot of people start to ask questions like, well, who am I then if I was the Checker, if I was the reviewer, if I was the yes, no person, then what does that mean for me? So I think there's, there's a lot of that kind of stuff going on and also just, um, the conversation of being uncertain and uncomfortable. Right? So what might happen if we, you know, what if got rid of a rule that's driving everyone crazy and we didn't have a replacement, what might happen? Right? And how do I feel about that uncertainty?

Aaron: And you know, that that control, I think sometimes even more than power is, is actually the hot button. It's the thing that we're worried about.

Daniel: Yeah. I mean, could, I mean, I don't know...is control different than power?

Aaron: Well in a way..

Daniel: Or are we, like, putting too fine a point on on that?

Aaron: Yeah. Let me see what I mean when I think the distinction is, and it may not be that you know, this is dictionary level true, but what I think the distinction is is often when I talk about power, I think about power with and over others. So how I relate to others and what I can tell people to do or not do. And you know, that kind of thing. I think about control certainly of other people, but also thinking about control of in the world, right? Can I ever really control what happens to me and to my business, my family into the market and, and this illusion of control that we're so in love with, with the plan and the, the rules and the boundaries that say like, Oh, I'm safer now because everything's in place, right?

Aaron: That when I talk about control, I sort of mean controlling the universe. Right? And not just other people

Daniel: You know, it's a friend of mine who's a senior Ux leader, he is being pushed by his organization to like make a five year plan. And he's like, no I won't. And they're like "no you have to!",

Aaron: He knows how crazy that is.

Daniel: Like I can't give you a three or five year roadmap. Like I don't know if people are going to be using apps like I don't know if people are going to be people anymore like

Aaron: right!

Daniel: But that's really scary. But we'll, so I mean cause I mean we're talking about some really fundamental things to like, pardon the French but fuck with, because this fucks with people, I mean just in my own experience

Aaron: And it's really just a trade, right? I mean I think the, when you first started talking about new ways of working and and self management and self organization and things like that, people's, I think many people's heads go to the idea of like, oh well the options then control, no control, chaos or bureaucracy.

Daniel: Like everything is false dichotomy there. Those are false dichotomies.

Aaron: And the reality is like, no, I just want you to trade one kind of control for another. So I always make the analogy, if you were, you know, sailing a boat across the Atlantic and you could steer once or every minute, which would you choose? Everyone's like, obviously I would choose every minute. Why? Because it gives you greater control. And then I'm like, cool, tell me about your annual plan. And it's like, you know, we're just doing the exact opposite in a different context because somehow it feels more like control.

Daniel: That's sneaky! That's not fair. You know the answer to that question, just setting people up to fail with that thought experiment!

Aaron: I do a lot of that, Actually I do a lot of that in my speeches, in my workshops. So I sort of, I ask, you know, questions that, that the commonsensical answer is yes.

Aaron: The point though is, is that yes, common sense is actually pretty good when it comes to org design. Like, if you actually just listened to your comments and sentence and then translate it. It's that we have all these other ideas that we've absorbed and metastasized that, that make the way we work. So, you know, weird and Byzantine and inhuman. Yes. Um, so like we're actually a six year old is capable of designing a good organization. You just have to like ask the Socratic questions.

Daniel: Do you think this is a very potentially controversial question? Like is all of this stuff that we're trying to do create more human companies being more um, uh, distributed? Is it, uh, in opposition to capitalism? Like are...

Aaron: no, no, I don't think it is actually. I think, um,

Daniel: because it seems like capitalism like, concentrates power necessarily and, uh, it's about ownership of the system versus authorship and...

Aaron: it is in opposition to advanced capitalism and crony capitalism. Yes. Um, but I think, you know, there's a big difference between the capitalism that we live in right now and capitalism, the idea ...of you say like, do we need competition and free markets? I would say, hell yes. And in fact, most of the companies we study in the book have extremely marketplace oriented systems, right? They have people serving people in relationships and agreements that you know where the things that work continue in the things that don't work, die. So that's very capitalist. The question though is in service of what, and so if you know, if you're capitalism os basically says that this is in service of never ending growth and ultimate winners who control monopolistic enterprises, that will lead you to a very particular definition. But if the, if the free market and the competition is about who can do you know, what's best for the community, then we're still competing.

Aaron: We're just competing on different terms. And so to me like capitalism is, you know, yes, obviously there's some, some aspects to, you know, who owns labor and who owns the means of production and all that kind of stuff. And, and I think you can get into that, but it's becomes a gray area to me. Like yeah, we already live in a world with a lot of socialism and a lot of capitalism and guess what I think the future is going to contain. Bits of both. Yes. And that's all fine.

Daniel: That's not American! Aaron, first of all, I'm just telling...

Aaron: sorry!

Daniel: ...but did you ever get pushback from leaders on this of like, well if I, if I let go of this control, it's, you know, they own the company, right?

Aaron: No, actually what's funny is with people who literally own their company, they don't have a problem because they're probably quite wealthy already and they're much more interested in the meaning and impact and nature of the work they do and being less stressed out by having to try to run everything.

Aaron: The problem is people who run companies but don't own them, who are subject to the demands of a faceless investor class that that effectively, that's where the real issue lies, right? That you know, your, your 401k holds shares in a thing alongside a big, you know, police pension fund that are demanding a certain rate of return actually, you know, nobody's really accountable for, and then it's put on the, on the, you know, sort of before the feet of the CEO. So, but what's weird is like in the book I talk about these two, mindsets, people positive and complexity conscious and the people positive mindset was the one about how almost all the cultures and examples I looked at, take it, take it as a given that people can be trusted and should be respected and should be, you know, that they're motivated by autonomy and mastery and purpose and connectedness and all these sorts of things rather than carrots and sticks.

Aaron: And rather than saying that people are sort of inherently untrustworthy or evil or stupid or any of the other myriad things that most businesses assume in their, in their model, right?

Daniel: Yeah, yeah.

Aaron: If you, if you have a clock where people punch in and punch out, you are assuming and not people positive characteristic that people are going to take advantage. So, so that was one view. And then the other view, complexity conscious is about recognizing that the world is complex. It's dynamic, it's uncertain, it's unpredictable. And so therefore we need to, uh, solve problems and build models and build organizations to adapt to that, to be, to be able to, you know, respond and sense accordingly. And what's weird is when you put them in tension with each other, that's where things get really interesting. So it's sort of the map back to the capitalism question, you know, all way itself, the complexity conscious mindset leads to these companies that are like relentless learners at the expense of the people inside and the customers themselves.

Aaron: And you can think, you can think of who I might be referring to, right? Like you can think of companies that learn really fast, but it sounds like they're ultimately not going to be good for us. Um,

Daniel: well cause we're gonna automate everything and put people out of business, out of jobs

Aaron: but they're just gonna, they're gonna follow the data to our, to our lowest common denominator,

Daniel: out worst impulses of clicky, click, click, click.

Aaron: yeah, we end up in the Wally World. So I think that's, that's one side of it. But then the people positive side pulls in the other direction says, no, you know, what's the most humanist, most human centric, most community oriented thing we can do. And of course that left to its own devices becomes really bad because you end up making you make bad stuff. Like it's, you're not even necessarily learning, adapting, you're not, you're not competing in a market of ideas.

Aaron: And so you end up with some really lazy work and some, you know, some, not all, but some nonprofits kind of go that way where they're there. So people focused that they almost suck at what they do ultimately. Right? Yeah. They've sort of forgotten what that is when their in tension, that's when things get really interesting. And I would say the same thing for capitalism and socialism, right? Like it's when we, it's when these things tug on each other that things get interesting.

Daniel: I think it's interesting and I'm glad that, I mean like I assume you saw the, um, the Ray Dalio video where he was talking about like, capitalism needs a reboot.

Aaron: Yeah.

Daniel: And so it's great that people are questioning the rules by which we live by. I I want to talk about OSs, but I will before we go into that, like we sort of touched on this idea of theory x versus theory y and I want to make it like explicit because I think in the book you made a really interesting point that, uh, for ourselves we're like, oh yeah, I'm conscientious, I'm, you know, thoughtful. But those people like...

Aaron: those other people...

Daniel: Yeah. So like that's a really, that was kind of an interesting, I'd never really heard x and y sort of put in that sort of like us versus them way of like, well, I'm responsible

Aaron: I think it's the lake Wobegon effect like gone awry, which is that, you know, we always think of ourselves in a better light. And then when we look at others, particularly distant others, we that are very, very unlike us. We just, we attribute all these things to them that are probably not the case. And so I just noticed that, um, you know, yeah. When you think about like am I creative, am I self directed? Do I seek responsibility and greatness? Yeah, of course. Yeah. What about the people at the grocery store and it's like, oh well the people at the grocery store obviously lazy and don't give a fuck.

Daniel: Okay, so here's our opening to talk about Game Frame! You gave it right to me! I was reading game frame, your first book that you're trying to bury with this second book, there's like the woman's not the, it's like she's there on job. And on her first day she was like, okay, there's lots of stuff to do. I'm learning things. And then everything flattens out and then, "I'm bored. I'm disengaged". She doesn't, you know, she's just clocking in and clocking out. And so the thing is like, it's not her fault, it's the way the thing is designed. And that...

Aaron: That's my general thesis about all of it is that um, people are people and people are chameleons and people are highly sensitive to the culture and environment they're in. And the system, the aquarium, the container tells us a lot about how we're supposed to show up. And over time it can even beat us into submission. And so we have to change the, we have to change the system and that's hard to do when we're reinforcing things that we ourselves didn't even create, you know, um, Seth Godin had on his podcasts recently, this story of this psychological or I guess a biological experiment where they have all these monkeys, they're reaching for a banana up on a tower and they spray them with a hose. And so the monkeys obviously don't like that. So they come down and then they bring new monkeys in and the new monkees see the banana and they're like, I'm going to run up the tower and get it.

Aaron: And the older monkeys had been sprayed, stopped them and they're like, don't, don't climb young blood. And then, and then they take out over time, all the monkeys who have ever been sprayed. And when a new monkey comes in, the monkeys who have never been sprayed still stop the, the new entrant from reaching for the banana because that's just what we do here now. So it's like when I ask questions of teams, like why do you have meetings this way? Or why do you budget this way or why you need a boss that looks like that or acts like that. It's just like, I dunno, that's what these monkeys do.

Daniel: Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, so this gets to the point of like, why is it designed the way it's designed? Was it even designed?

Aaron: Why indeed!

Daniel: and this also goes back to the question of in this happens in my work where people are already operating at 100% and when you give them new tools, you know, I go in and I teach them new facilitation methodologies or design thinking or whatever. And they're like, yeah. So it was really hard to get those two days to even think about this stuff. You know, there's no time to think about how to use these tools in our work. And so it's just like, where's the space to like

Aaron: yeah, it just bounces off.

Daniel: yeah, it just bounces off...Cause they were like, well we're already at 100% like we don't, we can't think about designing our systems because we're using our systems all the time. So there's no time to design the system or to redesign the system.

Aaron: That's right. Yeah. If I find the same thing. And in many ways I think like the, the simplest version of explaining what myself and other people at the ready actually do is we're just good at asking slash helping people make that space. Like it's, you know, at the end of the day, a lot of the value is just in having a partner who's like, Hey, on Friday we're going to not do that. Like we're going to change our rhythm, we're going to make space and we're going to kind of hold ourselves accountable to that. And, and if you're not ready to do that, obviously it's not going to happen. But if you are ready to do it, I think having, having someone around who's encouraging it and coaching to that is almost more valuable than the ideas. And the, you know, new fangled way ways and not like all that's great, but you can find all that if you stop anyway and just pay attention.

Daniel: So like if, I mean the kind of clients that you and I work for are ones that are asking the question. Um, this is like, this is, oh, it's Passover coming up. This is perfect. Um, this won't release during Passover, but, you know, do you know, do you know about the, the, the, the, the question, the four questions. In other words, there's a story of the three sons, um, and, and uh, one of the sons, I'm going to get this wrong in the middle of like a horrible Jew, but the, the idea is like, one of the sons says like, okay, well what's going on? Like why is tonight different than all other nights? And you're like, okay, well here's why. Like, where's his, why we'd Matzah this is why you tell them the story of Passover. And then, um, the other son's like, well, why do you do all these things?

Daniel: And so he's separated himself from the question. And then the, the response is to say like, well, this is what God did for me when he brought me out of Egypt and this is what you speak to your own experience. And then there's another son that where they're just like, they don't even know how to ask a question. And, and for that you sort of like take time and you really stretch it out and you break it down piece by piece for them. And I imagine that there's like the spectrum of people who read this book, some of them are like, this is already a priority for us and we have budget for it. And that's why we're going to make time and space for it by paying consultants to do it. And there's others who are like, not even asking this question and some who's gonna read this book and they're stuck in the middle of this fershlugenah organization (that just working my Yiddish in there and get it in). And they're like, where does somebody start when the, when the company does not have the extra resources, right. Mental, emotional, physical to be having this dialog.

Aaron: Yeah. And I think, I mean, if somebody reads this work and it speaks to them, then I think that's one thing and it doesn't speak to them and who cares? Um, but if it does speak to them. Then they kind of have two choices. And I've seen people go both routes. One is that it feels like the organizational debt is just too high to pay off and by that I mean, so many policies and practices and norms are out of whack. That and the level of openness is so low. Um, then the easiest thing might be to just not work there. Um, and if that's a privilege that you have, then it's a privilege you can enjoy. Yeah. Not everybody has that privilege, but I think if you can choose where you work, then choose better.

Aaron: Um, so I think that's, that's one piece. But the second piece is if you, if you choose to stay or are you have to stay, then you can start where you are. And that means, you know, do I lead a team? Do I have, do I lead a project? Do I have an open ear of someone who does? Um, so that we can start by asking the question, you know, what's stopping us from doing the best work of our lives in this domain, in this space, in this sphere? And then start, um, start iterating, start playing with, with, with how we show up. So I think sometimes we get overwhelmed by the scale and the magnitude and all the other people we have to convince and it becomes this big thing. But reality is like, at least 50% of the stuff is driving us crazy is right here.

Aaron: You know, is right...And they can't see me. I'm waving at my face.

Daniel: Aaron's actually the problem, everybody. that was a metaphorical...

Aaron: So it's in the way for everyone. Like it's, it's going on with us. How we, uh, how we meet, how we share information, how we plan our work flow, how we do what we do. And then, and then certainly the people we're closest with, our teams are our colleagues. The people that trust us. Like there's, there's a lot going on just in those small pockets that frankly, you know, if you move on some of the stuff and you move it in the right direction, everybody else notices and they notice the, the energy and the engagement and the commitment and the service level that your group or team is providing. Um, and they start to be curious themselves.

Aaron: So I think the best way to create curiosity sometimes is to, is to just start acting where you can. Yeah. And then the other thing is, you know, being brave enough and it's why it's called brave new work, you know, being brave enough to ask these questions in larger forums like to ask, because one of the things I find is people are like, oh, I want to change this, this and this, and I go to my leader and maybe they won't like it or they won't agree or they won't hear me or I already have and they don't give a shit or whatever. And I'm like, don't ask, don't do that. Go to them and ask, what do they think is holding back the team from doing the best work of its life? And then they'll say, oh, well, you know, I, this is like everybody has an answer to that question. Everybody's got a thing that's on their mind that's, that's holding the organization back. Nobody's ever like, oh, it's perfect. Just keep doing what you're doing. So though when they say, then let's start there, let's start with what's true for them. And that's a way to invite and open possibilities up. So I think a good way to...

Daniel: I'm a big fan of that word invitation. Uh, you know, in my own model of conversations, you can either just initiate them or you can invite them. And what's interesting about the canvas is this idea, this is, I think this is a direct quote. The canvas can provoke the conversation. I also feel like it contains the conversation and in and in both good ways.

Aaron: It focuses it

Daniel: Yes, it focuses it and provides, like in my language, every conversation has an interface, something that mediates it. Like, like the luminiferous ether of, of space and time. But it's like, it's like it's an interface for the, for the dialogue. It's a place where it can happen.

Aaron: Yeah. And I, I did not want to create it as a, as sort of a frame or a tool to limit, but I did want to create it to focus because if you've done this work for awhile and you've had these conversations and you're, and you're digging deep, you're going to find all these nuances and interconnections and other things you want to talk. And that's all great because now you're doing it like it's going to the gym, your 500th time versus your first time, right? Like 500 time at the gym, you can make up your own circuit, you know what I mean? But, but for the people that I was encountering that were sort of coming to this fresh are coming to this for the first time or in a long time, they were kind of like, there's so much in our way of working. Like where should I begin? Where should I look?

Aaron: Where should I, where should I start to ask questions? And so the thought was these 12 spaces are the spaces where the organizations that seem to be working most differently that have ditched bureaucracy and found more human, more adaptive ways to work. These are the spaces where they're doing things most differently and where they're most aggressively flipping the table over. And so it's a good bet that if you dig in these holes, you're going to find little opportunities and treasures and, and things to, to act on. And then, yeah, if you want to go beyond that, are you, are you figure something else out? That's great that I'm not trying to restrict that, but I am trying to say, boy, if you haven't asked yourself the tough questions about these 12 spaces, we haven't even done the work of 21st century org design. Like you're not even there.

Daniel: Yeah, yeah. You know, it's, it's amazing. And I, and I wanna I want to honor your work because like I read the medium article that you wrote almost like 2015. Now it's long time ago when it was just nine elements and uh, um, I think the idea of a, an operating system was interesting and inspirational for me and in my own work, you know, so the book that I'm working on, I think I sort of tried to ask myself like, what is the smallest number of elements that one can think about to make a canvas for what, what is controllable and what is alterable about a conversation? And it kind of blew my mind in the book that you, that you expanded it from, from nine to 12. Um, changing the symmetry significantly and, but also maybe being, is it, is it, is it MECE now is, is that even, does that matter?

Aaron: No, but it is, but it is more MECE now. So it's not,

Daniel: Oh, and can we define MECE for those people who are not as geekalicious as you and I are...

Aaron: mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive. It's actually an old consulting term. Yeah. So, no, it's not, it's never, it was ever intended to be. But what I found is that the first version, while it had nine boxes, really each box had many words in it. It was like a run on sentence in each one. So it wasn't really fairly nine things. It was, it was these sort of groupings of things

Daniel: you've chunked.

Aaron: Yeah, they were chunked. And so it was arbitrary in a way. And what I wanted to do is actually simplify it and say, all right, one big idea, one focal point in each space. And, and so in a way the 12 is actually a reduction.

Aaron: It's actually a simplification of what was there before. It just feels like more of a pain in the ass. I mean 12 not that many things. Um, right on top of things of things that you could, you could count. There's lots more numbers. There's 12 months. We can name them all. We're fine. Totally.

Daniel: So I think the thing that's really amazing is that in the opening of the book, I think you, you explained this idea of an operating system very well using the intersection analogy. Like, I don't know, where did, did the operating system concept come in from the game frame book, like your interest in games on, like how did that sort of filter into your brain and then into my brain?

Aaron: No, I mean I think it was, this is a, a way of using that phrase or that, that term that was bubbling up in culture in lots of different pockets I think over the last decade. In some ways it's a bastardization of the term, right? Because if you should go real technologists, like an operating system is a very specific thing and it's not this thing. And I was like, and then I, and then I talked to people on the, on the very like sort of teal, you know, um, new work side of the spectrum and they're like, an operating system is way too mechanistic a metaphor. It's a terrible metaphor for that reason. So, so I'm like, I don't, I don't appeal to either. I'm not trying to appeal to either of those things that I'm trying to say is there is a a system of operating, a way of operating, a way of being in the world and it's made up of assumptions and principles and practices and norms and patterns of behavior and it's coded into the system. It's sort of, it's the foundation upon which other things happen.

Aaron: And so what I mean by that is like, you know, we walk into a conference room and there's a table and chairs in there, table and chairs, our assumptions are baked in from the get go and no one who works in the company gets to change that. That's just the way things are. And so if you want to do something in a meeting where you want to move people around, tough luck. If you want to have another whiteboard in that space, there isn't one. Like it's just the choice has been made for you. And I think when I was, when I was originally scratching at was this idea that there seemed like there all these things in culture and the culture of business, particularly Western business that were like, the decision has been made for us, we're going to have an annual budget.

Aaron: That's how it is. Nobody even thinks to say, wait a second. Does that make any sense anymore? Did it ever make sense? Yeah.

Daniel: And this is the water the fish are not noticing

Aaron: exactly. Yeah, this is water. Yeah. So, so I think, um, that was the thought. So I don't mean it literally, uh, I, I just mean, you know, I know as a way of working a, a set of assumptions and, and so, uh, that metaphor, good or bad has really helped people that I work with connect the dots and be like, Oh yeah, I get it. Like there is an underlying set of stuff that we're living and breathing in and that might need to change. And so what does that look like?

Daniel: Yeah. But I, going back to that mechanistic thing, it's, it's um, I mean we're definitely, it's, it's, it's, it's interesting that we're using a technological metaphor instead of like a truly mechanical metaphor. We're using a metaphor of our age that people understand this idea of like an operating system and applications you can install on it.

Aaron: Yeah. But one, by the way, that's one way to go with it. I take umbrage at that as well because I'm like, look, DNA is an operating system. Physics is an operating system. Like don't tell me that they're not.

Daniel: They are, well, I mean, as a person with a physics degree, I would say I have a hard time with physics as an operating system versus like, the geometry of of space and time.

Aaron: But that's what I mean, the, the underlying first principle rules of physics or an OS layer on this universe and like do stuff that they don't allow.

Daniel: Sure. I mean with the presumption that there's, and, well this is an amazing rabbit hole, but there are other universes within our multi-verse where gravity is stronger. Right? But there's still gravity.

Aaron: And there are other companies for whom their OS is different.

Daniel: Yeah, totally. Well, so here's the thing. You cannot, uh, cut and paste somebody else's operating system, right? Like, which is, which seems frustrating, I would guess to some people where they're like, can we just do 20% free time and be, you know, as profitable as...

Aaron: Yeah, and we'd be Google

Daniel: Right...and be Google …can we do, because the cookies are not Google. I mean the cookies in San Francisco, Google, San Francisco office are delicious, but that's not what makes Google, Google. That's an outgrowth. You're looking at the wrong thing.

Aaron: Right. And also, I just think again, it mistakes the Organization for the complicated system. Like a watch and not a complex system like a garden. Yes. You know, you can't, you can't rubber stamp. So yes, if you, if you like my watch, you can buy all the same parts and build your watch. It'll be exactly the same. It'll work just the same. Yes. But if you like my garden, what are you going to do? Yeah. Talk. The only choice you have is to nurture and grow and look and try to compare and see what works and what serves because your sunlight is going to be a little different and your seeds are going to be a little different and your soil's going to be a little different. You can't rubber stamp my garden.

Daniel: Yeah. Micro climate. It's a thing. Um, so like the thing that's, um, it's, it's on my, my sketch notes near this, this idea of uh, the, the moon and the finger pointing at the moon. And this is like, um, I grew up reading zen, zen flesh and bones and I was sort of like pleasantly surprised to see that story, that analogy in your book. And maybe can you talk a little bit about that idea because it seems relevant to this context of the goal versus the path.

Aaron: Right. One of, one of the, um, results of having a culture of work that really came out of a factory model and that came out of a very mechanistic, complicated oriented model is that we, we want things to be the one best way and the answer and the method and the checklist and all that sort of thing we hunt for that were actually trained to look for that in business school. You know, the whole idea of the MBA business case, it's sort of like look for the lesson and apply the lesson liberally everywhere else you go. And so that we look for that stuff. And as a result, a lot of the emerging trends in ways of working like agile or lean or open or you know, you name it, um, are become kind of get turned into something else other than what they are.

Aaron: So instead of looking at like, what is the essence of agility, we look at capital A agile, how do I get certified as a scrum master? Right? And one of the boxes I have to check to be a, uh, you know, scrum organization and now I've done it and I've checked the box. And so I've done. And so the point of the, of the story obviously is that if you, you know, if you mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon, then then you sort of go down this path that is not wise, that you lack the wisdom. And in the same way, you know, when people get obsessed with the tactics and the practices and not the principles and the, and the meaning, they get lost as well. So there's so many teams I've coached who are like, Oh yeah, we, you know, we use a Kanban board already.

Aaron: We're hip to that. We got that stuff figured out. Cool. Why, why, why, what does the Kanban board, why a Kanban board, what does it do? Like what does it mean? And they're sort of like, it's the, it's a box that we chat. Like we're doing it as opposed to saying like, oh, well, you know, theory of constraints and here's how I think about flow and stock. And like, you know, all the ways in which

Daniel: Transparency!

Aaron: Yeah. Like information radiators and all this stuff that would like explain that they understand the reasoning behind the math behind that practice. And if you took it away, if you'd like, you can have a Kanban board, they'd be like, we can figure out another way to have all those things because we understand what all the things we're trying to have actually are. And so to me, the finger pointing at the moon was just a really good, you know, obviously little piece of Zen wisdom. But the idea that like, we love to look at the finger and we love to standardize and we love to sort of get preoccupied with the, with the best practice and with like, you know, the magazine article on what the cool company does.

Daniel: Yeah.

Aaron: It's much, much harder to wallow in the reality of figuring it out for yourself.

Aaron: That's true. Right. It's, it's because it's, and it's, and that's why, you know, conversations are messy and organic and fluid and, uh, there's no endpoint necessarily, right? Because right. Raymont until the company goes out of business,

Aaron: you can't, you can't borrow wisdom and you can't finish. So it means that you to decide to be a player of the game. Right. You know, you have to, the infinite game is something you have to be like, I'm going to do it.

Daniel: I'm so glad that I feel like every interview eventually has to touch on finite and infinite games. One of the books that everybody should read if they want to understand how the world is, well, how did you find the book that, that, um, which we would used to be a big secret. And now like Simon Sineck, as you know, I'm not going to get ripped off. Yeah. I mean, I'm a little offended that he's like, yeah.

Aaron: Well, I hope he does. I mean, obviously it could go either way, right? Like you could be, it could be very much a regurgitation of someone else's great work. But what I hope he does is um, mainstream at more because it, it is a secret thing. Like it is a kind of like passed from one person to the next kind of a book. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not sure that it never found its full footing. So if nothing else like, like I like seminar, the big platform can maybe help it find, find broader flooding, a best case scenario. But um, yeah I honestly don't remember how I got it. That's the whole point, right? It was like, it was sort of, it was handed to me. Um, and you know, and I think it's, it's an idea whose time has come for sure. Cause we, we've been obsessed with the finite for the last century and you know, start it's time to start thinking longer term than are the front of our own nose. Yeah. Is that, is that the sort of the fundamental yeah.

Daniel: What was the life lesson you took from that book? Like what, where, where does it, where does it live for you? I can tell you where it lives for me.

Aaron: Um, I think there's a lot of lessons to take from it. Obviously. I mean it's, it's, you know, how attic and weird and it's applications. My, my take is just that simply that, um, you know, they're like operating systems. There are different ways to approach problems and there are different ways to approach showing up in systems. And if we, you know, there are, there are games that are deemed finite and that have ends and winners and things like that. And there are games that are deemed infinite and don't have winner and continuing or more conversations, et cetera. I think what is, what is not necessarily set overtly in the book, but that I believe is that like the, that's totally arbitrary. Like we get to decide which games finite and infinite. And we, and so as a result, like when we, when we characterize it the wrong way, we've, we lose. And if we, if we characterize businesses finite, we lose. If we characterize politics is finite, we lose, if we characterize the environment as finite, we lose. So, um, so in some ways I think it's just about, uh, elevating, you know, to it, to a higher level of play. Yeah.

Daniel: Yeah, totally. Um, so we're, we're almost at the end of our time together. Like, is there anything we haven't touched on that you think it's important for us to, to dive into about,

Aaron: I mean, this has been, this has been pretty far reaching. Yeah. I haven't attended the physics operating system of the multiverse. I feel like I would be remiss to criticize the size, the scope and breadth of the conversation.

Daniel: Well, fair enough. I mean, I'm looking at my notes. I think, I mean, I guess the one question I would have is like his bravery enough.

Aaron: Hmm.

Aaron: I think it, I think, yes, I think it can be, um, you know, obviously the work that we face ahead of us to rethink our institutions. And I mean that very broadly, um, is, is huge work and it's the work of the next decade plus of it's the next generation plus that have to have to deal with that. And so I think the question is what are we willing to risk, um, and what are we willing to give up. And in many cases, you know, to let go of one vine, you have to grab the next. And you know, there's like a little bit of a, of a fear and a vulnerability and an a loss that goes along with that. So to me, I think the bravery, um, if we had a lot more of it would certainly go a long way. The bravery, you know, to be, to be vulnerable, to be bold, to take risks, to leave space to, you know, to do more with less. You know, all those things I think require us to sort of face ourselves and, and face the void. Um, so yeah, I mean, I mean Shit, you know, we could, we could use a lot of other things too, but I think if we had a lot more bravery, uh, pointed at how we work and solve problems together, um, that would, that would be quite far reaching.

Daniel: Yeah. Yeah. I think that's really powerful. And also just like the thing you said about loss, I haven't published it yet, but I did have a wonderful episode with um, with Bree Groff who obviously, you know, um, her, we talked a lot about this idea of like, change requires grieving loss and dealing with, with, with loss and letting go of the, of the old. And so I think that's like,

Aaron: Yeah, it's a rite of passage, It always is

Aaron: Yeah. So I think there's like that piece. Yeah. And we maybe don't talk enough about the sort of like, I think maybe there's a yin and Yang of, of bravery and also grieving.

Aaron: I think that's true. Yeah. I think that's very much very much the case. But of course you can't, you can't grieve what you're not ready to, to lose so that, you know, they go one there, one, two punches. I think, uh, which we could use more of all of it. Yeah. More of all of that. I say "pay attention...bring it!"

Daniel: So, I'm going to conclude our conversation. Like people can find you. Where should people go to look for the more of the things about, you know, all the, all things Dignan... Like obviously they can just Google brave new work and they'll probably find you

Aaron: They'll find stuff. Yeah. I mean bravenewwork.com is the site for the book, which is nice. And we've got information there about, uh, workshops and other things going on around it. Um, the ready.com is the site for the organization that I work with, with that sort of tries to do this work in the real world. And then I'm uncleverly Aaron Dignan on almost every social platform that I participate in.

Daniel: So it's reliable. That's, you know, there's nothing wrong with that...

Aaron: Full name, no spaces, hyphens, no underscores, just

Aaron: not love death and robots..Dot..You know, whatever?

Aaron: No, No, none of that.

Daniel: Well that's, yeah, that's pretty straightforward. Um, Mr Dignan, I really appreciate you making the time for this conversation. I'm glad we made it happen.

Aaron: Yeah, me too. Yeah. Thanks a lot. This is fun. And, uh, you know, we'll, we'll talk again when something happens or the next one happens.

Grief and Loss in Organizational Change

Design means change and change means loss of the old. Even if a new design is better in every way, there is no design so perfect that you can “flip a switch” and step into the new instantaneously. Change takes time. And in that space between the old and the new there is a sense of loss. I’ve been doing my own work around trauma and healing it, and I couldn’t agree with more with Bree Groff’s sentiment that “Sometimes you have to step into the darkness with people” in order to heal things. Don’t fear the pain and loss, anticipate it, embrace it, design for it.

Today’s episode features Bree Groff, who at the time of the recording was transitioning from CEO of Nobl, an organizational change consultancy to Principal at SY Partners, a transformation agency based in NYC and SF.

Our conversation focused on a few key ideas around organizational design. Design, in the end always seems to require deep empathy and co-creation for it to be a success. Bree points out that the conversation about Org design should include as many people as possible, in order to make the change process as co-creative as possible. If you haven’t checked out the IAP2 spectrum, I’ll link to that in the notes.

Bree has identified six key types of loss to consider when designing organizational change: 

Loss of Control

Loss of Pride

Loss of Narrative

Loss of Time

Loss of Competence

Loss of Familiarity

I really love this framework to help focus our attention on the key needs of people we’re designing change for.

I highly recommend you also check out Krista Tippet’s interview with Pauline Boss on ambiguous loss to learn more about loss and how to process it. I’ll link to it in the show notes.

Enjoy the show!

Bree’s Website

br.ee

finite and infinite games by James Carse

https://jamescarse.com/wp/?page_id=61

“anyone who must play cannot play”

The IAP2 Spectrum of Power in Collaboration

https://www.iap2.org/

On feedback: 

Adam Connor & Adam Irizarry

Designing a Culture of Critique

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2018/9/2/culture-of-critique

Being Soft on the People and Hard on the Problem (in negotiations and in life)

Robert Bordone on turning negotiations into conversations

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2017/9/27/robert-bordone-can-transform-negotiations-into-conversations

Krista Tippet on Ambiguous Loss

https://onbeing.org/programs/pauline-boss-the-myth-of-closure-dec2018/

Transcript:

Bree:                   You have to start by understanding what people are feeling because, whether you address it or not, people will feel it. Of course, my intent is to get everyone feeling energized about change positive. Really first, sometimes, you have to step into the darkness with people and address the kind of frustrations or resentment, even like a PTSD that they're feeling from change in the past.

Daniel:                Today, I'm talking with Bree Groff, who, at the time of the recording, was transitioning from CEO of NOBL, an organizational change consultancy with an amazing newsletter, to principal at SYPartners, a transformation agency based in New York City and San Francisco. Our conversation focused on some key ideas around organizational design. Design, in the end, always seems to require deep empathy and co-creation for it to be a success.

Daniel:                Bree points out that the conversation around her design should include as many people as possible in order to make the change process as co-creative as possible. If you haven't checked out the International Association's Public Participation spectrum, which is just IAP2 ... It's a long, long thing ... check it out in the show notes. It's a really, really helpful framework when you think about involving a large number of people in a complex process.

Daniel:                Bree has identified six key types of loss to consider when designing organizational change. Talk about them well into the midpoint. It's a really, really amazing framework. Very simply, it's loss of control, loss of pride, narrative, time, competence, or familiarity. When you're doing change, you're always going to find one or more of these types of loss at play. I really love this framework to help focus attention on the key needs of people we're designing change for.

Daniel:                I also highly recommend you check out Krista Tippett's interview with Pauline Boss on ambiguous loss to learn more about loss and how to process it. I'll link to that in the show notes. Also really excited to be working with Bree on a special project. She'll be joining the Innovation Leadership Accelerator that I'm running in September as a guest mentor. The ILA, as we call it, is a 12-week intensive workshop and coaching experience to help you grow as an organizational leader. I'll also link to the application in the notes as well. Enjoy the show.

Daniel:                Welcome to The Conversation Factory. Thank you so much for joining me. Can you tell the universe here who you are and a little bit about what you do?

Bree:                   Sure, yeah. My pleasure to join. I'm happy to be here. Let's see how I got here through a few various careers, first stop in education, second stop in innovation and service design and realize that it's really hard to get good ideas out into the world unless you have an organization aligned and excited for those internally. Did my master's in organizational learning and change, got properly nerdy about how companies and also industries evolve.

Bree:                   Now, I have the pleasure of doing that with all of our clients every day, so really big Fortune 500 organizations who are doing transformation work and really quickly scaling startups, as well, who are trying to figure out how to grow up gracefully.

Daniel:                Yeah. I, too, have had the heartache of trying to help companies with innovation when they say they want to innovate, and then, when you show them what it looks like or even when they show you what they want to do, sometimes it still doesn't actually happen after they leave the engagement.

Bree:                   That's right. Yeah, Words are easy, and a lot of times in companies, people get what the right answer, quote/unquote right answer, is. I found, in innovation work, that it can be easy to dismiss change for a variety of reasons, everything from, "Oh, we had this offsite, but nothing's really going to come of it. It's a flavor of the month. Oh, our CEO read a book again, and now we're doing that thing."

Daniel:                Oh man, when CEOs read books, that's the worst. "We're going to scale up excellence, everybody. This month, we're scaling up excellence."

Bree:                   That's exactly right. Yeah, it's like, "Oh no." It's like, "Disable that guy's Kindle." Yeah, for a variety of reasons, it can be easy to dismiss change or dismiss innovation and feel like, "Hmm, if I just sort of keep my head down, I can go back to doing the things the way that I know and like." That's not to say that everybody doesn't like change, but for those who don't, it sometimes can be easy not to.

Daniel:                Yeah. This is where I get hung up because it seems like there's a limit to the idea of organizational design because there are people that are part of the organization that maybe aren't part of the design conversation and then ... like any design, like I design a product. I put it out into the world. People use it in a way that I do not intend for them to use it, and then we have to redesign our product.

Daniel:                So I'm wondering about ... Again, this is just my own ax to grind about everything is a conversation, but it seems to me that org design is, in fact, a conversation between different parties. Who's at the table or not at the table? Who are the stakeholders in the org design conversation?

Bree:                   Yeah. I would say, first, fundamentally, leaders have to be on board with, if not leading, cultural change or organizational change and organizational design. But changing some structures around will be for naught if it's not in the service of actually helping people do their work better or helping people collaborate better. So fundamentally, those conversations need to be with the people whose mindsets and behaviors you're trying to shift.

Bree:                   So you can design organizations a thousand different ways. You can design them for efficiency. You can design them for creativity. You can design them for novelty in a market, for perfection or design sensibilities. There's so many different ways that you could set up an organization to have a certain culture, a certain set of values.

Bree:                   But to not involve the people on the ground or everyone throughout the organization, it would be like almost declaring a bunch of people that they must now have a new religion. It doesn't work. You can make them, I guess, show up at some church on Sunday, but fundamentally, to get people to behave differently or think differently, that's a conversation with them. That's the co-creation.

Daniel:                Yeah. Have you ever read a book, Finite and Infinite Games?

Bree:                   No, I haven't.

Daniel:                I think you'll dig it. Well, I always say there's two types of people in the world, those who think there are two types of people, and those who don't. But the people who have read Finite and Infinite Games, it's like it's one of these ... It messes with your head. One of the things the guy who wrote the book talks about is that anybody who must play can't play. You can't force somebody to play. You can force someone to show up. You could put a ball in their hand. You can tell them to run up and down the field, but they won't be playing. They'll just be acting the part. They won't be living it.

Daniel:                It seems like there's a really big difference from changing the culture to just like saying like, "Oh, we all fill out this new form now," or, "Here's this new interface where all issues are funneled through." Those are two very, very different things.

Bree:                   Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yeah. I would argue, too, that the employees are who the culture is for, if that makes sense. You set up a culture so that employees ... so that their work can be a little bit easier, so that they're all making decisions in the same way. They're all valuing ... Not that you shouldn't have diversity of thought, but generally, everybody understands, "Oh, this is how we operate. This is what we value. This is how we get our work done." So it's really for the people executing the work, and so it's a little counterintuitive then to make people buy into a system that really should be for them.

Bree:                   When I'll do organizational design, cultural design work, it always starts with an interview of people who are doing the work to say, "What's easy about your job? What's hard about your job? How could we change some of the systems around you or the processes around you to make that easier?"

Daniel:                Yeah. You said something a moment ago that blew my mind, this idea that an organization can be ... There's a heuristic by which you can judge the design of the org, like speed, efficiency, variety, joy, whatever. It sounds kind of socialist ... I'm just going to say it ... that we should be designing it for the people who are part of the system.

Bree:                   As an example-

Daniel:                I mean, I don't think it's a bad thing. I agree with you, but it feels like a mushy thing.

Bree:                   It's a little mushy, so let me give some examples. Apple, for example, the beauty ... They've always been a user-centered and aesthetically driven and design ... and all of that. In order to create products that maintain that standard, you need people internally to accept a culture of design perfection. It has to be in the blood of the way that people operate and think and user-centered versus ... If you think about Amazon's operational wing, that needs to be execution- and process-focused. If you're going to get people paper towels in two hours tops, then you need a culture in which efficiency and process is prized above all else.

Bree:                   In that way, like the culture ... It's such a mushy word ... or the water you swim in, it should be in the service of helping everyone know what's good work like here.

Daniel:                Yeah. Yeah, and that we all agree on that standard.

Bree:                   Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yeah. Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:                Then org design sort of shows up as a co-creation challenge, like many other co-creation challenges, like from the product-design side where I come in. There's a spectrum of power and engagement. Are you informing people of what you're doing? The org design we're designing, it's top down. Or it collaborative? Or do you empower people in the org to design it for themselves? How do you sort of play with that dial of power and empowerment when it comes to ... because you said the top needs to be involved. But obviously, like one person who reads a book in the middle of the organization can't necessarily say like, "I'm going to change the org. Today's the day."

Bree:                   Yeah. Honestly, we have done both. Depending on the employees in the organization that we're working with, sometimes, it'll be much more, "We're going to teach you how to change your organization." Sometimes, it's middle of the spectrum, like, "We're going to facilitate and lead you through this." But sometimes, it is more top down. It's top down in the times where it feels a bit like chaos, a bit like Lord of the Flies. In those situations, what we've found ... I've actually made the mistake in my career of trying to teach people how to design when they're drowning.

Daniel:                Here's how to design a life preserver.

Bree:                   Right, exactly. You're like, "Let me teach you ... give you a swimming lesson." They're like, "For fuck's sake, you have a life preserver there."

Daniel:                Yeah. "Please just hand me ..."

Bree:                   "Please just hand it to me." There's a certain level of capacity and stability that an organization needs in order to learn how to design for themselves, which is an ideal situation because consultants can't nor should be around forever. A company that knows how to org design themselves is like ... Well, that's just brilliant. You're going to be in business a long time because you can ride the changes of the market.

Bree:                   But there are some times when, for whatever reason or whatever changes have gone on or whatever fatigue exists within an organization, that sometimes, you need to throw the life preserver, which sounds like, "Try out this way of doing it. Let's see if it works or doesn't work. You're still in control of telling us. Did that make your life easier or harder?" But there are some times where we have to say, "Here's three other ways that companies have done it. Pick one and give it a go."

Daniel:                Yeah. Well, this goes to one of the sticky notes I have here, which is about starting the org-design conversation. With many things, like somebody who's got a crappy website may not even know that they have a crappy website and probably doesn't have a big digital transformation budget ... They're not even thinking about. Like somebody who's desperately ... whose org is just totally broken, they may not even be willing and ready and conscious of the need.

Daniel:                How does somebody pop up and be like, "Okay, this needs to happen"? What's the arc of that conversation to bring somebody in and say, "We're ready to do this"? Because it seems like a potentially unclear timeframe and arc from when you become obsolete, from when we start the engagement to when you've made yourself successfully obsolete. Good job for you doing that. That's not nothing.

Daniel:                That was a meandering question. Take whatever you can from [inaudible 00:15:45].

Bree:                   Okay. So I'll start with the ... what if you see ... Someone doesn't even know they have a problem. In that case, from our perspective, they don't hire a consultant.

Bree:                   But if you are internal and you see, "Oh shoot, our website is a disaster," and no one seems to recognize this, then the best thing that I've found is to start a conversation, not putting yourself on one side and other person on the other side ... "I think our website's bad. You think it's good" ... but rather to go and find the effects of a bad website, so like, "Oh, we got this customer feedback that they were really confused, so I'm just the messenger. Here's what I have," or anything inside, even if it's not external-facing, just asking for a survey to be done or just simply talking to three people, like, "How did this expense policy screw you up?" "Oh, it's screwing everyone up and slowing us down," and just bringing some evidence.

Bree:                   Or rather like if you were doing product-design research, you'd go say like, "Hey, try this product. Let me watch you use it and give me your feedback." Same thing with an organization, so it's going to find whatever you feel like might be wrong. The website's bad, or some policy internally isn't good. To go search down what are the effects of that makes it much less scary to ... internally than saying, "I think ..."

Daniel:                This is so interesting because it feels like it mirrors, as many things do, one-on-one dialog, giving a person feedback and saying like, "So can I give me some feedback?" Like blank.

Bree:                   Nobody likes that.

Daniel:                Nobody likes that, and it's not feedback. The question of when does feedback become feedback, is it when it's asked, given, and utilized? Or is it feedback when it's given and rejected? Is that still feedback? It's interesting, this idea of oppositional versus like, "Let's look at something together," like, "I'm not opposing you. I'm just saying, hey, here's this thing. Would you look at this thing with me? Let's look at some data together."

Bree:                   Yeah. Yeah, absolutely, because, especially internally and especially in our day and age where people very much conflate, for better or for worse, their identity with their job in the company, it can be really hard to hear at times, like, "Oh, this didn't work," or, "I'm unhappy about this," or everybody's grumbling. That's why change gets such a bad rap internally because people can be angry about it, and I get it. I totally get it because your work can be very personal. But if there are ways to say, "Here are the effects. Let's look at this at a systems level," rather than, "You did this to me, and I did this to you," level, I've found it's a much more productive conversation.

Daniel:                Yeah. That's really just focusing ... In negotiation, they call it being soft on the people and hard on the problem.

Bree:                   Yeah.

Daniel:                I think there's an interesting aspect of like, "It's not your fault this thing is happening."

Bree:                   Yeah, and I feel like that's always half our role working with clients is ... I'm going to steal that. That's great ... like hard on the ... What did you say?

Daniel:                I went to the Harvard Negotiation Institute. It's like five days in heaven. I just did negotiation simulations with mediators and lawyers. I had Bob Bordone, who's my professor, on the podcast. Actually, he came to the workshop that Mathias and I did, too. The idea of turning a negotiation, which we think of as a hardball thing, into a dialog, is like we think we have to be soft on the people and soft on the problems because, otherwise, we'll break the relationship. It's being soft on the people and hard on the problem. It's like, "It's not you. It's this."

Bree:                   Yeah. That's exactly right. When we hear internally like, "Oh, this department, blah blah blah, and they're doing this, and we're doing ..." or like, "Joe in accounting always blah blah," it's personal. I guess what I'm trying to wake up in organizations is the idea that it's possible to be happy and kind to each other and forgiving and still fix whatever problems exist within an organization.

Bree:                   But it's hard. There's no shortage of fraught, toxic workplaces with stress and, honestly, bullying, and so there has to be a way to separate ... It's like, at a base level, we're all going to be nice to each other. It's so very like kindergarten rules. My daughter has these rules at school, like, "Be nice to each other. Respect each other."

Daniel:                Yeah. When did we forget those things?

Bree:                   Yeah. It's like, you have to want to come to work. You just have to be nice to each other while, at the same time, fixing whatever problems may exist from an organizational perspective.

Daniel:                Well, so that, I think, goes to the question of loss and healing of loss, right?

Bree:                   Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:                Because the pain that I feel, the resentment that I feel towards Charles in accounting or Maggie in HR, it's a small trauma, but it's a trauma nonetheless. I feel like there is a sense of loss that like, "Well, I just have to move on. We have to do this new thing," and you have to heal that. Do you have to? Does one need to? Or how does one heal those pains? Because just saying, "Let's be nice, and let's move on," I don't know if that would necessarily cut it in all these cases if there's truly a ...

Bree:                   Oh yeah. I mean, I'm saying that here, but that does not cut it. You can't say that to people.

Daniel:                Well, what do you say to people then? Help us, Bree.

Bree:                   That doesn't work.

Daniel:                What do we say to people?

Bree:                   You say, "I hear you." That's just the very first step. Yeah, I talk a lot about loss. I do a lot of public speaking, and the talk that I give most often is on the six types of loss that people experience through change.

Daniel:                Six types? That's a lot of types.

Bree:                   Yeah, not seven, not five. Yeah, you'd be surprised. There's just six. They are, if I can rattle them off, loss of control, pride, narrative, time, competence, and familiarity. You'd be surprised how you can map any sort of resistance in an organization to one of [inaudible 00:22:14]. If there is resistance, people are likely feeling one of those six types of loss. "So they're changing this whole thing, and I have to figure out a new system, and it's taking me twice as long."

Daniel:                Familiarity.

Bree:                   Loss of time and familiarity. Both, actually. Yeah, they're overlapping.

Daniel:                Like, "What is this new thing? Why do I have to use it?"

Bree:                   Right, or if the company pivots to a new strategy, and that can oftentimes be loss of pride. "All of my work to date, was it for nothing? Why are we changing our position in our work? Was my work not good?"

Daniel:                I feel that. I really ...

Bree:                   Yeah. You have to start by understanding what people are feeling because, whether you address it or not, people will feel it. So the spoiler is it's better to address it than to let that fester. So you just start by making sure that people are heard. Of course, my intent is to get everyone feeling energized about change positive, being nice to each other. But really first, sometimes, you have to sort of step into the darkness with people and address the kind of frustrations or resentment or even like a PTSD that they're feeling from change in the past.

Daniel:                Yeah.

Daniel:                Hey, everyone. We're at the halfway point. Now is a great time to stretch your legs, refill your popcorn, and head over to theconversationfactory.com to check out the show notes for this episode and, while you're there, explore the other amazing episodes or visit the Resources page for handy templates and activity guides to transform your collaborations and your communications.

Daniel:                What's the origin story of that model? Is it yours? Is it founded on other research? Where do those six steps ... I'm new to that model. It's fascinating to me.

Bree:                   Yeah. It's mine, actually. I sourced it or came up with it having done lots of different transformation projects, my first one being in the field of education. I started to track what I've heard in terms of resistance. Then, once I started to know the people behind that resistance a little more and to try to suss out what they were feeling, I just started categorizing then what were the underlying feelings behind outward anger or resistance.

Bree:                   After lots of years of categorizing those, I came up with those six. Actually, a lot of them I saw when I was working in education. My very first job was a teacher, and then I was an instructional coach. Then I worked in innovation. I led an innovation department within a school. I had so many brilliant ideas, I thought, about education, and I was like, "Well, why is nobody agreeing with me or changing their behavior? What could be wrong with these people?"

Bree:                   To really sift through ... like loss of competence, for example. A lot of teachers, they can have the same job description for 30 years. If you, all of a sudden, tell them their way of teaching is no longer modern or good, they have to stop and consider, "Will I be any good at the new way if things are changing so quickly? I have decades of experience doing it, what's now considered an outdated method." So you start to see that across organizations, though. As I started to categorize all of those, those six really floated to the top.

Daniel:                It's fascinating. Your brain is amazing because I feel like, on one side, there's this very deeply human aspect, zeroing in on the human loss and connecting with people in a very, very human way.

Daniel:                Then on the other side, there's this analytical piece where ... I feel like there are some practitioners of these things who would never think about categorizing the types of loss and sort of taking that 35,000-foot view. Do you have a sense of where these two sides of you ... Do you see what I'm seeing? I don't know, but it's an interesting ... Not everybody is a reflective practitioner is maybe what I'm saying.

Bree:                   Well, thanks. I should say, I am a sort of math/science person by brain chemistry.

Daniel:                What did you teach?

Bree:                   Yeah, I taught a high school math and physics.

Daniel:                I didn't know that. My first degree's in physics. I'm all about physics.

Bree:                   Ah, no way.

Daniel:                That's why, when I was talking about air pressure, you were like, "I got you."

Bree:                   Oh, I should have guessed. I should have guessed. All right, well, next podcast, we talk about physics.

Daniel:                Well, I mean, people write about the physics of organizations, for sure. It's a thing.

Bree:                   Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. It's always come easier to me, the quantitative aspects of the world. But I think that's why I like this work because it was harder to understand people's motivations, the complexities of human systems. That, I felt like, "Oh, this is going to be interesting forever and infinitely complex, and I'm never going to get it." I think that's always been what's been attractive to me about really going into people, a very people-focused field.

Daniel:                Yeah. Do you feel like having this framework helps you be a better practitioner?

Bree:                   Yeah. It's like, consultants are famous for frameworks and 2x2s, but ...

Daniel:                Is it in a 2x2? Are the six in a ...

Bree:                   It's not. I should fit it into one. Yeah. Yeah.

Daniel:                Well, I mean, are you going to write a book about it?

Bree:                   Maybe one day. That's a good idea.

Daniel:                You don't have to have a diagram in order to have a book, but it's nice. I'm just saying.

Bree:                   Well, if I write a book, I'll say it all started here. But yeah, it's helpful to have them, I'd say, for two reasons. One is people can soak up frameworks better than they can soak up ... I don't know ... long-winded explanations. So for public speaking or communicating with clients, it's a way for people to organize their thinking. When we work with clients and say, "Oh, you're experiencing a lot of resistance internally or a lot of frustration. Let's try and map that against these six things," it gives people something generative to do or a way to hold onto the ideas.

Bree:                   The other reason is, candidly, for my sanity, I think. It can be really easy to get sucked into all of the different swirling dynamics of a company that you're working with. In order to be a good consultant, you have to hold onto something that's a little bit more 40,000-foot view that keeps you out of the swirl enough to be able to give sober counsel.

Daniel:                Yeah. Not that it's intellectualizing your emotions so that you don't feel them, but it does give some helpful distance to know what's happening to be able to have a name for it.

Bree:                   Yeah. You have a name for something, and all of a sudden, you have the concept of it, right? Just like 16 different types of words for snow.

Daniel:                Yeah. Exactly. Totally. Are you familiar with ... I feel like, when you were naming the types of loss, do you know the ... I forget who was the ... It's about the types of power. French and this other guy had this sense of charismatic power and social power, legitimate power. A couple of those felt like they were connected to these types of power. Loss is about loss of control, in a sense. I wonder when it's like loss of blank, where that comes from.

Daniel:                I'm thinking about what little I know about psychology and how it's related to how a person works. These are all things that people really want and need. They want ... Familiarity is a way to help us use less energy every day, right? We're just asking more of people to give them something unfamiliar. It's just literally exhausting, like it demands more of our working memory.

Bree:                   Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Within those six losses, there's just a lot of very simple human needs, so as you say, a need to be able to roughly predict our future, a need to feel pride in our work, a need to be able to tell a coherent story about like, "This is my work. This is what I do. This is how I contribute to the world." At the biggest level, it's like, "Here's the legacy of my life's work." There's a lot of needs in there, need for control, all of those, a need for time to sleep and enjoy your life, as well. If you mess with those of your employees, then you have to address them.

Daniel:                Yeah, yeah, unless you want to design your org for misery, obviously, in which case ...

Bree:                   That's also a choice one could make. Yeah.

Daniel:                "I think unhappy employees do better work," said nobody ever, maybe.

Daniel:                So it's interesting to me because, in a way, loss seems an interesting entry point. Maybe loss isn't the entry point to the conversation because that seems like a very hard ...

Bree:                   Yeah.

Daniel:                Maybe explain to me, when we're talking about starting the org-design conversation, what are people asking for? What's the pain that they're asking to solve when they sort of kick off that process?

Bree:                   Usually, things are ... They're either pretty tricky, or pretty good. By that, I mean like companies thinking about org design, either they've gone through a lot of change. Maybe it's good change, new leader, new strategy, merger, acquisition, so there's some pain there. Their initial ask or the reason why they want to think about org design and change is because we want to take away some of the pain.

Bree:                   There's also a situation in which companies are growing and they're doing great. This is a lot of the work that we do with scaling startups. It's just a matter of we need to figure ourselves out so we have some way to operate without having to make it up for the first time all the time. The conversations, they can either be like, "Oh, we've gone through a lot," or, "We're about to go through a lot."

Bree:                   There's always a need there to think about not only how do we get through this period, but also, how do we continue to grow in a way that's ... Ideally, org design serves the company over many, many years, the idea of how you work together, and isn't just the band-aid. Yeah. Sometimes, there's pain. Sometimes, there's excitement at the start of a conversation. Sometimes, there's simply things that people or companies need or want to leave behind, especially after a bunch of layoffs. Sometimes, the beginning starts with an ending, actually. What's no longer true, and what are you helping people to accept, that something is lost or gone? Then what do you want to help people get excited about?

Daniel:                This is just crazy because I want to go back to this human side that ... I think some people feel like, when somebody's had a loss, just saying like, "Better stuff's on the horizon," is what helps them. There's a lot of research that shows that that's just not the case.

Daniel:                It's interesting because I feel like, on the org side, I think people would feel that we should be selling the vision and selling the mission and selling the goal. The idea that we should stop for a moment and say, "Something beautiful has died. We are at this inflection point, and we know that this is hard," that takes a lot of bravery, I would think, to sit with that discomfort.

Bree:                   Yeah. Yeah. We always say there's three steps to change, first an ending, then a transition point, then a new beginning. That model is from William Bridges. Most leaders want to start with a new beginning because that feels so leaderly, like, "Oh, shiny, new vision. Here we go starting a course ahead." But a lot of times, that's just not where people are. People are still dealing with an ending.

Bree:                   I often give the example of ... I guess it was Prince Charles who was asked by a reporter once if he was excited for the day he'd become king. That sounds exciting, right? But he was like, "No, that would mean my mother just died." I'm pretty sure that reporter's not asked back to Buckingham Palace.

Bree:                   But the idea that it can be so tempting to look at the future, especially if you're a leader who's been thinking about that future for a while or having lots of conversations about that future, likely in board rooms, it can feel so tempting to dangle the shiny in front of people. But a lot of times, it's just not what people want or need when they're still coming to terms with ending.

Daniel:                Yeah. How do you coach a leader to have that kind of inner fortitude to stay with that discomfort?

Bree:                   We do, actually, what I advised before, which is survey people, interview people, get the human statements, the quotes and verbatims from people, and share those with leaders so that they can empathize with what their people are going through because even the very best, most empathetic leaders we know usually just aren't in the room with their people a lot of the time. They're in board meetings or C-suite meetings, so if a leader has that kind of empathy ... The good ones all do ... it's just a matter of showing them what their people are feeling and then just giving them a little bit of time to process. The good leaders will understand that that's what people need. We help them get there and can literally craft what are the words that you can say to help people feel heard.

Bree:                   I use this other example of a fast-food rule. The idea of a fast-food rule example ... You go through the drive-through at McDonald's, say, and you say, "I'll have a burger, fries, and a shake." Then what's the first thing they say back to you? Can you guess? It's not a trick question.

Daniel:                Oh no. I literally have ... I haven't ordered fast food in so long. I can't even imagine. They're like, "Go down to the next window," I think, is what they say.

Bree:                   So close. [inaudible 00:37:09]. That's probably the second thing that they say, but the first thing they say is, "Okay, so that'll be a burger, a fries, and a shake." Very first thing they do is they make sure that you are heard.

Bree:                   We coach leaders as well around this principle of, first, you have to make sure people are heard before they can listen to you. That's the order of operations in a conversation because, otherwise, they're just going to keep trying to be heard. Then it's just two different parties talking against each other. In those situations, we always do the FFR, if you will.

Daniel:                FFR is ...

Bree:                   The fast-food rule.

Daniel:                Oh, the fast-food rule. I got it. That's the order of operations in a conversation.

Bree:                   Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:                I'm obsessed with the idea that we can design conversations. It's very interesting to just have that heuristic, that rule of thumb where you're like, "Acknowledge them first." It's active listening, right? "What I'm hearing you say is this." But it's also interesting to me that you coach the leaders on ... because you can say what they said exactly, or you can rephrase it in a way that can soften it or deepen it or hearten it. Finding the right balance of pessimistic and optimistic or empathetic and forward-looking ... It sounds like there's a lot of knobs there for you guys to jiggle with those.

Bree:                   Oh, it's all art. It is all art. Yeah.

Daniel:                It's copy. Everything's copy.

Bree:                   Yeah.

Daniel:                Our time together is almost up. Is there anything we haven't talked about that we should talk about, anything that I haven't asked you that you have the answer for, that I don't have the question, but you have the answer?

Bree:                   The other thing that's been exciting me lately ... I mentioned I've been doing a bunch of speaking. I've been working with this amazing speaking coach. I'll give him a shout-out. His name is Nick Morgan, and he's phenomenonal. Because I'm getting on so many stages, he helps me think about my voice, my body. How you embody your message makes such a difference.

Bree:                   There's some research that, when your body and voice are in conflict with your message, people, of course, they believe your body and voice 10 times over. If you ask your significant other, "How was your day?" and they say, "Fine," there's not a chance in hell you're like, "Great. You had a fine day. I'm so pleased to hear that."

Daniel:                Yeah. "Thanks for sharing. My day was fine, too. Let's have dinner."

Bree:                   Right. Right. Yeah, your body, your voice, it just screams over any words that you're saying. Particularly when we help leaders talk about change, coach their people through change, when they are dialing up those knobs, as you say, I find it fascinating and also really impactful to think about what does your body and voice, as a leader, say. Are you overconfident? Are you empathetic? I know that this is a podcast, and no one can see me, but are you slouching your body? Is your shoulders back? Are you putting your hands in front of you, which demonstrates a bit of protectiveness, or are your arms wide open?

Bree:                   Those things can make a huge difference. Even beyond the copy that we help ... Here's what you can say, or here's a message to make people feel heard ... it's like, "How do you show up in your body and voice to let people know that you are open, accessible, listening, and still confident?" That's a bunch of the knobs, as well.

Daniel:                I think they're all really amazing ways to think about designing the conversation in a way that gets you what you really want and gets other people what they really want, too. If you want to be heard, here's how. Hear someone else first. That's really important and super critical and deeply, deeply human.

Bree:                   I know. We just all want to be listened to, right? It's so, so very human. We just want to be understood. That's it.

Daniel:                Well, that seems like a perfect place to end. On the internet, if people want to go on the internet and learn about all things Bree Groff, where do they go? We will send them there.

Bree:                   Yeah. My husband got me this awesome URL for my birthday last year, which just describes how nerdy our relationship is. It's from Estonia, and therefore, I got the URL br.ee, my name. That's where you can find me.

Daniel:                Nice. I love that. That's cool, br.ee.

Bree:                   Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:                That's badass.

Bree:                   Thank you. Yeah. I was really excited about it. He was really excited about it. It was a real high point in our marriage, getting that present.

Daniel:                That man is smart. Those are husband points. That's how you rack them up. Understand your audience.

Bree:                   Mm-hmm (affirmative). Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel:                You heard it here first, folks, br.ee. All right. Bree, thank you so much. That was really ... I'm delighted to spend some time with you.

Bree:                   Thanks for having me. This was a ton of fun.

Daniel:                Oh, I'm glad you think so. I think it's a ton of fun, too. I like talking about talking and changing things. That's all we talk about.

Daniel:                We'll leave it right there. If you made it this far, you're a rock star. Subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or Spotify to never miss an episode. If you want to help spread the word about the show, head over to iTunes on your desktop and leave the show a review. It only takes a few minutes and really helps.

Asking Better Questions: What's your North Star?

Today’s guest is Robin Peter Zander, an author, strategist, and performance coach. (scroll down for Robin’s full bio and links)

The big insight for me in this episode is to ask myself a simple set of questions, often: why am I opening my mouth? What’s my goal?

Wanting the best for the other person you’re talking to is a fine place to start. But there’s a level of humility we could all benefit from: Starting from a firm belief that each person has their own wisdom, rather than believing I know better what they need than they do.

We talk about four levels of questions:

1. Fact based questions

2. Judging questions

3. Questions that elicit Stories and Narratives, ie, questions that pull at a thread

4. Loving Questions, which are present and non-judgmental

I shared a 2 X 2 framework I’m working on in my book, How Conversations Work, that contrasts these two question stances: Asking vs. Telling. We’ve all heard (and asked) these type of non-questions.

The North Star Conversation Framework

The other axis is being problem-focused or solution-focused in your questions. “Have you tried this?” is a really different question from “What have you tried?”

We reference two magnificent quotes about questions that I want to offer here in full:

In the word question, there is a beautiful word - quest. I love that word. We are all partners in a quest. The essential questions have no answers. You are my question, and I am yours - and then there is dialogue. The moment we have answers, there is no dialogue. Questions unite people.

Elie Wiesel

Krista Tippett, the host of NPR’s On Being, suggests that “questions elicit answers in their likeness. It's hard to transcend a simplistic question. It's hard to resist a generous one. ”

If we’re willing to take risks in communication others can respond in kind. The shift has to start somewhere, with someone.

More about Robin

Robin Peter Zander is an author, strategist, and performance coach. With a diverse background ranging from management consulting to the circus, he has spent his life working with individuals and organizations to maximize potential. He is the founder of Zander Media, a creative agency which works with start-ups to grow brand and culture, and Responsive Conference, which convenes annually to explore the future of work. Learn more at http://robinpzander.com/

Links:

https://www.zandermedia.com/

https://www.responsiveconference.com/

http://www.robinpzander.com/show/

How to do a Handstand

www.Responsive.org

https://www.anatbanielmethod.com/

https://feldenkrais.com/

https://option.org/about-us/what-we-teach/

Don't Trust the Process

On this episode, I’m talking with Bárbara Soalheiro, founder of the Mesa method, a five-day process for bringing people together and solving extraordinary problems. Sound familiar?

Think again. Mesa is unlike any other accelerated work environment I’ve encountered. And Bárbara  is the first facilitator I’ve heard say “don’t trust the process.”

We philosophize about power distribution, problem framing, Masculine vs Feminine leadership and the difference between a mystery and a quest. It’s a jam-packed hour of conversation, so buckle in. 

Bárbara started the Mesa method based on a few fundamental principles, essential beliefs abut human nature and the future of work.

1. That work is actually fun and what we’re here to do. 

2. In the near future, the best and the brightest people will be impossible to hire. They will be busy doing their own thing

3. If you want to solve the biggest problems you have to work with the best minds.

4. The only way to work with the best is in short, clear bursts.

5. The best way to work is to be 100% focused on results

The Mesa method brings together internal stakeholders with external talent – in Bárbara’s language, “pillars of knowledge” – for five days. This external talent shows up for day one with no briefing, with just the general mission in mind. And they end their week, not with user testing, like another sprint model you might have heard of, but with a prototype that is as close as possible to what the company will build.

Barabara’s perspective is a breath of fresh air and unconventional thinking, and her approach has resonated with some big names. She has been helping organizations such as Netflix, Google, Coca-Cola, Nestléand Samsung make bold moves and she’s worked side by side with some of the most extraordinary professionals of our time, people like Kobe Bryant, Cindy Gallop, Perry Chen, Anthony Burrill, Fernando Meirelles and many others.

Find more on Mesa here:

website

instagram

vimeo

twitter

The space is in New York and New York is in the space: tokoro and three other Japanese words for space

https://qz.com/1181019/the-japanese-words-for-space-could-change-your-view-of-the-world/

Oblique Strategies

https://www.joshharrison.net/oblique-strategies/

Facilitating Co-Creation

Douglas Ferguson is a deep and brilliant facilitator, entrepreneur and technologist. Douglas and I met at the Google Sprint Conference and got to know each other a lot better when he came to NYC to join my Facilitation Masterclass. It’s always humbling to see the caliber of leaders who come out the masterclass.

Douglas’ Innovation Agency, Voltage Control, is hosting a Facilitator Summit in Austin May 23rd and I’m excited that he invited me to do a session on Narrative Models for facilitation. We’re also co-hosting a pre-conference Masterclass. I’m really excited about it and I hope you can make it out. Learn more and get tickets here.

Douglas and I go deep on Innovation, Co-creation, sprinting and he talks about his journey as a facilitator and how he keeps learning and growing.

At minute 19, we dive into why and how diversity helps groups solve problems and towards the midpoint Douglas reveals his facilitator’s secret resource: Camp counselor activity books.

By minute 35 we muse about a leader as someone who sets the cadence of work, and who makes sure that cadence doesn’t become a rut or burnout.

At minute 40 we talk about the Austin facilitation summit and why we’re co-running a masterclass together.

Finally, at minute 53 we talk about how to talk to a CTO and how, not surprisingly, they are people.

Some other episodes you can dig into to learn more about sprints and conversation design:

• Kai Hailey, head of the Google Sprint Master academy on the importance of Ethics in a Sprint culture

  http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2018/9/26/building-sprint-culture

• Dee Scarano, who’s a Design Sprint Trainer and Facilitator at AJ and Smart, for more background on the sprint and being an awesome facilitator

  http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2018/8/3/everyday-design-sprints-dee-scarano-aj-smart

• Paul Pangaro, professor at Carnegie Mellon University about cybernetic theory in conversations

  http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2017/12/16/professor-paul-pangaro-on-the-cybernetics-of-conversations-and-a-theory-of-everything

Things we dig into, and some links to help you dig even deeper:

Co-Creation cultivates Advocacy, ownership and Mutual Understanding

https://voltagecontrol.co/co-creation-is-a-powerful-tool-for-digital-transformation-5cfd942702bf

Co-Creation builds requisite Variety/Diversity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(cybernetics)

IAP2 spectrum as a model for the spectrum of co-creation

https://www.iap2.org/

Complexity Theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_theory_and_organizations

Liberating Structures, a model for modular workshop mechanics

http://www.liberatingstructures.com/

Cynefin (kuh-nevin)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework

The power of Making and Sharing Tools (The Voltage Control Sprint Scorecard)

https://voltagecontrol.co/the-voltage-control-design-sprint-scorecard-503b1fc1b8be

The History of Design Sprints and the power of AWE (Accelerated working environments)

Jake’s Book:

https://www.thesprintbook.com/

Google’s Toolkit

https://designsprintkit.withgoogle.com/introduction/overview

Timeboxing and Raising the Stakes

More on Holocracy in my Interview with Sally McCutchion

http://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/2017/6/6/sally-mccutchion-on-holacracy-and-self-management-at-all-levels-of-organization

Liberating Structures: Troika Consulting

http://www.liberatingstructures.com/8-troika-consulting/

Liberating Structures: 1-2-4-All

http://www.liberatingstructures.com/1-1-2-4-all/

Note and Vote as a Modular Component (thinking alone before thinking together)

https://www.fastcompany.com/3034772/note-and-vote-how-google-ventures-avoids-groupthink-in-meetings

To Engineer is Human

https://www.amazon.com/Engineer-Human-Failure-Successful-Design/dp/0679734163/

Places to Learn about Douglas and Voltage Control:

voltagecontrol.co

twitter.com/voltagectr

https://www.instagram.com/voltagectrl/

https://www.facebook.com/voltage-control

https://www.linkedin.com/in/douglasferguson/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/voltage-control