Community Building for Founders through Conversation and Hosting

Today my guest is Yehong Zhu, the founder and CEO of Zette.

We discuss three key layers of conversation design: 

+ The conversation with yourself - even with so many companies founded…why not me?

+ The importance of community, community building and hosting as an integral part of staying sane, informed and productive as a founder.

+ The broader, cultural conversation - how does a founder design the conversation around why does this company matter? Shaping this narrative arc can help you connect your company’s mission to the mission of potential funders and advisors

Prior to starting Zette, she worked as a journalist at Forbes Magazine, where she reported on business, market and technology trends. She also worked as a product manager at Twitter on two consumer teams—the Tweets team in San Francisco and the Events team in London—where she shipped features on desktop, mobile web, iOS, and Android to 330M users globally. She graduated from Harvard College in 2018 with a degree in philosophy and government.

Be sure to check out my conversation with Michael Bervell about his “Conversation Onion” model that we reference in the conversation.

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

Playing Nice with Paywalls

Zette

Minute 1

Yehong Zhu:

I've always believed that there are a lot of problems in the world to be solved. I think that, why not me? Right? Why not be the one to identify some of the issues in the world and work towards solving them, even if they're not previously solved issues, doesn't mean that they're impossible to do so. And so I think that there's a lot in the world that requires vision and creativity and courage to make it better or to at least make it more palatable. Right?

Minute 16

Yehong Zhu:

as nothing that could have prepared me for what was coming next, which was that I had to figure out how to recruit an entire team remotely and build a remote culture from nothing essentially, how to figure out how to fundraise entirely over Zoom. And how to get a network of warm introductions when the city that I had supposedly moved to, because it was at the genesis of Silicon Valley was completely a ghost town at the time. And so my tactic switched from meeting investors for coffee in coffee shops to badgering them on LinkedIn. You know what I mean?

A lot of the adaptations that I was forced to go through, I think ultimately made me a stronger founder, a more flexible, adaptable person, but it was not without tremendous growing pains. I think we all went through those, we can all think back to where we were two years ago when the pandemic first hit. I think it's particularly hard when you're just starting out, because it's not like you have an existing base of resources or an existing set of colleagues or co-workers or a network that you can lean on, because you're just at the beginning of your journey.

And so there's pros and cons of course, but I think one of the pros is perhaps ironically having such a difficult beginning gives you a better sense of preparedness for what's to come after. Right? If the beginning's not a cakewalk, you know that the whole journey itself is going to take a lot more than perhaps you would've thought, but it does prepare you to be a more resilient founder.

Minute 21

Yehong Zhu:

I think that one of the interesting side effects of living with other founders is that it makes you a better founder yourself. Because anytime you have a question around let's say, what's the right business strategy to employ here, or who are the best accounting firms to work with or what do certain investors or firms do for founders versus other investors? These are difficult questions to answer in a vacuum, right? You need information that's both accurate and relevant and recent and all of these things. And the internet is so full of different pieces of information that sometimes it's hard to know what to trust.

If you're struggling with fundraising, for example, you can try to figure out from reading blogs on medium from five years ago, if you're doing the right thing, or you can ask your friend who literally just raised around two months ago, what the actual environment is like right now. And so I think some of these connections and these networks that you meet in-person when you're actually friends with someone and they're able to be honest with their experiences, can help you so much more than if you were just trying to figure it out on your own.

Minute 29

Yehong Zhu:

If you're on a mission to do something that's greater than yourself, you can get a lot of people excited by the mission you're pursuing, because perhaps it's something that's equally important, if not more important to them, a lot of people care about democracy, right? A lot of people believe that reliable information, factual information journalism is the foundation of a strong and healthy democracy.

And so they get excited by people who are working on new ideas in this space, because maybe in another life they would've wanted to work on the same idea. Maybe they even had a similar idea and they're just glad that they're meeting somebody who's actually pursuing it. Right? And so I think there are a lot of ways to establish that connection with somebody. It depends on what they care about.

More About Yehong

Yehong Zhu is the founder and CEO of Zette. Prior to starting Zette, she worked as a journalist at Forbes Magazine, where she reported on business, market and technology trends. She also worked as a product manager at Twitter on two consumer teams—the Tweets team in San Francisco and the Events team in London—where she shipped features on desktop, mobile web, iOS, and Android to 330M users globally. She graduated from Harvard College in 2018 with a degree in philosophy and government.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

Well, then I will officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory, Yehong Zhu. Thank you for making the time today, working through all of the internet troubles that assail us eternally.

Yehong Zhu:

Yes, indeed.

Daniel Stillman:

Listen, I'm really glad that Michael put us together. I'm excited to peel back the layers of the conversation that you're having with yourself around the building of your company. And I'm wondering for folks who are listening, entrepreneurship is important to you. Why is that a value of yours and what made you want to start the company that you're helming right now?

Yehong Zhu:

I've always believed that there are a lot of problems in the world to be solved. I think that, why not me? Right? Why not be the one to identify some of the issues in the world and work towards solving them, even if they're not previously solved issues, doesn't mean that they're impossible to do so. And so I think that there's a lot in the world that requires vision and creativity and courage to make it better or to at least make it more palatable. Right? In my particular sector, the industry that I happen to care about is journalism.

Yehong Zhu:

My mother was a journalist before me, and I've always found it to be an incredible art form that also informs people, educates people and gets important stories out into the world. But it was an art form that was always struggling ever since the digital age at least with its business model, in terms of getting people to pay for and subscribe to reading online news has been tricky ever since the subscription model changed from being purely a print based one to a digital based one. And paywalls are now kind of abundant and it makes it really hard to decide what you should pay for, maybe inconvenient to remember how many subscriptions you have or hard to cancel, hard to keep track.

Yehong Zhu:

And so a lot of the issues that we face in not reading the news, I think comes from our inability to even access the right information at an affordable price. And so that was the problem that I saw in the market, and ever since I was young I was pretty resourceful, pretty entrepreneurial in a sense. When I didn't see certain clubs in my high school, I wanted to go found it myself. And when I was in college I wanted to start a college admissions consulting company, which I ended up doing to help underprivileged students get into universities.

Yehong Zhu:

And so I had this pattern in my earlier life of just going for the things that I wanted. And in this particular case I started Zette during a time of tremendous misinformation and the fake news crisis that Donald Trump called it. I think that it's a really important value and journey to be on, which is why I'm excited to be an entrepreneur in this space.

Daniel Stillman:

Does Zette take a position on what news people can access? How does curation come to bear on helping people find the things that they want, to eventually subscribe to?

Yehong Zhu:

Our first level of curation is really just figuring out who the paywall properties are. There's almost a self selection process there of, typically some of the higher let's say expense productions require paywalls. So journalistic outlets that employ newsrooms of journalists tend to have a harder paywall on their content in order to fund the journalism that they use. Whereas there's a lot of blogs and content sites and maybe let's say more clickbait websites out there that don't have strong subscriber base, because maybe their content isn't something that you would consistently pay to read, but rather you would find it on the internet as a free site and you would click on it there.

Yehong Zhu:

There's, I would say, firstly, a difference between the journalism that paywalls itself versus the information that doesn't have a paywall to start. And so looking at the journalism that does have paywalls, our next step is figuring out, who would want to work with us, right? How many of these publications can we partner with at a given time? For example, we might want to target an umbrella corporation with many, many titles instead of just a single title that's privately owned, just because it allows to give the scale of reach that we would want for our audience.

Yehong Zhu:

And so that's how we start filtering down to what editorial lenses are we promoting, but it's more so from a logistical perspective rather than through let's say dogmatic perspective.

Daniel Stillman:

Sure, sure. I really loved the three virtues or values, I guess you'd really say, that you outlined of vision, creativity and courage. I'm curious when you started thinking about this challenge, as we were saying before we started recording, I feel everything starts with an internal conversation. How long were you telling yourself this is a thing that needs to exist?

Yehong Zhu:

I think I first started thinking about this problem in 2016. At that time I was a business reporter for Forbes magazine. I noticed that a lot of the articles that I was writing had a lot of advertisements attached to the articles that were being published. Right? I publish an article, there'd be seven or 10 ads on the page. I remember asking my editor at the time, why are there so many ads on the page? Doesn't it make it hard to read the actual content of this article?

Yehong Zhu:

He mentioned that because Forbes was ad based at the time, it made sense to put more and more ads on a single page, just because each ad only brought in a tiny sliver of revenue, right? Pennies on the dollar. And so as a result more ads more revenue. And so I could already see the problem then, which is that more ads or at least filling the page with ads led to not so great of a user experience. And it also didn't lead to that much money, which meant that subscription revenue was an obvious next step, not just for Forbes, but for a lot of national publications at the time.

Yehong Zhu:

But then if you assume that a lot of publications will move towards subscription revenue and paywalls, that meant that everyone would start paywalling their content. Right? And that meant that for the average user, for the average reader, it's going to put them in a tough position because no one can buy everything, right? It's not like you can justify buying subscriptions to a hundred different sites because you're probably not even going to read all of those sites on even a monthly basis.

Yehong Zhu:

It's only the occasional time when you hit a paywall, when you realize I do want to read this article, but I might not actually want a subscription. So it also puts the publishers in a tragedy of the common position where they're fighting almost against each other for the next additional subscriber. When I think if you just put let's say a pay per view model in front of the consumer, what happens then is that you can actually give them more options. Right? It's like opening up an entire economy class of an airplane that previously only sold business class. Right? As a result more people would want to fly aka more people would want to read legitimate journalism.

Yehong Zhu:

I saw the issue a long time ago, but I naturally assumed, and this is a funny thing that I think a lot of entrepreneurs might assume, that if a problem is that obvious someone is probably already doing it or somebody will do it for [inaudible 00:08:06]. Right? And so at the time I remember thinking, oh yeah, well, someone's just going to sound Netflix for news or Spotify for news startup and I'll be the first user of it when it comes out in a couple months or next year. Right?

Yehong Zhu:

The funny thing is that four years passed. And by the time I was ready to jump into entrepreneurship again and rethinking about the problems in the world, this problem had still not been solved and I was still in a state of shock that it hadn't.

Daniel Stillman:

Why do you think that is? I'm curious. Why hasn't anybody else tried to solve this?

Yehong Zhu:

Well, I think that there have been some attempts previously, but I think that timing here is a large factor. Like I mentioned before at the time that I was writing for Forbes, Forbes itself had not gone under paywall yet. Right? It was still reported. And a lot of internet based media companies were free. They were giving out content for free. They were giving out content with apps. And paywalls were starting to become a thing, but they were nowhere near as prevalent as they are now.

Yehong Zhu:

I think the other issue is that increasingly I think media companies and a lot of companies worldwide are realizing that they need to figure out how to get that elusive millennial or gen Z consumer on board. Because if you think about the media industry at least in terms of historical customers, it was usually older generations that would buy print newspapers, who would then sign up to be digital subscribers online. Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Yehong Zhu:

But in order to keep the bloodline of your business strong, you need to make sure to appeal to newer generations of users, right? Every single year. I think what newspapers are quickly realizing is that they don't have a good strategy for capturing a digital native audience that might not even know what The Economist is. Right? They might not even have a reading habit up front. And so increasingly it's becoming more and more important to start appealing to let's say the TikTok generation or the social media generation, and really convince an entirely new demographic of users to start paying for news for the first time.

Daniel Stillman:

That's the narrative and it makes sense to me. How does that play with the people that you need to bring on board, your subscriber partners?

Yehong Zhu:

I've been speaking with a lot of media companies, a lot of media executives, and I think that there is an awareness around this exact problem, around reaching new demographics, around figuring out more sustainable business models, but there's also a hesitancy, right? Because if you can recall, technology obliterated the existing models. And so there's sometimes a little bit of hesitancy to try new technological innovations, to worry about the onboarding cost of, is this going to cost me engineering time? Is it going to cost money? Is it going to work? Right?

Yehong Zhu:

So there's a bit of hesitancy there to try bold new ideas. And there's still grappling with changes in the industry. Right? And so a lot of journalists were laid off in the past couple of years, some outlets did tremendously well, like the New York Times, while a lot of local news outlets really struggled with their own business models and retaining their audiences. There's a huge berth in terms of the problems that newsrooms are struggling with. And in addition to that, there are things like the death of the cookie. Google's getting rid of third party data, which means that a lot of the important data elements of advertising are being done away with.

Yehong Zhu:

And so there's a lot that they need to already innovate on that end. Right? In terms of data and data privacy regulations, et cetera. And then with COVID and with newsrooms scrambling to adapt to remote first environments or figuring out what to report on that's super relevant, there's a lot of movement on the editorial side as well. And then finally I would say in the macro environment, a lot of newspapers are being bought up by hedge funds, right? Or ownership is being transferred at lightning speed right now. And so there's a lot of management changes on top of all the other changes that are going on in the industry.

Yehong Zhu:

It's not super straightforward for them to see, hey, we need to shift everything to this new model right now. But I think with time there's going to be increasing recognition that innovation needs to happen and it needs to happen sooner rather than later.

Daniel Stillman:

It's interesting when we were talking, when I did my interview with our mutual friend, Michael, we talked about these three levels of conversation, these concentric circles. I think he thought of it as an onion. And there is that self conversation. We manage ourselves and we coach ourselves and then there's conversations with others, didactic, multiple team conversations, and then further and further out there's conversations with community and culture. What I'm hearing as you're talking about some of the challenges with Zette is, some of these bigger conversations where there's a lot of chaos or uncertainty at the macro level.

Daniel Stillman:

But I'm also curious as you're building this company, what's going on at the you level and also at the team level? I know that you were saying you're a solo founder, but nobody builds anything 100% by themselves. What you talked about in our pre-conversation, talking about trials and tribulations. I'm curious, there's definitely some turbulence at that macro level and I'm wondering what's going on at the micro and the meso level trials and tribulations with building this company?

Yehong Zhu:

I think that there have been a tremendous amount of obstacles and adversity when I was first starting to build Zette. And even now I think that the obstacles don't go away, they just change in form and function. In the beginning I remember I was so optimistic about starting a company, this was in February, 2020, right? Where we were the top of a-

Daniel Stillman:

That's just the punchline, way too many, there's so many stories that start. It was February 2020. Oh boy.

Yehong Zhu:

Imagine how I felt starting a month later. But I was freshly off of quitting my job at Twitter, where I used to be a product manager. I was full of this naive optimism about this startup being the greatest thing and I would move back to San Francisco so I could recruit engineers in-person. And I would attend these media conferences to get to know people. So I had booked all of these flights in advance. On a personal level I was in a long term relationship. So I knew I needed that stability on the personal front to take a huge professional risk.

Yehong Zhu:

And in a sense all of that came crumbling down, because San Francisco was one of the first cities in America to go through a complete lockdown. Right? And so within barely a month of starting to research about the company and figuring out the industry dynamics and starting some of those recruiting conversations, the whole world just flipped upside down on its head and all the playbooks that I had read on how to raise money and how to recruit people, of course were written for pre COVID world.

Yehong Zhu:

And so there was nothing that could have prepared me for what was coming next, which was that I had to figure out how to recruit an entire team remotely and build a remote culture from nothing essentially, how to figure out how to fundraise entirely over Zoom. And how to get a network of warm introductions when the city that I had supposedly moved to, because it was at the genesis of Silicon Valley was completely a ghost town at the time. And so my tactic switched from meeting investors for coffee in coffee shops to badgering them on LinkedIn. You know what I mean?

Yehong Zhu:

A lot of the adaptations that I was forced to go through, I think ultimately made me a stronger founder, a more flexible, adaptable person, but it was not without tremendous growing pains. I think we all went through those, we can all think back to where we were two years ago when the pandemic first hit. I think it's particularly hard when you're just starting out, because it's not like you have an existing base of resources or an existing set of colleagues or co-workers or a network that you can lean on, because you're just at the beginning of your journey.

Yehong Zhu:

And so there's pros and cons of course, but I think one of the pros is perhaps ironically having such a difficult beginning gives you a better sense of preparedness for what's to come after. Right? If the beginning's not a cake walk, you know that the whole journey itself is going to take a lot more than perhaps you would've thought, but it does prepare you to be a more resilient founder. And if you can start a company during a pandemic, you can probably do anything. That's my sense.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Well, let's talk about what that process was like, badgering VCs on LinkedIn doesn't sound like that much fun. Was it effective?

Yehong Zhu:

I think it depends on how you go about it. There's definitely methods to the madness. I think that I learned a lot about the value of form introductions and going through people that I had previously known or worked for. I also tried to make new friends and new connections through unconventional means. For example, I wrote an article about what it was like to start a company during COVID and it went viral. And through that virality, I was able to be connected with other founders and investors who read my work and resonated with what I was building.

Yehong Zhu:

And so that's a way that you can make connections at scale rather than going one by one. And then I would join these other communities that were relevant to me. So for example, I would find networks of female founders, and then I would sign up for these mentorship calls or these listicles where everybody who wanted to connect with other founders would write down their names and put down their social media. And so I would go through one by one and reach out and just ask for a call or ask for a conversation or some advice.

Yehong Zhu:

And I found that, not all these conversations were helpful, but for the ones who were helpful, I ended up making very close friends with other founders who were also struggling to find community, who were also struggling to find their bearings. And then eventually I moved from the online world to the offline world. So having met a lot of interesting, cool people through different means online, I started some founder group houses where I would actually live and work with these founders in different cities.

Yehong Zhu:

I started a female founder house in Maui, and then another one in Mexico. And through these networks I was able to actually start meeting new friends and colleagues in-person, as opposed to only being in the basement of whatever apartment I was renting in San Francisco.

Daniel Stillman:

What I'm hearing you say, these are such universal challenges of how to go from a cool introduction to a warm introduction. And one of the things I'm hearing you say is, start with warm introductions. There's a lot of strength in warm introductions. The other thing that I'm hearing you say, which I agree with wholeheartedly, is that, creating your own opportunities to connect with people at various levels of scale is important.

Daniel Stillman:

As you said, like communities, but also on the smaller scale, these houses where there's not just communities that are diffuse and on the internet, but grounded in a place and a space and being the host of those communities is a really, really powerful approach to building deeper connection.

Yehong Zhu:

Yeah, definitely. Because as much as we can build community online, we are physical creatures that exist in physical spaces. And I think the great tragedy of social distancing is that it's exactly that you're distanced from the social connections and warmth that you need, right? To live on, to build cultures, to build community with. And so as much as the world is now remote, I think that there is an imperative value of being in-person or at least of having the in-person connection with your team, with your family, with your friends, with your colleagues, that you should strive to maintain even as the world is crumbling around you, because that is the thing will keep you sane.

Daniel Stillman:

I'm curious, did these group houses in this community building effort, what's the narrative you tell yourself about the signs and signals you're seeing that it is effective? Because I think there's on one level it's just as you said, it keeps you sane and human connection is just purely essential. But then there's the flip side which is, is it giving you business results that you're looking for?

Yehong Zhu:

I think that one of the interesting side effects of living with other founders is that it makes you a better founder yourself. Because anytime you have a question around let's say, what's the right business strategy to employ here, or who are the best accounting firms to work with or what do certain investors or firms do for founders versus other investors? These are difficult questions to answer in a vacuum, right? You need information that's both accurate and relevant and recent and all of these things. And the internet is so full of different pieces of information that sometimes it's hard to know what to trust.

Yehong Zhu:

If you're struggling with fundraising, for example, you can try to figure out from reading blogs on medium from five years ago, if you're doing the right thing, or you can ask your friend who literally just raised around two months ago, what the actual environment is like right now. And so I think some of these connections and these networks that you meet in-person when you're actually friends with someone and they're able to be honest with their experiences, can help you so much more than if you were just trying to figure it out on your own.

Daniel Stillman:

I think this is so true and so important, and it's a very powerful way to resource yourself. I think my pushback is, creating community with your peers is essential. But the question that I'm sitting with is, you were talking about badgering VCs on LinkedIn, that doesn't seem, I'm guessing that wasn't a super effective strategy. Community building and networking with people outside of our peers or near peers or affinity groups is really challenging.

Daniel Stillman:

I'm curious what you found has been helpful, because you're talking about connecting with people like engineering resources, accounting resources, fundraising. How have you found building your network with those groups that are not your direct peers has worked for you?

Yehong Zhu:

It's a good question. And just a quick caveat, it is surprisingly more effective than you think to badger VCs on LinkedIn because their job is to talk to peers.

Daniel Stillman:

Fair.

Yehong Zhu:

I think depending on why you're badgering them and what the messaging is around speaking with them, they're actually very receptive to taking conversations because that's what they're getting paid for. Right? Their job is to introduce deal flow into their firms. That's just a quick side note. It's an excellent question. I think that there's, when I was at Twitter I learned that there's three types of management. You have to manage up, you have to manage down and then you have to manage around you. Right?

Yehong Zhu:

So comfort talking with superiors and decision makers, comfort talking to the people that you're working with on your team who are more junior than you, maybe even mentoring the folks who are more junior and then comfort with your own peer group, right? And the folks, your equals. I think all three are critically important to your success, because at the end of the day they're all going to be part of who you are as a leader and as a manager.

Yehong Zhu:

And in terms of how that functions, I think on a founder level, your team, right? Is going to be the folks that you work with and work together with and collaborate with and figure out, okay, how do we actually move this enormous problem forward? Whereas other founders from different teams, different industries, they're more of your contemporaries, your peer group, right? That's the folks that you are at a similar stage with, that you can learn from and with and together.

Yehong Zhu:

And then the folks who are ahead of you, or maybe in positions of influence, but maybe tangential to what you do, for example, investors or later stage founders who maybe are in your same industry or in your same vertical, or perhaps can act as mentors, are also extremely important folks to know, to have in your network. And in terms of how you meet them, I think there's a variety of ways, warm intros, cold outreach, going to events and speaking to the speakers afterwards, getting connected to people that you know, asking investors who have invested in you to open up their rolodexes to introduce you to the right folks.

Yehong Zhu:

I think these are all targeted strategic ways to develop a relationship or at least get that first meeting. And then in terms of how you actually develop a relationship, I think to some extent it has to happen organically, right? People are really busy, especially important people, right? And so they're not going to have time to mentor everybody that they need or take every meeting that is asked of them. And so making sure that you explain your relevance or what that relationship is going to get for both of you is often a good sign.

Yehong Zhu:

So for example, if you're starting an advisory board and you want to hire someone as a potential advisor, that could be a beneficial relationship for both sides, both someone looking to be on a board and for you yourself looking for expertise at a higher level. And so I think that's a little bit of, from my experience, building connections with folks that I'm not directly in touch with, but of course there's so much more that I could learn, more from other founders and entrepreneurs who can do this a lot better.

Daniel Stillman:

This is really, what this is bringing up for me is, there's this systemic approach to as you said, diversifying the nodes in your network strategically. Right? So being cognizant, it sounds like you were very intentional about building out as you said the up, down and around components of your network. And it seems like there's still this need at the conversational, the conversation by conversation level to be fully present and the ability to actually connect and invite someone into a deeper conversation.

Daniel Stillman:

There's no substitute for, it's like you've caught the fish, the fish is on the line and now what do you do? Right? And so I'm curious, A, if that resonates for you, and B how you feel you in the moment, in the conversation create that affinity and that desire for them to really go a little bit deeper with you.

Yehong Zhu:

It's a great question. I think that for me, a lot of the times it depends on how you communicate your mission, right? If you're on a mission to do something that's greater than yourself, you can get a lot of people excited by the mission you're pursuing, because perhaps it's something that's equally important, if not more important to them, a lot of people care about democracy, right? A lot of people believe that reliable information, factual information journalism is the foundation of a strong and healthy democracy.

Yehong Zhu:

And so they get excited by people who are working on new ideas in this space, because maybe in another life they would've wanted to work on the same idea. Maybe they even had a similar idea and they're just glad that they're meeting somebody who's actually pursuing it. Right? And so I think there are a lot of ways to establish that connection with somebody. It depends on what they care about. Sometimes in my case, if there's affinity around being a female founder, being an Asian founder, right? Or being a founder who's a solo founder, building a remote team, there's all sorts of ways that you can connect with other entrepreneurs, other investors, other people who will help you on your journey.

Yehong Zhu:

And just finding where your relationship overlaps, the similarities that you can connect to often strengthens that bond. For example, I think alumni networks are a good example of this, where no matter what school you went to, there's probably some really impressive alumni from your university. And if you reach out on a basis of that alumni connection, there's always that connection that you can lean back on. Right? And of course that's only going to open the door for you if they are receptive to that. But after that when they get to know you a little bit more, I think that there's different ways that you can connect further based off of that.

Daniel Stillman:

It's interesting, in a way I'm going back to looking at my visual notes, the seed of entrepreneurship for you is vision, creativity and courage. And it seems like the foundation of being able to connect with someone else can stem from as you say, communicating your mission, but also connecting to their purpose.

Yehong Zhu:

Yup. Definitely.

Daniel Stillman:

I don't think there's any substitute for, as you say, empathy and curiosity for the person on the other side connecting your mission to their mission and their purpose.

Yehong Zhu:

Agreed. I think that connection is so important because you have to ask yourself like, why do we wake up every morning? Right? What is it that we want to do with our lives? Or what is it that we want to do in the world? And I often hear that talking to founders is very inspiring, because these are the people crazy enough to think that they can change a seemingly impossible or immovable problem. Right? That's so big that it feels bigger than ourselves, that it feels like maybe this is just how the world has always been and always will be.

Yehong Zhu:

But I tend to see the world as a changeable thing. Right? The universe is not fixed. It's moveable. It might take a lot of time and effort and money to move some parts of it, but that doesn't mean that every single part of the world wasn't just built by people like us. Right? And can't be [inaudible 00:32:33] to be better and stronger and faster. Right? And so I think maybe that fundamental philosophy is what differentiates founders from everybody else.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I'm always cautious about quoting Steve Jobs because, let's admit it, he was a bit of a jerk. But he did point out and I think rightly so that everything in the world was made by someone. Right? In one sense everything around us is natural and another sense everything is, because we're natural in some sense, but we have created all the systems around us and the people who came before us were just like us, which means we can make new systems if we choose to. There is that reality distortion field, that infamous reality distortion field around Mr. Jobs that made this possible.

Daniel Stillman:

I guess I'm curious, going way back towards the beginning of our conversation, you talked about that enthusiasm and that energy. I feel with every creative conversation, there's energy at the beginning and there's a dip somewhere in the middle. I'm curious, did you experience a dip and how did you pull yourself through your dip?

Yehong Zhu:

Are you talking about a dip in stamina through the startup journey?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. When I think about the startup journey, there are, I imagine many dips, from fundraising dips to team building dips, to dips in your own faith, in that reality distortion.

Yehong Zhu:

For sure. I think there's always going to be setbacks and disappointments and people telling you no or people telling you that it's not possible. But I think that what keeps you going, or at least what keeps me going is the sense that this is such an obvious solution, is that if you can just get to market, everything will work. And maybe that's not necessarily true, but it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Right? You start reframing dips as clearing the way for people who are your supporters to find you, right?

Yehong Zhu:

It's almost like if fundraising or hiring even is a numbers game and every 10 people you approach will say no, but that means that one out of the 11 or 10 will say yes, then every no becomes a celebration because you just cleared the way for someone who wouldn't support you anyway, to getting closer to finding somebody who would. I think that mindset is really, really important. And it's gotten me out of more than just a few dips, let's say. Because it ended up coming true.

Yehong Zhu:

I think that after a while, when you stop taking rejection so personally, and when you accept the fact that you're not a multimillion dollar corporation or multi-billion dollar corporation with infinite resources at your fingertips, it's going to be hard to figure out how to do the same things on a faster timeline. But if you're nimble, if you're quick, if you can pick yourself up and dust yourself off faster than your competitors, there's nothing stopping you from just keeping, making progress and continuing to rise.

Daniel Stillman:

I appreciate that. I think that's true. And it's also hard to coach yourself through those dips. Right? Because while it is true that every no gets you closer to the law of large numbers through to the yes. In that moment it can be really just authentically sad to get the no that you were hoping for a yes.

Yehong Zhu:

It's true. I think that there have been many times when I've doubted after getting the 10th no or something like that. Like, wow, is this really an idea worth pursuing? Is my vision really an actually good one to do? Is this is something that I've just made some horrible miscalculation on? But I think the beauty comes because you're never, if you just try, if you honestly try and give it your absolute best shot, it's very rare that you only ever get negative feedback.

Yehong Zhu:

Sometimes it happens because you get unlucky. Sometimes you'll flip a coin 10 times and get 10 tails. Right? Sometimes that just happens, but it's just rare that you're not going to get a single glimmer of positive feedback or hope or somebody helping you or somebody saying, hey, don't worry about that, that's usually how the process works. Let me introduce to somebody else. Right?

Yehong Zhu:

And so I think the intermittent reinforcement of getting that occasional head every few misses and then getting better at tossing a coin, I think that's what really differentiate entrepreneurs who are able to go the distance. They see every sliver of hope as a triumph. And so that's the thing that keeps them going for the next triumph and the next one and the next one after that.

Daniel Stillman:

I think that's really beautiful. It's also clear, going back to the importance of having a community of peers, because when, and I've certainly found this in my own experience, when my own inner coaching fails, right? There's my peers to absorb some of the negative feelings and also to provide positive encouragement, that community is invaluable in those moments of those dips.

Yehong Zhu:

Yeah, definitely. I would say your community is valuable. Your team is just as valuable if not more, because your team, these are the people that chose to give their time, give their energy, give their lives to work on the same mission that drives you, right? Because they resonate with it, because they believe in it and they'll be there for you on the days where you think, oh my gosh, this is the worst day of my life, right? So you can go back to your team and remind yourself why you're doing this and why they're doing this and then move forward together.

Yehong Zhu:

And at the end of the day you only really need one person to believe in you. And fortunately that one person can be yourself, right? If you just have somebody believing that it's going to work out, that's all you need to take yourself up again and then keep going the next day.

Daniel Stillman:

Right. It's one person at one time. So at one moment it could be you and at another moment it can be your mom and in another moment it can be your coach, and another moment it can be your friend.

Yehong Zhu:

Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

It's just like, I'm envisioning a relay race of reality distortion, that as long as somebody is willing to keep the energy going, we'll keep moving.

Yehong Zhu:

Keep the faith.

Daniel Stillman:

Keep the faith and keep it moving forward.

Yehong Zhu:

Definitely.

Daniel Stillman:

Listen, we're getting close to the end of our time here. I really appreciate us getting to this point in the conversation. What haven't I asked you about that I should be asking you about when it comes to the entrepreneurship journey, and as you say, overcoming managing, writing the wave of these trials and tribulations on the entrepreneurship journey?

Yehong Zhu:

I would say that it's important to ask about your why. I remember I spoke to Biz Stone once, he's one of the co-founders of Twitter, and he told me that everything takes 10 years. Every overnight success you see, it's not really overnight, right? You've got to be able to be in the trenches for 10 years in order to really see the fruits of your labor blossom into something that you would've never previously thought possible. And so you've got to have a really strong why for why you're doing this thing that you're doing and why you're going to be able to go the distance.

Yehong Zhu:

You've got to assume that on the worst days that you have when you're being beaten down by the entire world, why are you going to get back up again? What's that thing that's driving you towards it, or are you even going to get back up? Right? And it's not an easy job, right? If you wanted an easy job you would work as literally anything else besides being a startup founder. Right? And so understanding that upfront and knowing that's the cost of what this journey requires, I think is the most fundamental first step.

Yehong Zhu:

And if you're not willing to pay that price, and if you don't have a strong why, I would not encourage you to start a company. I would say, do something else, do anything else, and don't get into the arena until you're sure that this is the thing that you want to pursue.

Daniel Stillman:

This has really come up at a lot of different aspects. You mentioned vision very early on and the ability to connect with other people outside of your network through communicating your mission. This example with Biz Stone is so interesting. The importance of knowing your why to keep yourself going is really, really profound and very, very helpful, I think for anybody listening.

Yehong Zhu:

Thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

The every overnight success takes 10 years, people really, really forget this. The example I always cite. I remember this is going back a long time. One of my first jobs out of design school was working as a researcher and a strategist in the consumer electronics world. People would come in and they wanted to be the iPod. This is how long ago it was, Yehong. They were like, we want to be the iPod of blank. It's like they were printers, they were a dishwasher company, whatever it was. They were like, we want to be the iPod of blank. Because the iPod was the cash cow of Apple back then.

Daniel Stillman:

This was literally the cusp of the iPhone. I dug up this chart and I'm clearly going to have to dig it up again, that showed the iPod sales year on year. This is exactly what I said to them. I was like, you'd like to be a 10 year overnight success? Because the iPod was not immediately successful. When it first came out people were like, this is useless. It doesn't do half the things that the other MP3 players do, and it doesn't even have iTunes. All of the things in iPod was that made it a blockbuster took years and years and years to do. They plugged away at it for ages and nobody cared in the beginning.

Yehong Zhu:

Yep, definitely.

Daniel Stillman:

I think it's a great reminder. Biz Stone is 100% right, that we really should all be taking a long view and making sure we're anchoring ourselves to our why, and not just our why, but our vision and our mission. Right? Those are all part of the same flavor, but I feel they are slightly different flavors of one thing, which is having a core.

Yehong Zhu:

Definitely. You need to build up your foundation. Because I think the reason why why is a harder answer than how, is because there's an answer for every how, right? You can figure out how to incorporate a company. You can figure out how to hire a marketer. You can figure out how to get the right statistics that you're tracking for your analytics. All of these hows are actually already answered questions, and every big unanswered how is just a series of smaller answers.

Yehong Zhu:

But the why is something that only you can know, right? The reason behind why you would try such a crazy thing is so personal. Right? And that's the thing that actually drives everything else. And so if you can answer that, I think everything else can follow much more easily.

Daniel Stillman:

I think you're in very good company with that sentiment, by the way. Viktor Frankl quotes anicca when he says, and we have to forgive Viktor Frankl because anicca I guess really at the time, because they like many quotes, famous quotes, they just say a man. They meant, I presume I hope they meant all people. We could retranslate and say a person with a why can endure anyhow. The deeper connection we have to our core purpose we're willing to find anyhow, the how that we can find, and we're willing to endure even a difficult how.

Yehong Zhu:

Agreed. I think that quote is so on point and so important to remember, especially in these pandemic times, right? Where sometimes it feels like the whole world is crashing around us. I think it's important to realize that this too will pass. Right? But you need to have a strong core of what you're holding onto in order to survive the most turbulent storms.

Daniel Stillman:

I concur. Yehong, where should people go on the internet to learn more about you and your company, if we can direct them to other places?

Yehong Zhu:

Zette.com. That's zette.com, or they can just Google our name. Fortunately we have some pretty good SEO and hopefully our social media will pop up as well.

Daniel Stillman:

Awesome. That's really helpful. Your mission of letting people find and connect to the things that they really want to read and to create a sustainable financial model for it is a really, really awesome one. I'm grateful for you taking the time to unpack these layers of conversation in your work and life.

Yehong Zhu:

Thank you. Thank you for having me on. I think that you're asking exactly the right questions and I hope that some of our listeners will find this conversation helpful as well.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you very much. We'll call a scene.

Clarity and Intimacy in Co-Founder Conversations

In this conversation, I dive into the nuances of co-founder relationships with Clarity.so co-founders Richie Bonilla, CEO and Eni Jaupi, CTO.

Clarity.so is a y-combinator funded startup that has built a groundbreaking DAO contribution platform. DAO stands for Decentralized, Autonomous Organization, which you should totally google if you want to know more. 

While Clarity isn’t a DAO, you can see how the radical transparency that is at the heart and spirit of the cryptocurrency movement is also at the core of Richie and Eni’s relationship. I mean, it’s also the name of the company!

Like a few of the other conscious co-founder interviews I’ve been doing, these two co-founders prototyped their working relationship before jumping into their company together, which helped them build a foundation of trust and respect.

They also talked a lot. Like A LOT before even starting the company. Starting with a few times a week, they gradually transitioned to talking for at least an hour, daily, for a year.

What this conversation re-established for me was that it’s important to have agenda-ed conversations, and it’s also very important to have stream-of-consciousness, unagendaed conversations, too. Generally speaking, we’re great at structure, and less good at making space for wondering and wandering. For more on the power of wondering and wandering, make sure to check out my interview with Natalie Nixon.

Be sure to check out my conversation with Jane Portman and Benedikt Deicke, co-founders of Userlist, on how they connected through shared communities and learned how each other really worked through real-world, previous projects.

You may also enjoy my interview with Carolyn Gregoire and Scott Barry Kaufman, the co-authors of the 2015 bestseller, Wired to Create, where we unpack how they managed their working relationship.

And if you really want to dive deep into the idea of being a conscious co-founder, make sure to check out my conversation with my friend Doug Erwin, the Senior Vice President of Entrepreneurial Development at EDAWN, the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada.

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

Clarity.so

Minute 6

Richie Bonilla:

So basically in our first year working together, we talked a few times a week and we would have very in depth conversations about the work that we were doing. Once we started working on Clarity together, which was sort of a very organic and gradual transition. We talked, we would meet every day to talk. And we would talk about the things that we were doing, which would take maybe 15, 20 minutes.

And then we would spend another 40 minutes every day. So it would be like a total hour every day, talking about what this could become and what this could be. And so we basically spoke every day for an hour for the first year that we worked together. And I think that we're still reaping the benefits of getting on the same page in that way. Whereas, like a lot of my friends who don't work remote thought that was crazy. They're like you sit on the call for an hour a day. What do you even talk about? And I think that was probably one of the best things we ever did. I think we're still, like I said, reaping the benefits of that alignment.

Minute 25

Eni Jaupi:

This may be just, I don't know how to exactly call it, but we always have said this out loud: that our best interest is this company and knowing that full well, that just irons out whatever small conversation that we were having, that did not match, or our opinions did not match completely. So those are mostly just knowing that the other person knows that your intentions are fully aligned with his and at the same time, just putting aside your pride, that sometimes you just need to say, "Okay, let's just do it. And that we can talk about it later again." Try to not say I told you so, if something goes, as you imagine, as the person that said no, or the person that had the objections predicted or said, so just small things like that are part of the growing experience.

Minute 30

Richie Bonilla:

Even though we agree right now, let's still take the time to run through these other scenarios, so that we're make sure that we agree, rather than just taking a surface level agreement and being like, yes. And then running through it later." I look at it as de-risking the project, because if we get into details later, it's actually harder for us to fix this. So yes, we agree at this level, but let's go two or three levels deeper on this and make sure we agree on those levels too. And the way that we end up doing that is by saying, "Well, what happens if you know this or that?,Or the other thing?" And playing through those scenarios.

Minute 32

Richie Bonilla:

And I think that this is representative of how we approach our whole relationship, where in the beginning of starting to work together, we're like, "Oh, we're taking this more seriously." Getting aligned on what kinds of things you're trying to do with your life. Like, "Hey, if this is an opportunity here to make this something really big, are you here on a 10 year mission with me? Or are you looking for a passive income side hustle, SaaS product?" Those are fundamentally different visions. And it's really difficult if one person is like, "I'm sort of happy with like a 10K a month SaaS business. Why are we going through all this trouble to change the world?"

That's a really tough thing to reconcile later. Also, things like, "Hey, if it was right for the company, would you move to the United States? Would you move to New York City and come over here? Is that a deal breaker for you? Or is that something you're open to?" Because, we don't know what the future's going to hold. And that might be the right thing for the business.

So looking at all of those sort of irreconcilable positions really early on and having those conversations really early on, I think is something that we definitely did. And I think that people avoid it, because they're scared that like, "Oh, this person doesn't want to ever move to the US. And is that something that I can live with? And if not, crap, I just lost this opportunity." But I think it's the alternative. It's way harder to have that conversation later, if you're not in agreement.

Minute 36

Richie Bonilla:

I think that the way I see it is like, always talk about the thing that's relevant right now first, right up until the point where we feel like we have a handle on it. So getting through those open questions and then depending on where we're at. So sometimes something's really urgent. It's like, let's get this conversation done. Let's make these decisions. And let's get off the phone as soon as possible. Other times, you finish that conversation. You're like, "I've got this thing in my head, this idea that I can't kick and I want to share it with you. And let's explore that for a minute." And maybe we won't build that feature or encounter that problem for a few months. But by doing this, by the time we do get there, we've already talked about it 2, 3, 4 times, and we've already built up a shared mental model of like what that's going to be

More about Richie and Eni

Richie Bonilla is Co-founder & CEO of Clarity. His background is in product design & software development. He entered web3 by contributing to an early NFT gaming community in 2018. He worked as a remote freelancer for 10 years across various industries. This perspective informs his work at Clarity where he and Eni are building tools for DAO contributors, who experience many of the same problems faced by web2 freelancers.

Eni Jaupi is Co-founder & CTO of Clarity. His background is in software engineering, working as a remote freelancer for 9 years. His first introduction to crypto was in early 2017 while building side projects.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

I will officially welcome you to the Conversation Factory. Richie, Eni, welcome aboard. Thanks for making time for this. I really appreciate it.

Richie Bonilla:

Thanks for having us.

Eni Jaupi:

Thank you for having us.

Daniel Stillman:

So I think let's start with the big picture, which might be giving folks a sense of who you all are and what you're working on.

Richie Bonilla:

So my name is Richie. My background is in design and product, also technical. And so just like sort of a multidisciplinary founder. I'll let Eni introduce himself, but what we're working on is called Clarity. We believe that... We were freelancers in Web2 and we think that freelancing is great, because you have a lot of independence, freedom. And if you do a good job, you can make some pretty good money, but the downside is that it's very lonely and it's also very risky for a lot of folks, because they don't know where that next project is coming from.

Richie Bonilla:

And we see Web3 and DAO as a way to solve those last two pieces, because we think that community and networks help with that. And so we're building Clarity, which helps these DAOs to become more organized and more legible and more accessible, so that more people can engage with them. And so Clarity takes the form of a collaborative workspace that integrates tokens very seamlessly into the experience.

Richie Bonilla:

It includes both documents and project coordination tools, natively, and some other more social features that help people coordinate together. And so we think this is really important for people to be able to build reputation and be able to go off road and be an independent worker, and be what we call on Web3, a contributor. That's the new version of freelancers in our opinion. And so, that's what we're working on.

Daniel Stillman:

That's cool. Eni, do you want to add yourself?

Eni Jaupi:

Yeah. Just to give a brief background on myself. I'm Eni, I'm from Albania, so pretty far away from Richie. I'm primarily a software engineer. I say primarily, because when you work the remote or in general, in a project by project, you have to wear many hats. But I like to call myself a software engineer, first. I've worked remotely and as a freelancer practically, my whole career.

Eni Jaupi:

I wouldn't be able to say was what are the best things and the worst things, because this is practically all I know. So it would be a bit hard to make a difference, is what I can say though, is what Richie said about it being full of great opportunities, but at the same time being a bit lonely, just because you're not having so many casual conversations with somebody that you meet with the screen, a few times a day or a few times a week. So about Clarity, I think Richie is the voice that I also like to hear, when we talk about Clarity itself. I just give all my opinions away. And that Richie actually say them back to me, because that just feels so much better and sounds so much better than me actually saying it.

Daniel Stillman:

So Eni, are you saying that you use Richie as a sounding board, like you express your ideas and then Richie helps reframe them back to you? They make more sense.

Eni Jaupi:

Yes. That's almost always been the case even in our previous project, because in our previous project I was in the team. So I was a software engineer, but I had no prior relationship to Richie. So our first meeting was practically in a sprint kickoff. So of course, there was that tension of a new developer coming in and the project manager on the other side, having expectations for you, but what we found worked and I think that has always been the case was, what we're talking about a bit earlier, which is, I like to give my opinion. I have a lot of opinions about product in general, but being of an engineering mind is really hard to explain in a human in "Way". And that'-

Daniel Stillman:

Your so called human ways of talking.

Eni Jaupi:

Our so called human way of talking. And Richie has an outstanding ability to really understand what I'm trying to say without me needing to break out of that role, because you either have to do one or the other, if you really want to be good at one. So even when I change hats, practically, my way of speaking actually changes quite a lot, because when I'm trying to say that, "Okay, these things that we are trying to build is really cool, is really important, but technically these are the challenges." It's really hard to do that, if you want to also be able to convey that... Okay. The thing that we are trying to do is going to be done, is just how it's going to be done, that needs some talking through.

Daniel Stillman:

Richie, anything you wanted to add to that? How does that spark for you?

Richie Bonilla:

Yeah. I think that's the unique thing about us was that, I also similarly have been a freelancer for eight years until... Clarity is like our first real job for both of us. And I think that early on in our relationship, especially for the first year that we were working on Clarity together, but I would say... Let me restart that. So basically in our first year working together, we talked a few times a week and we would have very in depth conversations about the work that we were doing. Once we started working on Clarity together, which was sort of a very organic and gradual transition. We talked, we would meet every day to talk. And we would talk about the things that we were doing, which would take maybe 15, 20 minutes.

Richie Bonilla:

And then we would spend another 40 minutes every day. So it would be like a total hour every day, talking about what this could become and what this could be. And so we basically spoke every day for an hour for the first year that we worked together. And I think that we're still reaping the benefits of getting on the same page in that way. Whereas, like a lot of my friends who don't work remote thought that was crazy. They're like you sit on the call for an hour a day. What do you even talk about? And I think that was probably one of the best things we ever did. I think we're still, like I said, reaping the benefits of that alignment.

Eni Jaupi:

I think Richie is talking about the median, because those conversation could go into five or six hours. For me, it was 6:00 in the morning and I was starting to not sound really good, because I was falling asleep. So that's, where the conversation would naturally end. So I think that has always been a cool part. And when we do it now, it sounds... Because it's not that this was, oh, like 10 years ago. But it sounds nostalgic, because when we still do that and we go into deep conversations for hours and hours [inaudible 00:08:02], and this is through the screen, so through a microphone, it just feels organic.

Daniel Stillman:

I think this is an amazing insight in terms of the way you're creating intimacy from far away. And as you said, Richie, before we started recording, the two of you met in person once, and that's all after you had already been working together for some time on this project, on this company, is that right? So you'd built up a lot of connection points and a lot of alignment and a lot of intimacy, intellectual intimacy, all of it from far away.

Richie Bonilla:

Yeah. I think that was because we let conversations go stream of consciousness. So we would have our agendaed conversation and be very disciplined about that. But then we would just like, let things... We still do this. We just allow for stream of consciousness to take over in a conversation. And sometimes we go over time. Sometimes we talk about stuff that probably is not relevant for six months, but I think a lot of the time we, what we're doing is... I think most of the time it's actually very productive in that, it allows us to keep a shared mental model of the entire business. And so we've always done that. And we did build up a lot of... I think I like that word, intellectual intimacy, before meeting in person, because of that.

Daniel Stillman:

One thing that I've heard from a couple of the other co-founders that I've been connecting with is, I find it interesting, just like any other relationship there's a million, there's so many fish in the sea, there's all these people out in the world. There's a lot of makers and people with ideas and people who want to create a company. Of all the... What's that line from Casablanca? Of all the bars in all the world, you walked into a place... How did you, of all the serendipity, what serendipity created, the two of you crossing paths, and then taking that next step into getting closer? What was right before, "Yeah. Let's work on this together?"

Richie Bonilla:

Yeah. So on my end it was bidding for a job on Upwork that I won. And so I was working out. We worked on this project, there was these casting directors in New Orleans. They had this amazing system for casting directors to find extras, because extras casting is very different from main character casting. There's a lot of like bulk casting. It has to be a lot about their appearance and just like a lot 50 different attributes that you can match people on. And so they had this system that had organically grown. It was way more than what they had ever anticipated doing. They needed someone to come in with a product lens and really rethink it. And so they hired me for four months before bringing Eni in. And so I had done a lot of user research and iteration, and then he was brought in to sort of lead the development team and help to start building it. And so that was on my end, what it looked like.

Daniel Stillman:

And so Eni, this is what you're talking about. You're plopped into the middle of this group that's already been together, been working for a while.

Eni Jaupi:

So on the other side, for me, it was actually a lot less intentional. So it started as a conversation with somebody that was part of the team and they were just saying, "Okay, you should jump in. I think this is a really cool app that you could work on." And so I just got there and practically, okay, these are the things that we need. This is the stack. Sounded cool. The app looked cool. So it was a lot more just a nonchalant decision of, "Okay, this is a cool project. Let me just try it out." The guys were already working, I believe at that point. So they had quite a few things built, but when I jumped in the thing that actually connected us more so than anything else was caring about the project. When you're in freelancing, you have projects one after the other.

Eni Jaupi:

So it's kind of hard to care on a deep level, that the thing that you are working on really needs to be something big. And from my side, that has always been the goal. So to be a big part of something big. And so the tendency to care, I think that's just what did draw us, as sometimes we would be the only two people talking in a call and maybe that would be kind of annoying, but that was also organic. It wasn't something as a single case or a single decision that we worked on specifically, and that built our relationship up.

Eni Jaupi:

It was just get on a call and just things flowed from there. We understood each other really well, so that also helped quite a bit. I was also not really shy to say my opinions. So I think that was also something that from Richie's side actually, that stood out as, okay, this guy knows what he is talking about. And at the same time, some of those ideas, if not all, they clicked. So that, probably has something to do with it.

Daniel Stillman:

So in the story now, I'm hearing you're starting to click, you're thrown to the middle of this experience together. How did things accelerate to these long, weekly conversations? What was in the middle between connecting and feeling some similarities, some understanding to, yeah, we're going to work on this thing together and really accelerating into that?

Richie Bonilla:

Yeah. So I think that one of the first things that clicked for me was that Eni would show up to these calls and he would ask me really detailed questions about what we were going, what problems we were solving, and then he wouldn't take any notes. And I was just sort of like, "What's this guy's deal? He asked me these questions, he doesn't take any notes." And he'd also, didn't read off of a list of questions. He would just sit there and ask me. And I was like, "He's not listening. Why are we doing this?" But then every week it would like, that would work and everything we talked about would be implemented or whatever, and then we'd move on to new stuff. And he never dropped anything. And I was like, there's something up with this guy.

Richie Bonilla:

There's a trick or he's just like raw intelligence is really high. He just retains information. That's not how my brain works. And so that was like the first thing that clicked. I was like, okay, this is interesting, a different relationship than I've had before. But I'd say that one of the things that was happening was that I had... Because I had been working remotely for so long and I started my career working remotely. I developed a system for running remote teams, using existing tools in a specific way. And I was prototyping that system on the team and Eni really took to sort of... I think he realized what I was doing, or at least that's my impression of it. And started suggesting improvements to that system and the bigger thing that we were building.

Richie Bonilla:

And so over time, that's the system that became Clarity. That was the thing that we started to then build product around. Especially once we started to contribute to these Web3 communities in like 2019. And so that's how Clarity progressed. And so he was sort of working on Clarity before it had a name, just by helping me to sculpt the system to run the team that we were running together. And so I think that's where we really started to mesh, was like we were having conversations outside of the work that we were doing for the client. We were really working on something else, an art project together. It was like a Meta project. And that took a larger and larger percentage of our mind share over time.

Daniel Stillman:

So Eni, you were aware of the structure and you were giving feedback, not just on the content, but the process, the structure.

Eni Jaupi:

At first, I was not aware specifically that it was a structure. It just seemed to be something that worked. I couldn't give a name to it, because I hadn't talked to Richie specifically. There was something that he was doing, but at some point you start to pick the patterns of, okay, we are doing this, this and this. And every time that we did that, it worked every time that we didn't do it, it worked less well than it could. So that just became a lot more obvious. And of course adding input, of course, I believe the input that I give back then, Richie, must have absolutely crossed his mind. It's just that he was being polite with accepting feedback. But at some point Richie said that he was going to step away and he mentioned that he was going to build a "Ticketing system."

Eni Jaupi:

That's what he called it to practically make it sound as, "Yeah, I'm just going to do this thing probably to not jinx it," but that's when it actually clicked that, oh, okay, he's going to take this thing and make a product out of it. So that's where I messaged him and the message was just, "If you need help as a passion project, I'd be glad to help you." So it didn't start as, "Okay. Let's do this thing together." Started more so, "Oh, I see what you're doing. I see where your head's at, and if you just need help, especially on the technical side, I'd be happy to help with it."

Daniel Stillman:

That's such an interesting... That's a moment where you're like, wait, there's something here and you sent that invitation. Richie, do you remember getting that message from Eni of like, "Yeah. Yeah. Tell me what I can do. Tell me how I can help."

Richie Bonilla:

Yeah. I was sort of conflicted, because I knew that I had heard and believed from my own observation that the best co-founders are people who you worked with on something prior, whether you worked at a company together and were on the same team, or whatnot, or had a previous startup together. And so being a freelancer, I didn't even have a lot of "Colleagues" that I had worked on teams together. And so I really wanted to work with Eni, and I thought that if there was somebody in my life who I could work with on something, it would be Eni, but I also was like, I don't feel comfortable like poaching somebody off of my client.

Richie Bonilla:

I don't know where this thing is going to go. I didn't want to create any bad Juju. And so I was sort of like, "All right, guys, I'm leaving." I broke it to the team. I was like, "Hey guys, I'm leaving. I'm scaling down my freelancing to focus more on this side project." And then when Eni reached out and was like, "No, no, what are you doing? Tell me more." And then was like, "I want to work on that with you." I was like, "This is some universe stuff. I can't just ignore this."

Richie Bonilla:

And so I made it very clear to the client, who's a friend of mine still. And I said, "This is what's happening. Put it in writing, make sure everyone knew what was going on. He's working out with me on some stuff that might increase in the future, who knows." And that was my clean conscience progression through the situation, because I was like, can't really give that up. This is someone who I'm working with, who I've never worked so smoothly with somebody, who's clearly this talented. And so you can't just like pass that up.

Daniel Stillman:

You answered the call, that message. And I think that's really cool that you tried to be really clean about it. And something we were talking about before we got started was, and I appreciate you mentioning universal received best practices. And I think you definitely nailed on one, which is you can't start from zero. You're already building on some knowledge about each other and you're building that intimacy on a foundation. And Richie, you'd mentioned that you'd had some previous experiences that were maybe not so awesome on the co-founder side. Maybe now's a good time to talk about some of the anti patterns that you've experienced in the past.

Richie Bonilla:

Sure. Yeah. We had at my first company, which the funny thing is I've freelanced through that entire company, because it never quite got off the ground in a meaningful way from a revenue standpoint. And so I had to always be a freelancer to make that work as well. So my point is just that working on that company, we dropped out of college to start that company. And I started it with some guys who I had just met and there were four of us. And so there was all these red flags, like in retrospect. Just met, never done this before, four co-founders. You're just compounding the number of things that are red flags for co-founder relationships not working out.

Richie Bonilla:

And that came to bite us. So in the end it ends up being like me and one of the co-founders who's a CEO and we were working on it together for the longest period after the other two folks had left, one didn't want to leave school. So we had to tell him, "Sorry, but that's not the level of commitment that we're looking for." So that, was like a tough situation. And then the other one wanted to go to grad school. And so then he decided to go back to school or he didn't drop out in the first place, he graduated and then went to grad school. And so we were sort of left the two of us. And then unfortunately I had to decide to leave, because just the direction of the company, we were focusing more on like the operations of hospitality properties, rather than like the software part, which is what I was really interested in, where I saw my career going.

Richie Bonilla:

And he was really good at that part. And so that was another tough thing was like, then I had to be the one who left, which was also its own struggle. And there's all the writing on the wall, like in retrospect of like I said, those various criteria that we didn't hit, but then... So with this one I had a mental checklist of things I wanted to see in a co-founder relationship. And I was prepared to basically be a solo founder, if I didn't find that, but that definitely wasn't the preferred situation.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. So a lot of that was in your mind, I'm guessing as you were thinking about this next, next idea. Eni, had you had past experiences with the downside of co-founding?

Eni Jaupi:

Not really, I don't want to jinx it, but this is my first co-founder experience.

Daniel Stillman:

You just have to say jinx and then hit something, hit some wood or something.

Eni Jaupi:

Oh, okay. Got it. So on my side, I'm trying to be the exception of not having prior roadmap of failure points. So I hope to never know what those failure points are. I can't say anymore than that, at least. I know my struggles. I know what I could have done better, but I'm not sure if I would've changed that, as opposed to something else, because I think the journey to be where we are now also needed some in between points, that in retrospect are not ideal, but of course it's part of the growth. So I wouldn't say that something is specific to either being successful or not. I think the experience is also growing and into actually becoming two people that can talk about more than the specific task in hand, about things that span multiple years, or multiple decades as we sometimes do.

Daniel Stillman:

Eni, when you think about the time you've been working on this together, you talked about failure points and learning. Do you feel like there have been friction points that you've been able to work through? Well, clearly effectively creatively. And if so, I'd be curious to explore how you manage those. You haven't had an explosion yet. We're still here. You guys seem like you're on good terms, but there's always bumps on the road.

Eni Jaupi:

Of course. I would say that at least nothing has sticked out as, okay. We absolutely need to figure this out before we are able to continue working with each other. This may be just, I don't know how to exactly call it, but we always have said this out loud that our best interest is this company and knowing that full well, that just irons out whatever small conversation that we were having, that did not match, or our opinions did not match completely. So those are mostly just knowing that the other person knows that your intentions are fully aligned with his and at the same time, just putting aside your pride, that sometimes you just need to say, "Okay, let's just do it. And that we can talk about it later again." Try to not say I told you so, if something goes, as you imagine, as the person that said no, or the person that had the objections predicted or said, so just small things like that are part of the growing experience.

Eni Jaupi:

I think those are just things that happen. I think any relationship has those and especially two people that until very recently could not meet each other. Like, "Yeah, okay, let's do it." But if you say that too many times, there are too many things left untold or unsaid. And you don't have conversations, maybe sometimes the time, maybe sometimes just as a... "Okay, we need to do this. You cool with it?" "Yeah. I'm cool with it." Those are just things that compound, so trying to get that out of the way as soon as possible. Or as soon as you see that something is penting up. I think that's part of it. Although full disclosure, we have been so much on the same wavelength, that when we had the discussions about product, one of us would just be the devil's advocate.

Eni Jaupi:

So we would be on the same page and the other person would take the stance of, "Okay, I'm going to take the stance of, let's do this other thing." We are on the same page. We want to do that. But the other person just came up with reasons to knock off the thing that we were both agreeing on. So it sometimes goes to the point that we agree on so many things where we are in the same wave length that we need to take stances of, "Okay, let's do this from the other side. So let's try to knock it down." And one person tries to defend the current position the other person becomes a devil's advocate saying, "Yeah, but there's also this one, or this case, or this case." So I can say about the red herrings, or big things actually.

Daniel Stillman:

And are you setting up that devil's advocacy conversation intentionally, like I'm going to... Or Richie is making a face like yeah, maybe no. Or it just happens organically.

Eni Jaupi:

It happens organically. So it depends on the thing. If it's a technical discussion, or usually the "Disagreement" of opinions are when Richie's designer brain is versus my engineering brain. Those are the ones that we don't need to consciously go into the devil's advocate. Or in the other side, we just try to come up with reasons why the thing that we were both thinking about does not work. So we consciously go into, "Okay, what if this is the case? Does it work or not?"

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Richie, what's this been like hearing Eni process these thoughts? I'm curious. What's the all sparking in you?

Richie Bonilla:

Yeah. The funny thing is, I think we do, do that, but we've never... I don't think we've ever used the word devil's advocate in describing it. We never actually said like, "Okay, I'm going to take the devil's advocate position here." We usually say something like, "Well, the counter argument to that is-"

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Richie Bonilla:

And it's sort of like, I think of it as we're programming a system and we need to make sure... We're QA testing the ideas, if you will... Here's an edge case where that doesn't work. And let's present this scenario. Let's run this scenario and see how it plays out. And so I think it is doing exactly what Eni described, but not in a way that I think people think when they hear the term devil's advocate, because that can often just be the person who... I think devil's advocate has a really bad recognition.

Daniel Stillman:

I'm not a fan of that. It's like, "Why would you advocate for the devil? That's a terrible idea."

Richie Bonilla:

Yeah. There's a lot of like, "Oh, you're just masking your actual opinion behind this contrarian thing in order to like say something that is going to upset other people." I think that often is like a misuse of devil's advocate. And so like I said, I don't think we've ever used that, just that terminology. But we do it in the sense of like, "Let's run through these other... Even though we agree right now, let's still take the time to run through these other scenarios, so that we're make sure that we agree, rather than just taking a surface level agreement and being like, yes. And then running through it later." I look at it as de-risking the project, because if we get into details later, it's actually harder for us to fix this. So yes, we agree at this level, but let's go two or three levels deeper on this and make sure we agree on those levels too. And the way that we end up doing that is by saying, "Well, what happens if you know this or that?,Or the other thing?" And playing through those scenarios.

Daniel Stillman:

This is like explicating the positions without taking them.

Eni Jaupi:

Yes. So just to clarify that I've at least [inaudible 00:31:31] we use it as a non bad meaning thing. Surprising. So I just meant doing the... Just take taking the opposite stance of the thing that we're discussing. I didn't notice until right now that I should be more careful with the-

Daniel Stillman:

No, no, there's a-

Eni Jaupi:

Explaining that.

Richie Bonilla:

Yeah. This also happens too. We just have like a cultural... "Oh yeah. So that's, how we use the word here, or like that's how-"

Daniel Stillman:

But I love this idea of QA testing an idea. So what I'm taking away is, and it sounds like you're on the same page of this is, QA testing an idea, looking at the whole problem space, looking many layers down and not necessarily taking a position, but exploring a positions. And I feel like in terms of working through challenges as an important question, this is absolutely best practice. And it's great to see the two of you just willing to dance around in the problem space before you take hold of a solution and run with it.

Richie Bonilla:

Yeah. I think like to your earlier question of what are things we've creatively done about like to do this? And I think that this is representative of how we approach our whole relationship, where in the beginning of starting to work together, we're like, "Oh, we're taking this more seriously." Getting aligned on what kinds of things you're trying to do with your life. Like, "Hey, if there's an opportunity here to make this something really big, are you here on a 10 year mission with me? Or are you looking for a passive income side hustle, SaaS product?" Those are fundamentally different visions. And it's really difficult if one person is like, "I'm sort of happy with like a 10K a month SaaS business. Why are we going through all this trouble to change the world?"

Richie Bonilla:

That's a really tough thing to reconcile later. Also, things like, "Hey, if it was right for the company, would you move to the United States? Would you move to New York City and come over here? Is that a deal breaker for you? Or is that something you're open to?" Because, we don't know what the future's going to hold. And that might be the right thing for the business.

Richie Bonilla:

So looking at all of those sort of irreconcilable positions really early on and having those conversations really early on, I think is something that we definitely did. And I think that people avoid it, because they're scared that like, "Oh, this person doesn't want to ever move to the US. And is that something that I can live with? And if not, crap, I just lost this opportunity." But I think it's the alternative. It's way harder to have that conversation later, if you're not in agreement.

Daniel Stillman:

Eni, how do you feel like you manage the balance? Because, you all are still talking very frequently. Is it still an hour a day, at least, until, or at least until Eni falls asleep? How are you balancing the regularity, but also the talking about now, and also that longer term, because it seems like in every conversation you're circling around all of those levels.

Eni Jaupi:

That's a hard one, because it just boils down to, "Okay. We need to get back to a now level," or if we feel that this conversation is proving to be helpful, then we continue with it. But me and Richie say always that in what we do in startups, you have to know which fires to let burn and just feel the heat and deal with it. I think that's the same mindset as with the conversation. So if you feel that, "Okay, this is something that we can talk about later, we can postpone it." And this is usually something that comes naturally, if you have the shared context of everything going on. As you kind of feel it, "Okay, this conversation is drifting a bit too much for now. We don't really need to have it." So it's about deciding what is that point that, "Okay. We have gotten maximum value from it. No need to go further than that."

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Richie, is there something you wanted to yes and from that?

Richie Bonilla:

Yeah. I think that the way I see it is like, always talk about the thing that's relevant right now first, right up until the point where we feel like we have a handle on it. So getting through those open questions and then depending on where we're at. So sometimes something's really urgent. It's like, let's get this conversation done. Let's make these decisions. And let's get off the phone as soon as possible. Other times, you finish that conversation. You're like, "I've got this thing in my head, this idea that I can't kick and I want to share it with you. And let's explore that for a minute." And maybe we won't build that feature or encounter that problem for a few months. But by doing this, by the time we do get there, we've already talked about it 2, 3, 4 times, and we've already built up a shared mental model of like what that's going to be.

Richie Bonilla:

And so what ends up happening is that we have a really tight grasp of the details of the work that we're doing right now. And we also have a really robust mental model of all of the work we're going to be doing for the next three months. And then obviously there's the longer term stuff that we're talking about. "Okay. That's not going to be relevant for five years. Let's just dream a bit. That's a 10 year thing. That's a 100 year thing."

Richie Bonilla:

We have those conversations, but they're obviously a lot less frequent, but these loop, these concentric circles, if you will, evolve by allowing the conversation to go beyond just what is relevant at this moment. And it's the stuff you would talk about over lunch, or dinner, or drinks. Because we don't have that, I think that allowing a conversation to go a bit long is the way that it goes and not fighting it. So not say, "Oh, we should get off right now." If we both got energy for the conversation, let's harness that energy right now. And let's harness that enthusiasm right now, because we can't schedule it in. You can't schedule, "I'm going to have energy for this topic next week." Yeah. You can't do that.

Daniel Stillman:

And yet you can organize your schedule to allow for that space, which I don't think everybody listening to this has a calendar that necessarily allows them to say like, "Well, let's push things off and let's keep going with this." How do you two create this space to make that possible, to make those kinds of continuous conversations possible?

Richie Bonilla:

I would say so we have an international team as... Oh, you know that, but we have a really international team, because I think we have nine people right now. We have three in Asia, three in the US and three in Europe. And so out of necessity, we sort of need to be very disciplined about how we meet and when and for how long. And I think that what we... I know that what we do is we create a meeting time where we meet every day, every weekday we meet at the same time, some of those meetings are scheduled to go long. Some of them are really short, like 30 minutes, but the product team meets every day. We have it all hands every week for everyone who's contributing actively to Clarity.

Richie Bonilla:

And then we have one on ones with each other, like throughout the week. So every week we have one meeting with everyone in the company, we have five meetings, or four meetings with... No, actually five, because there's one right after the all hands. So five meetings with the product team and then one meeting with a one-on-one with everybody. And so throughout all of those conversations, you maintain a mental model of the entire thing. But because that happens at the same time every day, the rest of the day is wide open.

Richie Bonilla:

And so you can actually play with that time. Most of the time it's deep work time, but if we've got something that's running long, let's break off the people we need from this meeting, let everybody else go. And let's just figure this out for as long as it requires. And I think that the whole company basically rests on Eni's ability to have a Eastern schedule instead of an Albanian schedule. Because if he wasn't a night owl, I don't know how this would work.

Daniel Stillman:

What was it like meeting up in person? Where did you meet in person? Was it just the two of you, or was it getting the whole team together?

Richie Bonilla:

It was really strange, brutally strange. We met in Portugal in Lisbon and the first hour was incredibly weird. And I think like the only way I can understand why this was the case is, I think that intellectually, we knew that this was our close friend and co-founder and partner, but our brains didn't recognize that person was that person. [inaudible 00:40:58]. So it had this feeling of, I know that you are you, but I feel like you're a stranger.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Richie Bonilla:

And that was this really weird thing. And I've met a lot of people, internet friends online, but... I'm sorry, in real life, but I've never had that experience. I think it's just because we had such a robust relationship. And then all of a sudden, after an hour, we went and got dinner with a group of friends and it was still odd. But then after dinner, something clicked and we were a hundred percent normal. It was really strange. And then we were just talking, it was a 100% comfortable, a 100% normal, but that first 45 minutes to an hour was really weird in a way that I still can't get my head around.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. What was that like for you, Eni? I can see you're smiling, it's like [inaudible 00:41:51]-

Eni Jaupi:

I have no idea how to explain it, really. So the closest thing is what Richie said in which, "I know you, but I don't know why this feels weird." It was one of those cases that we looked at each other and starts smiling. Okay, what the heck is going on?

Eni Jaupi:

I don't feel like this is the normal way that this should actually work. And so that was... I don't know. I can get that out of my head. I don't know how I would react if we were exactly in the same position. Probably the same. But as Richie said, after an hour, it was as we had talked like that all the time. So it was exactly that. So a switch and I remember exactly where we were, in which we were walking down through some stairs, just clicked and as if that was a norm.

Daniel Stillman:

Wow. I don't think our biology was set up for handling this, so I think you... And I've had this experience myself, where I'm like, "Wow, you're so much taller than I thought you'd be." Because, here we are in this rectangle, we're all pretty much the same size. So it's really interesting to hear about your breaking through that.

Eni Jaupi:

I think the three dimensions actually has something to do with that. So you actually see that this person has a back of his head that you have never seen, like yes, something is wrong here.

Daniel Stillman:

"Wait, Richie's sideburns are so different than I thought they'd be. I could never really make them out." So this is so interesting. I'm really glad you shared this. And I think this is something that's going to be happening more and more, as we live in this fully distributed world and connect with people and do projects remotely. And Richie, you and I have Michael from Huddle and in common.

Daniel Stillman:

They creating teams like this remotely is just the norm. And so more and more people are going to be having the experience that you, Eni, and Richie are talking about, like, "I know you, but I don't know you and I didn't know what you smelled like. That's so weird." And then you just get used to somebody's presence. It's very different. So our time together is growing short. And I want to respect your time, because Richie, you're on a work-cation, which means you at least have a couple of hours or sun left in Mexico and I'd like you to enjoy that. What haven't I asked you when it comes to creating, building, sustaining a powerful, conscious co-founder relationship? What haven't we explored that's important to get on the board?

Eni Jaupi:

I would say a sense of humor.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Eni Jaupi:

In startup world, you have to be able to take things that are going on and in startup world, everything is going at the same time. So there's definitely something going on at any given point. So having this point that you can look at the other person and say, "Huh, that was kind of tough, wasn't it?" And not be a 100% serious, a 100% of the time. That helps me personally. So that, has been something that I've found to work at least for me.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Totally.

Richie Bonilla:

Yeah. I have a couple of answers to this. I think that the first one is, especially when you're remote, there's not a lot of ways to read body language. So you have to be very clear. An example is yesterday, I opened a conversation with the team that I hadn't set up the conversation properly. And so there was a miscommunication of what my intention was behind the feedback that I was giving. And after the conversation Eni got on the phone with me, he was like, "Hey, I just really didn't agree with you on that." And I thought it was a pretty uncontroversial point and we talked about it, and turned out that just my lack of setup for the conversation made him actually misunderstand what I was trying to get across.

Richie Bonilla:

And so then today I was able to take ownership with the team and be like, "Hey, I realize that was a sloppy conversation, here is what I meant, if we want to talk about it more, we could talk about it now." But getting that direct feedback of like, "Hey, I really didn't agree with you." And then being like, "Why? Let's hash that out." That was the key to then being able to take ownership and correct it with the team. And I wouldn't say it was a big deal, but you stack a bunch of these tiny little things on top of each other and they become a problem later. So that was one of them. And then I would say another thing is, when disagreeing on something and actually being like, "Okay, we've explored this entire topic. We still don't agree on how to proceed. Let's frame it."

Richie Bonilla:

We frame it as like a bet. So you say, "Okay, what are we really doing here?" What we're really doing is we're taking a X $1,000 bet. Here are the parameters. Here's the budget for that bet. And in eight weeks we will know if it plays out and then we can decide how to proceed. So let's take a chunk off of the direction. Let's place that bet. Let's define the parameters for success. And then we'll go from there. And this way, it's not my idea, your idea. It's just like, "Hey, we're going to de-risk this we're frame it that way. We're going to evaluate it later and decide to double down or abandon course." And then the third thing I want to mention is a compliment to both of those, which is, I think that there's this responsibility in a co-founder relationship to not say, "I told you so," like Eni said before.

Richie Bonilla:

But that comes with the paired responsibility is to take ownership proactively over decisions that you made, that didn't go well and to say it before, so no one feels like they have to say, I told you so. So I will err on the side of saying, "Hey, I know I said this last week, that didn't go like I thought it would. I wanted to just take ownership over that. Here's what I think happened. Here's where I think we could do better next time."

Richie Bonilla:

But that was something where I totally miscalculated and I will err on the side of taking more responsibility than it's probably necessary for my mistakes, because at least it clears the air and the team doesn't think like, "Oh, this guy, keeps making mistakes," because you have to make mistakes in order to make progress. If you're doing it right, then most of the ideas you try don't work. If they all work, then you're not trying hard enough, or you're not being creative, or you're not being risky enough, or you're not being ambitious enough. And so you have to create the space for mistakes and for wrong decisions. But also that comes with the responsibility of taking ownership over those decisions and making sure that everyone knows that you know, that didn't go like you said it would.

Daniel Stillman:

Thinking in bets is so powerful and the ability to disagree, but still create forward movement on getting more information is a really, really powerful skill. And so I'm really glad you highlighted that. Also, I want to just acknowledge that we're just about at time and I'm grateful for the time. If people want to learn more about you all and what you're creating, what's the best place to send them?

Richie Bonilla:

Sure. So we have our website for Clarity at www.clarity.so. We have a blog there where we are posting more and more frequently, and we'll continue to do that. If you want the most high speed, high bandwidth version, it would be our Twitter @Clarityteams. Yeah, that's that. And I'm also Richie Bonilla at... I'm sorry @RichieBonilla on Twitter. Eni, is famously not on Twitter, so unfortunately.

Daniel Stillman:

Good for you, man.

Richie Bonilla:

It's the only way to do it. You're stuck with me.

Daniel Stillman:

Are you on Truth Social with [inaudible 00:50:21]? That's a terrible joke. I apologize. And I feel like... We're literally out of time, but if somebody who's listened to this and is like, but I don't run a DAO and looking at, when I looked at what you all were building from the outside, it looked like anybody who's building something collaboratively on the internet could benefit from that. Is that true? Or what kind of teams can benefit from what you all are creating?

Richie Bonilla:

So I would say that it is true that collaborative work can be done on Clarity for most kinds of teams or organizations. I think that we specialize in a type of coordination that is done by people who are not in a hierarchy. And I don't mean that there's no hierarchy. I just mean that they are sort of independent actors who are choosing to work together in a way that is not traditional from like a management perspective. And I think that's different, because we're freelancers. We were freelancers. We've always been that way. We are coming from a sense of not making people feel like second class citizens in the tool by being an independent worker. And that's how we've designed it from the ground up. And I think that there's a lot of that affects the user experience a lot.

Richie Bonilla:

When I think about project management tools in Web2, I think about tools built for project managers, and a project manager's job is to get the most out of their human resources. And that is one way of building an organization. It is not the vibe that I ever resonated with. And so we don't really think that we are building project management software, we're building project coordination software, because it's people who are each choosing to work together on a shared goal from a more equal view, rather than trying to optimize these people's capacity.

Richie Bonilla:

And so that's really the type of coordination that we specialize in. And I think that plays through the user experience, but yes, it is true that you could use it for any kind of team, except, there would be a ton of features for token integrations and crypto native functionalities and sign in with Ethereum, and these other pieces that would probably be totally irrelevant to you. Like bounty payout workflows and stuff like that. So those just wouldn't be that relevant, but if that's the style of coordination that you participate in, regardless of your goals. Yeah, sure. That's relevant. It's just not the type of organization that we typically focus on. We put all of our innovation energy into DAOs and other kinds of DAO like organizations.

Daniel Stillman:

That's really helpful. And I feel like what you're talking about is what a lot of folks talk about as the future of work, more teams that are more networked and horizontal. And so I feel like more and more teams will be more and more appropriate for the things that you're creating.

Richie Bonilla:

Yeah. And we feel that very strongly, because we have always felt this was the most fun, meaningful, interesting way of working. And we've chosen to do that year, after year, after year. And we're just looking to eliminate the downsides, so that more people can engage with that kind of work and not experience the risk, or the loneliness, or other factors that stop you from engaging as an independent worker.

Daniel Stillman:

That is awesome. Thank you so much for really, really putting a fine point on that. I think that'll be super helpful to have it in your voice, so that people understand this stuff. Because, I know it's not in everybody's wheelhouse. Web3 is an edge for a lot of folks out there. I want to respect your time. I really appreciate you two sharing and being so reflective. And I feel like I can safely call scene for the time that we've had together.

Richie Bonilla:

Thank you so much for having us. I'm so grateful for the opportunity to speak about the co-founder relationship and things, because I don't feel like that's a topic that we have a really get asked about. But it's something that's so important to us and that we've treated with a lot of intention and it's been really fun to have a chance to actually speak on that and be asked questions about it. So thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It's my pleasure.

Eni Jaupi:

Thank you, man. Thank you. And also thank you for bringing up a point during our discussions that I hadn't thought about previously, which is, we had talked about me moving to the US, if the company needed it. We haven't talked about Richie moving to Albania, if the company needed it. I thin we have our next conversation setup.

Daniel Stillman:

I hear the food in Albania is pretty good. I'm just saying.

Eni Jaupi:

Oh, it's amazing. I can tell you that.

Daniel Stillman:

You guys may not know this, but in New York City if you ever come, the most popular street for Italian food in the Bronx, Arthur Avenue is all those Italian restaurants are run by Albanians now, Eni. People, all these tourists come... Yeah. You know. Richie knows what I'm talking about.

Richie Bonilla:

Yeah. I used to live over there and I was telling Eni the same thing. I'm like, you won't believe the Albanian food here. You're going to love it.

Daniel Stillman:

People think they're eating Italian food, but it's Albanian food.

Eni Jaupi:

Yeah. But we are really good at talking in Italian. So that's could be the correlation there.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Only if you knew what to look for, would you see all the Albanian flags. You're like, "Wait a minute." All right, guys. Thank you so much. This has been a really energizing conversation. I really appreciate it.

Stories as Medicine

I first met Dr. Paul Browde as part of a multi-month intensive men's work program we were both part of. We were just about to break out into a few parallel sessions about various elements of running men’s groups when Paul raised his hand and said something to the effect of “would it be useful to have a breakout session about our personal narratives and how we use them to lead?”

I watched as the heads of 40+ men swiveled to focus on this one unassuming gentleman and witnessed nearly half of the group switch over from whatever session they were planning on going to and instead, go to sit around Paul to listen to him tell his story and share his wisdom about how to share our own stories. That’s the power of story!

Paul is a doctor of psychiatry and a TedX speaker. He has shared the stage with luminaries like Esther Perel, has taught Narrative Medicine at Columbia University, and co-founded a storytelling company called Narativ.

Paul has some profound wisdom to share about how to become aware of a different type of story - the stories that tell us, as well as the power of sharing our own stories, and examining the stories we tell about ourselves to ourselves and to others. 

As Paul writes on his site:

We are born in connection, we are wired for connection, and it is through connection that we heal and experience our true aliveness.

I have always felt that stories can be the most powerful elements of communication - indeed, they are the thread that holds together each and every conversation. 

Stories are how we connect, heal and come alive.

Listen onward to learn about Paul’s mental models of how to become a space for others to share their stories - to shape your listening as a vessel, a bowl, to receive stories generously.

Narrative is powerful medicine that we can give to ourselves and to the people around us.

Enjoy this conversation as much as I did!

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

Paul Browde: Healing through connection

The Power of Two: How Listening Shapes Storytelling

Two Twosomes, Not a Script in Sight

The Masculinity Paradox: Warmup with Paul Browde - Sessions Live by Ester Perel

Minute 8

Paul Browde:

If you express an opinion and say, "Racism's bad," well, you can be agreed with or not agreed with. But if someone tells you their story about their wife and their child and a little story of life, we can't help but empathize and really understand that person's experience. They become a human being for you.

I'm getting back to narrative medicine, which is that I eventually, with a friend, performed my story as a performance for many, many years in theaters, in churches, in funeral parlors. We performed a story in which I told this HIV story. It was seen by one of the people that was launching the narrative medicine program at Columbia, and she invited us and said, "Could you teach what you do? Because if doctors could learn how to listen to the stories of others and to have some fluency with their own stories, that's going to enhance their empathy." And so we taught a course for many years called Co-constructing Narratives, where people learned how to tell an illness story of their own or someone they loved.

Minute 9

Paul Browde:

Once you've told your own illness story or the story of someone you've loved, it really changes how you listen as a doctor. I believe that strongly. A lot of my work has become that. So this HIV, which was at one point such a terrifying and dismal prospect of a future for me, has become for me, the source of so much, what feels like meaningful work in my life. It's such a paradox, the thing that once felt so unthinkable is now, honestly feels like a gift in many ways to me.

Minute 12

Paul Browde:

I think stories can be a very powerful access to emotion. But I think that, talking about Men's Work, one of the ideas that I think about a lot is that our lives are shaped by the stories in the background. There are these meta narratives or larger stories that we don't even see or know exist that we become part of from a very young age. One of them, I felt it very clearly as a boy, was what is a real boy, and then what is a real man? That was there in the background and it affected how I spoke. It affected how I stood. I don't know if I've ever told you the story, but I was once told by a group of boys that I stood like a girl, because I used to cross my legs as I stood, my one foot went in front of the other. The boys at break at school said, "Oh, you stand like a girl." I became hypervigilant about standing in a different way that didn't feel natural for my body and I believe caused me back pain for many years, but it was an imperative that came from the story about what it is to be a real man or a real boy.

There are these stories that tell us. We don't tell them, they tell us. We are unknowing participants in the story arc. We can become present to them. So if I can become present to, oh, there's a story that says that boys have to stand a certain way, boys have to hold their body in a certain way, then I can start to think, do I choose to live with that story governing me or am I okay with being a different kind of boy who doesn't stand that way and then starts to open up a relationship with myself and what I really want?

Minute 17

Paul Browde:

And it's also about what is the story that you tell as a person interacting with the healthcare profession? People with AIDS changed the narrative. They changed the story of what it is to be a patient, because in the 80s this virus came into being, which nobody knew how to deal with and nobody knew how to treat. And because of what we've spoken about already, no one cared to treat. People didn't mind, or seemed not to mind that people were dying. What happened was that the patients themselves started doing the research and thousands of people sat in libraries and taught themselves virology and taught themselves about these drugs and began to understand what needed to happen. The patients educated the doctors. Patients knew way more about AIDS than doctors did in the late 80s, early 90s. It began to change when doctors took on learning it and eventually it became an incredible specialty with some extraordinary doctors who agreed to learn from their patients and agreed to try folk medicine. Because at that time we just didn't know what worked and so people tried everything.

So being an empowered recipient of healthcare, or being someone who leads your own journey or your tells your own story as someone who uses the healthcare system is also part of narrative medicine, not just for the providers to be better teachers, better communicators. Yeah. So, that's part of it.

Minute 20

Paul Browde:

I think where we find ourselves now is in a situation where we really don't know what's going to happen. We don't know how things are going to unfold, both with viruses, is there going to be another variant, but with climate change and with culture, with the way that we interact with one another, we can all feel that we are in a transition and we don't know where we're going. So I think leadership now requires leaders to be vulnerable and to let it be known that they don't know either. It's rather than saying, "I know where we are going and you're going to follow me," is to be able to say, "I don't know where we're going, but I will lead us in the not knowing and I'm right there alongside you in the not knowing."

Minute 25

Paul Browde:

I know that I think I've talked to you about the listening bowl, but it's something that really informs my thinking and my work, which is if you think of listening as a container, like a bowl, and that the speaking of another person takes the shape of the container of your listening. So as I'm speaking to you, my speaking is taking the shape of the bowl of your listening and your listening is generous and it's open and it's expansive. As a result, I find myself feeling free to speak with you. What happens is what comes out of me is actually shaped by how you listen to me. I think this is very important in all relationships, including with couples who I work with a lot, which is, rather than looking at what someone else is saying, to be able to ask the question, how am I listening so that this is what's coming out of their mouth?

Minute 36:

Paul Browde:

I think it's counterintuitive, the kind of listening that it really requires. I think we are so trained to listen as experts. We listen to help. We listen to fix. We listen to change. I think those kinds of listening get in the way of really allowing something new to emerge. And perhaps the best kind of listening we can do is to bring absolutely nothing, literally bring nothing to what the person is speaking, but that doesn't mean not listening. You're bringing presence.

More about Paul

For the past thirty years, I have worked as a clinician. As a doctor, therapist and couples’ guide, I have been trusted with people’s deeply personal experiences; their despair, their joy and their dreams.

I have performed my own personal life story for diverse audiences across the globe, guiding others in how to listen and tell their own stories.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

Paul, I'm so excited to have this conversation with you, really. Welcome to the Conversation Factory and thanks for making this space in your life.

Paul Browde:

Thank you, Daniel. It's so great to be with you. I'm really excited about this.

Daniel Stillman:

So for me, the term narrative medicine came across my life because of you, and the putting of those two words together, sort of put my head back, and then the conversation that we had, I guess, a couple of months now to talk about story medicine. It's a really beautiful topic and I want to unpeel as many layers of the onion as we can. So for those folks who don't know anything about narrative medicine and story medicine, can you put it in context? It's a big ask, I know, but I know you're up to the task.

Paul Browde:

I'll try. What's interesting about it is it's a field that is evolving. Anything that I say it is, it won't be tomorrow, because it'll have changed already because it's a new field. People have brought together the field of medicine and the field of narrative and the field of story, and have them talk to one another. I first came across it when I was asked to teach in the Columbia University Narrative Medicine master's program. The intention of the master's program was to teach healthcare professionals how to listen to the people that consult them. You could say to teach doctors how to listen to patients, but it was broader than that, and the idea being that medicine has swung so far into the technical, into checklists.

Paul Browde:

As a doctor, you literally have tens of checklists in your mind as you go through asking questions and you may even have a checklist these days on a computer. So for many people, when you go to your doctor, they sit and look at the computer, ask you questions and then check off yes or no in front of you. While that may be effective in getting to a particular problem, it doesn't really give you a sense of the whole person and the whole person's story and what may be informing the health situation that they're showing up with.

Paul Browde:

So the metaphor of narrative is really, how can we bring, a way we might approach a book, for example. How would we read a book? You read a book with an open mind. You are willing to be taken along on a journey of the teller that takes you to all kinds of different places in the teller's story. Can you bring that kind of listening to a patient?

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Paul Browde:

And really be curious about who this person is and what is their story. I had spent many years, I am a doctor, so I'm a psychiatrist and I'm a doctor. For many years I've worked as a doctor, but early in my career, I also discovered myself to be a patient, and at the age of 25 was diagnosed with HIV, much to my absolute horror and shock at the time. This was 1986. At that time it was a death sentence. It was a really terrifying place to live, and in fact, the way that I was treated early on by doctors was very much a checklist, and they didn't know what checklist to use even because AIDS hadn't been treated very much. I felt reduced to this condition that was living in my body and I couldn't talk about it to anyone. So obviously to cut a long story short-

Daniel Stillman:

For people who are listening who do not realize, who were not either alive or part of the conversation back then, it was...

Paul Browde:

Yes.

Daniel Stillman:

... incredibly... there was so much fear around it and fear of the gay men's population. There was revision. So there was a sense of total rejection of this. I heard you talk about this in your TEDx talk, this idea that the patient with this disease is beneath or below us. It's hard for us to imagine. I think it's hard for somebody to imagine now that that was the attitude, but it was not a whole person. You were a disease and that made you... look, I've watched, and we've talked about this before. I've watched two of my great mentors die slowly and terribly of that disease and it was such a scary thing at the time because we knew so little about it.

Paul Browde:

Yeah, absolutely.

Daniel Stillman:

For you to feel like you had to hide that part of you as a professional, I understand. I understand in the sense of empathize with. I can empathize with how hard that was to hide that wholeness of yourself.

Paul Browde:

Yeah, it was very painful and it didn't even occur to me at that time that there was anything unfair about that or wrong about it. It's just the way it was. I think the fact that it was a virus that was transmitted either sexually or through drug use further stigmatized it. And then there were some people who received it through blood transfusions, and that, it was as if those were the people who were considered harmless, or what's the word? They were innocent, whereas the others had somehow done this to themselves and those were actually words spoken. People spoke the words that these people are doing it to themselves. It's God's wrath. Talk about a story shaping how people felt about themselves.

Paul Browde:

But for me and in my personal journey, I came to a point with a lot of support and great privilege actually, that I was never thrown out of my family. I was never thrown out of my friendship group. I was able to speak publicly about it. What that allowed me to do was to talk about, tell my story, just tell my story publicly to people. That became a source of power for me, being able to tell my story, and what I mean by power, was that it allowed me to really use my whole self to make a difference to other people. Once my story had been heard, I was invited to come and speak to people with AIDS, living in Africa, in Senegal and then in South Africa, and to just tell my story. The telling of a story of being a doctor who has HIV and who is alive and here to tell the tale, was really the story that needed to be told because people were feeling so hopeless and many, millions of people have died of this.

Paul Browde:

I began to learn not only the power of my own personal story, but the power of people telling their personal stories. I was very lucky to be able to work with various groups of people who were marginalized by the world. So sex workers, IV drug users, people with AIDS, these are all... and the Roma people, who are otherwise known as the gypsies in Eastern Europe who are very poorly treated and it's still acceptable to be racist about the Roma. We ran workshops with people using storytelling as a way of breaking down that stigma so that through your story you become humanized. If you express an opinion and say, "Racism's bad," well, you can be agreed with or not agreed with. But if someone tells you their story about their wife and their child and a little story of life, we can't help but empathize and really understand that person's experience. They become a human being for you.

Paul Browde:

I'm getting back to narrative medicine, which is that I eventually, with a friend, performed my story as a performance for many, many years in theaters, in churches, in funeral parlors. We performed a story in which I told this HIV story. It was seen by one of the people that was launching the narrative medicine program at Columbia, and she invited us and said, "Could you teach what you do? Because if doctors could learn how to listen to the stories of others and to have some fluency with their own stories, that's going to enhance their empathy." And so we taught a course for many years called Co-constructing Narratives, where people learned how to tell an illness story of their own or someone they loved.

Paul Browde:

Once you've told your own illness story or the story of someone you've loved, it really changes how you listen as a doctor. I believe that strongly. A lot of my work has become that. So this HIV, which was at one point such a terrifying and dismal prospect of a future for me, has become for me, the source of so much, what feels like meaningful work in my life. It's such a paradox, the thing that once felt so unthinkable is now, honestly feels like a gift in many ways to me.

Daniel Stillman:

There's another paradox of the story that I want to unpack, because you and I met through Men's Work where I feel like the ask is to be present with emotion almost without story and the stripping away of story. I feel like with narrative medicine, it seems like story is about humanizing ourselves and empowering ourselves by sharing our story and to enter into other people's stories. In Men's Work, there's this idea that we strip away the story and we come into the present. Then there's a third aspect, which is the stories that run our lives. Not all of the stories that we're telling about ourselves are helpful stories. I don't know if there's a triangle of narrative that I'm seeing in my mind of there's this powerful aspect of story and then there's limiting aspects of story.

Paul Browde:

Interesting. Yeah, I think it's so true. It is a paradox. I think that at different times we need different things. I think there is a way of telling a story in which you are not present for the telling. It becomes habitual and you may as well be reciting it off by heart. I know that for certain stories, particularly when they've been very painful, you can detach from the story and you can hear someone tell a story about the most terrible things that happened to them with absolutely no emotion. It feels really disconcerting to listen. If someone brings emotion to the telling of a story, so they allow themselves to really feel the experience of the telling of the story, sometimes what happens is emotion arises. If emotion arises, you don't just dampen down the emotion and plow through with the telling. Then there's a really good time to stop and allow the emotion to be there.

Paul Browde:

I think stories can be a very powerful access to emotion. But I think that, talking about Men's Work, one of the ideas that I think about a lot is that our lives are shaped by the stories in the background. There are these meta narratives or larger stories that we don't even see or know exist that we become part of from a very young age. One of them, I felt it very clearly as a boy, was what is a real boy, and then what is a real man? That was there in the background and it affected how I spoke. It affected how I stood. I don't know if I've ever told you the story, but I was once told by a group of boys that I stood like a girl, because I used to cross my legs as I stood, my one foot went in front of the other. The boys at break at school said, "Oh, you stand like a girl." I became hypervigilant about standing in a different way that didn't feel natural for my body and I believe caused me back pain for many years, but it was an imperative that came from the story about what it is to be a real man or a real boy.

Paul Browde:

There are these stories that tell us. We don't tell them, they tell us. We are unknowing participants in the story arc. We can become present to them. So if I can become present to, oh, there's a story that says that boys have to stand a certain way, boys have to hold their body in a certain way, then I can start to think, do I choose to live with that story governing me or am I okay with being a different kind of boy who doesn't stand that way and then starts to open up a relationship with myself and what I really want?

Paul Browde:

So those stories, that story of being a real man, a real boy, I think are so present in men's lives and I think shut down a lot of freedom around feeling. When you think about it, the fact that certain human emotions are taboo for men to feel, it's absurd if you think about it. Men are allowed to laugh, but not to cry. They're equally part of our physiology. They're just there. So I think for me, the getting away from the story in the Men's Work that you and I have been together in, has been a wonderful relief as well. It always starts with a bit of a story and then into the emotion and then allowing myself to inhabit my body. I call these physical. There are stories from the body that are not necessarily told in words. They are told in bodily sensations, the way one holds one's body, and the freedom with which one is allowed to move one's body. These are all, I think of them as stories as well.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. They're patterns that we live in. And as you say, they're stories that tell us. We're just actors in the stories until we choose and choose a different path. So in a way, if we're building this architecture, narrative medicine has this heritage of being for doctors to become more human and relating with their patients, but story medicine, it seemed in the conversations we've had, feels like it's for everyone.

Paul Browde:

Yes. I think that narrative medicine, there may just be different words to describe a field, which is a very large field. There are narrative medicine programs now all over the world, interestingly enough, that arose at the same time. There seems to have been this simultaneous arising of a field, even though the people who ran those different programs didn't necessarily know each other, because it was a need. It is a need.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Paul Browde:

And it's also about what is the story that you tell as a person interacting with the healthcare profession? People with AIDS changed the narrative. They changed the story of what it is to be a patient, because in the 80s this virus came into being, which nobody knew how to deal with and nobody knew how to treat. And because of what we've spoken about already, no one cared to treat. People didn't mind, or seemed not to mind that people were dying. What happened was that the patients themselves started doing the research and thousands of people sat in libraries and taught themselves virology and taught themselves about these drugs and began to understand what needed to happen. The patients educated the doctors. Patients knew way more about AIDS than doctors did in the late 80s, early 90s. It began to change when doctors took on learning it and eventually it became an incredible specialty with some extraordinary doctors who agreed to learn from their patients and agreed to try folk medicine. Because at that time we just didn't know what worked and so people tried everything.

Paul Browde:

So being an empowered recipient of healthcare, or being someone who leads your own journey or your tells your own story as someone who uses the healthcare system is also part of narrative medicine, not just for the providers to be better teachers, better communicators. Yeah. So, that's part of it.

Daniel Stillman:

The thing we were talking about right before we started recording, this question of what does it mean to take story medicine into the workplace? Because we're talking about like this, narrative medicine is working at a very, very raw juncture. It's life and death and it's people taking responsibility for their healing and doctors becoming more human. I can really see the power of telling your own story and of owning your own transformation seems to me to have myriad applications for leadership development, I think. But I'm curious how it shows up in your work now and as your edge as you're leaning into this.

Paul Browde:

Yeah. It's really interesting. In the last several months from many different sources, I've been approached with people who would like to learn more about story medicine in the workplace. How can we bring this into the workplace? I think part of it is, as the pandemic has happened, first of all, the distinction between work and home has been blurred. People are literally in their homes working. And you couldn't say to people during the pandemic, "That doesn't belong at work, keep that for home." The child is literally running through the room while you're at a work meeting. You can't tell people to not do that. Everybody seemed to understand that during the pandemic. That boundary of work, home began to break down somewhat. While that was challenging, for some people, it was actually very helpful.

Paul Browde:

I think where we find ourselves now is in a situation where we really don't know what's going to happen. We don't know how things are going to unfold, both with viruses, is there going to be another variant, but with climate change and with culture, with the way that we interact with one another, we can all feel that we are in a transition and we don't know where we're going. So I think leadership now requires leaders to be vulnerable and to let it be known that they don't know either. It's rather than saying, "I know where we are going and you're going to follow me," is to be able to say, "I don't know where we're going, but I will lead us in the not knowing and I'm right there alongside you in the not knowing." It's a very different place to speak from, and I think once you start saying that you don't know what, what immediately emerges are emotions. It feels scary to say that. It feels vulnerable. It may feel shameful for a person who leads a larger organization to say, "I'm not sure," or "I don't know," might feel shameful.

Paul Browde:

So to be able to just recognize that and know that even those feelings are valid and acceptable in the workplace, and I don't think people are going to settle for less. People don't want to be treated anymore like objects that get told what to do. They don't want that. They're going to leave and find other jobs. This whole idea of the great resignation, people are leaving because the workplace doesn't work for them anymore.

Paul Browde:

Interestingly enough, I just led a workshop this morning with a group of people in South Africa who run an organization that feeds starving children. We spent four weeks with all the people that work for that organization sharing their own personal stories with one another, stories where they came from and stories as to why they felt moved to work in the sector that feeds starving children. Each person had a personal story to tell that linked them to the work they were doing. Some people had grown up very poor and didn't have food. Some people had grown up on farms and had to milk a cow. These were stories which really showed them aspects of one another that they didn't know. And then today, what we did was have them just tell a story about the future of that organization, how they dreamed it would go. You can also tell a story about the future that is different from the same old story based on the past. The future could be an invention of something new.

Paul Browde:

Given the environment that had been created through the sharing of personal stories, what they came up with for the future of their organization was so beautiful and powerful. And the number one idea that they came up with as a whole group, I said nothing about this, it came from them, was love. We bring love into our workplace and we bring love into our communities, which would've been my hope for them but I could never have told them that. I might have been told that was woo woo. But once the personal story is present in the listening, what starts to happen is people are creative and vulnerable about how they speak the future.

Daniel Stillman:

Say more about that. I feel like there's a little bit more, before I...

Paul Browde:

Yeah. Well, I would like to just, I know that I think I've talked to you about the listening bowl, but it's something that really informs my thinking and my work, which is if you think of listening as a container, like a bowl, and that the speaking of another person takes the shape of the container of your listening. So as I'm speaking to you, my speaking is taking the shape of the bowl of your listening and your listening is generous and it's open and it's expansive. As a result, I find myself feeling free to speak with you. What happens is what comes out of me is actually shaped by how you listen to me. I think this is very important in all relationships, including with couples who I work with a lot, which is, rather than looking at what someone else is saying, to be able to ask the question, how am I listening so that this is what's coming out of their mouth?

Paul Browde:

If something is emerging from their mouth that you don't like, that feels confrontational or aggressive, think how can I shift the way I'm listening? Because that bowl can become obstructed, it can be filled with obstacles. So agreeing or disagreeing, are you listening to agree or disagree, really narrows down the listening. Am I listening to like or not like what the person says? A lot of times we listen waiting to speak. It's really waiting for an appropriate moment to just bat in and start speaking that, we all do that. So when you notice that's what you're doing, you can actually say to yourself, okay, I'm just listening right now. You did it a couple of minutes ago. When you said to me, "I think there's more for me to listen to before I have something to say," and you allowed yourself that space, which then allows me the space to keep speaking. I think it's a useful metaphor. All these are metaphors, but they do help us become better listeners and then help the people around us become better storytellers because we are listening more openly.

Daniel Stillman:

This is so interesting. And by the way, I feel like 90% of the reason why I have this podcast is it puts me on my best behavior to be a better listener and learn more and have a more open space. One of the things I heard in one of your talks, which maybe I want to unpack. You said stories are what happened. And in one sense, I think that is true, that stories are, these are the facts. But the other thing that I'm hearing you say is stories are what we hear, and stories are what we construct from the meta stories that are happening. It's hard to know that another facilitator facilitating that workshop, would they have constructed, well, this is just about love? Would they have gotten there? What would their meta story have been without you there listening for that?

Paul Browde:

I think that's... no, go ahead.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I guess this becomes what is story based leadership? What are we listening for? How are we shaping the stories that are happening around us?

Paul Browde:

Yeah. It's so complex. I think that when I say stories are what happened, what I'm trying to do is to separate the story from one's interpretation of the story, which of course you could think of as a story in itself. But the idea that something is good or bad, or something is right or wrong, is not a story. It's an opinion, and it's a judgment. Yes, it may be shaped by some meta story that's in the background, but in terms of as you're listening to somebody speaking, if you notice yourself wanting to argue with them, I have found it to be very unlikely that they're telling you a story. Can't really argue with someone's story. I think there are different kinds of narratives, and one of them is the personal story.

Paul Browde:

When you tell me your story, you don't say, "Someone treated me abominably, they were absolutely terrible." We might all agree, but it isn't what your story is. What I'd like rather is to hear you describe in detail what they did, that you came to the conclusion that it was abominable or terrible. In fact, I co-founded a company some years ago and we created a methodology, which we call the what happened method. It tries to keep people very close to describing telling a story with only describing what happened in terms of the senses. What could you see here, smell, taste, or touch, and anything else is interpretation. What's interesting about doing it that way is that people start to feel far more than when they give these sweeping interpretations or tell the moral of the story. They actually start to feel and then the feelings can emerge and be present.

Daniel Stillman:

Because they're skipping so many steps. This feels like two things. One is aspects of nonviolent communication, the ability to distinguish between facts and feelings, and between feelings and needs, and needs and requests. But also, in our Men's Work, I've facilitated several of these. I've been in several of these where you have a charge with someone, and I feel like we're doing the what happened and really getting, well, this is what happened for me, and getting the other person to say what happened for them and holding space for both of those and really putting it all out on the table.

Paul Browde:

Yes, absolutely. It's always about what happened for you or what happened to you. It's not some understanding that something really happened. We know that when there's conflict there's two very different stories that each person might tell. I think the Men's Work that we've done, which is so powerful, is when you've got a group of people supporting the teller, literally standing behind them, holding them if necessary, as they allow their bodies to fully express the emotion that goes along with the story and something transforms when that happens. Then you allow the other person to do the same thing and together come up with some shared space.

Paul Browde:

Another piece of, my mind can go in a million directions, but another piece of another metaphor that I love to work with is that our relationship lives in the space between us. It doesn't live in your experience or in my experience. There is actually a relational space between us that we contend and that we can feed, or that can become polluted and cluttered. Then what we need to do is find a way to clean out that space. I think of the work we see in the men's groups where people have a charge with one another, is in fact a way of de polluting the space, de polluting the relational space between them.

Daniel Stillman:

And that space is filled with stories. If I think about a team and when there's challenges on a team, the challenges, people holding different stories about each other and about themselves and what people think of me and what I can or I can't do.

Paul Browde:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

When it comes to this. Sorry, go ahead, Paul. What did that [inaudible 00:33:13]?

Paul Browde:

No, I was going to say, and I think the hardest thing about that is being willing to accept that another person's story is different from your story, because, and I think this is where the Men's Work tries to get away from story, is that we can identify so much with our story that we think of it as who we are. Then if someone else has a different story, we feel threatened. Our very survival can feel at stake if our story isn't received in the way we want to tell it. I think part of the listening, there's always a process of listening and telling that when we are listening, we are letting go of any attachment that we have to our own stories and how things should turn out.

Paul Browde:

This is really interesting in the health space, so that people, for example, who have illnesses, a particular kind of cancer for which there is a lot of information. There's already a script for how you're supposed to live with an illness. Sometimes I think most people want the script to be that you have a terrible illness, you go through really difficult treatment, and you come out on the other end and you're okay and you learn a really powerful lesson and you're grateful for being alive. That's the story that is expected of people and people feel like failures if they don't adhere to that particular story arc. That's not the usual story art for a lot of people. For a lot of people the story feels utterly chaotic. It feels desperate. It doesn't necessarily have a good ending, and some people really don't want to learn from it at all. They just want it out of their lives and never to think about it again. As the listener, you don't want to impose on a teller a particular narrative arc, a particular outcome, and it's complicated.

Paul Browde:

So when you speak about the workshop that I led this morning, was I listening for love, and that's how someone spoke it? Possibly. It's possible that it was there. I wasn't consciously listening for it. I think it's what I try and listen for everywhere I go. I think it's in the background of how I want to live, but yeah, but I don't want to impose that on a group of people because it doesn't work either, to tell an organization, "You need to love one another, be a loving organization." It's just words and tomorrow it's gone.

Daniel Stillman:

That's just telling.

Paul Browde:

The role of listener and the role of teller, exactly. That's just imposing, and just being aware that everybody has a different way, different story, and it's okay.

Daniel Stillman:

For people listening who want to be able to create more of a space, I feel like when we talk about emergence, this is what we talk about. There's this third body between the two people, this space of relation, which is filled with stories. To create a space where something new can emerge requires maybe a different type of listening than we know how to do right now.

Paul Browde:

I think so. I think so. I think it's counterintuitive, the kind of listening that it really requires. I think we are so trained to listen as experts. We listen to help. We listen to fix. We listen to change. I think those kinds of listening get in the way of really allowing something new to emerge. And perhaps the best kind of listening we can do is to bring absolutely nothing, literally bring nothing to what the person is speaking, but that doesn't mean not listening. You're bringing presence. I'm trained a couple's therapy work, which my teachers taught us about a metaphor, which is that there is a bridge that crosses the relational space. Between you and me, there is a space in which our relationship lives and coming from each of our hearts is a narrow bridge to the other.

Paul Browde:

What we can do is we can walk one at a time, so one is the listener and one is the teller, one at a time we can walk over the bridge and visit one another. The visitor is the one who listens and the host is the teller, and there are certain rules, principles for what it takes to be a good host. So if someone's coming into your world, you want to be slow and careful about how you introduce them to your world. You want to be res respectful, the fact that they're a stranger in your world. You become a very different kind of teller. You have compassion for your listener. Then as a listener, you want to agree to leave your preconceptions behind. You are not coming into another person's world to try and fix or change anything about them. You are just there, full presence with this other person.

Paul Browde:

I think that when you ask what can people think of? I think if you sit and listen to someone and you just imagine that you're visiting, there's nothing to do. You're like a tourist in a foreign land. You don't have to do anything when you walk around Florence. You just observe. You're just in Florence. You see the food, you smell the smells, you see the light, and you experience Florence. We can do that with one another too, and just experience what it's like to be you in your world and there is nothing I have to do.

Daniel Stillman:

This visual of this narrow bridge that maybe is so narrow that I can't bring anything with me, I can only bring myself, I have to leave everything else behind on the other side. Something I often ask people to do is, they have a choice with the next turn. When somebody stops and takes a breath, we can say, oh, and come over to my side of the bridge, or we can stay on their side of the bridge for a little longer and ask for a little bit more.

Daniel Stillman:

I don't think I've ever really thought about the, there's this art of hosting for those people who are listening, who have been exposed to... it's a way of thinking about facilitation and meetings and a gathering, but to think about one conversation at the conversational level, that two people are having a gathering and that when I'm speaking, I'm hosting, is a very, very interesting narrative. It changes the story of what's happening in that moment.

Paul Browde:

Yeah, and it's really helpful to practice it when you're not in a state of conflict with one another, because when you are in a state of conflict it's very difficult to surrender trying to be right, or trying to fix or trying to change the other person. But if you practice just talking about good things, if I wanted to host you into a precious moment of my life that has nothing to do with you, but that happened to me... When I was on safari and saw this incredible troop of elephants walking through the wild, and you just come in and listen, then you can get good at it. You can get good at listening to me in that way. Then when we are having conflict, I can say to you, "Can I host you right now? And let me tell you how you are occurring for me, what's happening for me about the way you've treated me. Then you can come over." It's challenging, but you can actually just listen and get it. And all there is to say when you come over as a visitor with a host is, "Thank you. Thanks for letting me know." That's all there is.

Paul Browde:

I know it's difficult. I would hate anyone to think that when I say this is something that I can just do all the time. It's a practice, just like going to the gym as a practice. Listening is a lifelong practice. I think you can probably become more conscious and maybe better at it, but you never get there. The minute you think you're there, you're not there anymore because now it's not about the unknown. It's about what you now know and that changes it.

Daniel Stillman:

But the flip side, the art of hosting, I feel like there is a, maybe it's your background in performance where you really bring an heightened state of being. I've told you this story many times, like at the end of the program we were in together, when you said, "Oh, and maybe we could talk about our personal narratives," and you talked about the importance of a personal narrative, and everyone just sort of, just settled in and perked up, and not everyone has the capacity to create a dramatic present. I don't know if it has to do with the musicality of your voice or the variance of the tones that you use naturally, or your ability to describe things as they happened with clarity, but there is something in your ability to host a story that I think is really powerful. When you're helping people with story, is it important to do work on that side of the bridge, on the hosting side?

Paul Browde:

Yeah, very much so. You can learn. I appreciate what you're saying about me, and I hear that. At the same time, I believe there are principles that can be taught about what makes a story. Just the idea that you are a host and you're leading someone, it's not just that they're there and you can go wherever you like. If you're going to tell a story, I like to think of you as an airline pilot, who's going to take off and know where you are headed. Most important thing is have a direction that you're going, and even to know you are ending, so that as you start to tell a story, you do know where you're going. Yes, there may be turbulence along the way. You may be pulled by something that arises that takes you into a different direction, but eventually you come back and safely bring your listeners into land.

Paul Browde:

One of the problems I see with stories often is that people end a story too many times, or that people end a story and then give a moral and then give a whole lecture about why the story taught what it taught, which isn't necessary. I think there are some basic principles. Then of course, connection to your own body as you tell, the use of your voice, the use of breath, the use of pause and silence, tone, volume, all these things, they're learnable and can be really helpful for people to use in learning how to really be good hosts. I love that you're seeing this as the art of hosting, because I have I've thought of the art of hosting, but I think the art of hosting is much greater than just being sensitive to your listener. It's also what kind of teller are you.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. One thing that folks who are listening to this won't be able to see is, when you were bringing the airline pilot's mindset in, you touched the temples of your forehead and you drew the arc from the beginning to the end, the holding in your mind of the whole journey. I think there's something really powerful and profound about holding that whole arc.

Paul Browde:

When I work with people around telling their stories, one of the exercises is to come up with a last line. You don't need to know what the whole story is, but you do need to know your last line. When you speak your last line, that's it. Now that's going to be your last line. Now start and see where we go, but bring us to your last line, bring us there. There's a directionality, there's a vector in telling that really makes it more compelling, makes it more interesting to listen to.

Paul Browde:

But I'll say something more about that is, choosing a last line of a personal story is painful, because it means that you have to accept that the story's going to end and all the other possible last lines are no longer available. They're not yours. Those are different stories. I think there's sadness in that. I actually think there's grief in that, because I think that ending a story is in some ways a rehearsal for our own mortality, that we have to accept that it's going to be over. I think that's why so many of us struggle to choose the last line of the story.

Paul Browde:

I once went through a transcript of me speaking. I transcribed me leading a workshop. I was so shocked that at the end of almost every sentence, every block of speaking, I said, "And." I would speak for a while and then I would go, "and" and then I'd breathe. But the and, I realized, was a way of keeping open the possibility that I would continue. Once I was aware of it, it took a lot to stop saying that.

Daniel Stillman:

Can we tell our personal narrative when we don't know where it is going to be going, when there's so many untold chapters of our lives?

Paul Browde:

Yeah. I think to start off with, we do. We have no idea where we're going and that's where I think the listener just being present, and just the listener can also bring encouragement and just saying, "Tell me more. I'm so interested. Tell me more, tell me more, tell me more." And we start to discover our own personal stories. They don't live always at the level of consciousness. I think I'm talking about finally, when you have a story and you want to craft it and work with it and tell it, then I'm talking about some of these principles. B

Paul Browde:

ut when you're excavating a story, you're actually just trying to see what is this story, what is it about, there are no rules. All there is is just speak. The one thing I would say notice is if you keep saying the same thing over and over again. There may be something deeper if you find yourself doing that. There are phases to telling a story and the first phase is excavation, and then there's construction, and then there's mapping, and then there's delivery.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. Paul, I'm shocked to look at the time to realize that we're coming up against our time together. I want to be...

Paul Browde:

Wow.

Daniel Stillman:

... I want to be respectful of your time and of all of our mortality. Is there anything I haven't asked you that is important to be said? What remains unsaid?

Paul Browde:

Well, no, I mean, I would love to, if anyone, I'd love to hear from people who listen to this. I'm working at the moment in three areas. The one is what we calling purposeful leadership. I'm really beginning to see that leadership is not about the role of the leader. Leadership is a way of being that is our birthright. Every one of us leads our own lives and we lead other people, and so how we are with ourselves and with other people really is the kind of leader that we are and doesn't mean standing up and being a big, powerful speaker and extrovert. It can be very quiet and it can be very internal. So purposeful leadership.

Paul Browde:

The other is the idea of bringing one's whole self to work. How do you bring your whole self into the workplace? It doesn't mean sharing every single thing that's ever happened to you, but it is about allowing your whole self to enter the door and not having to leave parts of yourself at the door because they've banished. Then the third is this idea of story as medicine.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Paul Browde:

And so if anyone has anything to say, I don't know if you could say my website, but...

Daniel Stillman:

Oh, of course. Yes.

Paul Browde:

... or my email, I'd love to hear from people.

Daniel Stillman:

Where, if people want to find more about you, should they go to?

Paul Browde:

More about me is my website, which is Paul Browde, P-A-U-L B-R-O-W-D-E.com. My email is PBrowde, P-B-R-O-W-D-E @mac.com. I'd love to hear from people.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I hope at some point we can do a part two. I feel like we literally just scratched the surface of this very vast and important topic. I'm really grateful, Paul. I'm looking forward to finding the hidden threads in this conversation.

Paul Browde:

Well, I thank you and I really appreciate your listening. I really learned something today. So there was something about your listening that allowed me to see and to hear myself in new ways, which I really appreciate very much. Love to be listened to by you more. Thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

That is such a crushingly large compliment coming from you. I really appreciate that. I'll sit with that. We'll call scene. I'll stop recording.

Conscious Co-founders

In this conversation, I sat down with my friend Doug Erwin, the Senior Vice President of Entrepreneurial Development at EDAWN, the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada.

Doug is a former serial entrepreneur turned economic developer and executive coach, and he’s committed to growing Northern Nevada’s startup and technology ecosystem. His community work has helped change the perception of Reno and lay the foundation for future generations of entrepreneurs to thrive in the region. Doug is proud to support entrepreneurs as they embark upon their own journeys.   

Doug shares, with great clarity, vulnerability and humility, his entrepreneurial journey and some key lessons he’s learned along the way.

I invited Doug to have a conversation with me about what it might mean to be a conscious cofounder, given Doug’s personal work on mindfulness. Towards the end of the conversation, we arrive at the idea that we are our own most important cofounder - the conversations we have with ourselves will either lead us to lean into or turn away from challenging conversations with our cofounders. And with the lens of Triple Loop Learning, we can start to create better cofounder relationships, not just with better contracts and financial structures, but from our way of being.

The basic metaphor is this: Work is a relationship. And relationships are made of conversations.

And you can hear this in Doug's description of a company as a “rebound startup” or talking about startups like a marriage.

And just like in personal relationships, sometimes, as Doug says, people want to turn away from the discomfort of having difficult conversations.

Doug mentioned research about splits among founders and how it related to the future success of the company. I did a bit of digging and... It’s counter-intuitive, that a startup with equal distributions is a red flag to investors, and that such a company is more likely to fail.

Doug suggests that unequal distributions are proof that the founders have had some hard conversations - which is a key skill in work and life.

However, roughly three out of four startups decide to split the business equally when they start up.

One of the main issues with this approach isn’t a question of HOW to make the split, but WHEN. A 2016 HBR article suggests that founders should wait to split shares until later, co-creating rules to determine the value of various contributions. (I recommend the book Slicing the Pie!).

The HBR authors suggest that “teams that negotiate longer are more likely to decide on an unequal split: the harder you look, the more likely you are to discover important differences. More generally, [they] argue that if cofounders haven’t learned something surprising about each other from their dialogue, they probably haven’t engaged in a serious enough discussion yet.”

The HBR article suggests that a hastily created equal split will sour over time - the percentage of founders who are unhappy with their split increases by 2.5x as their startups mature. That discontent can lead to rapid turnover, which can be problematic.

Another study, led by Professor David Noack, Executive Director of the Hall Global Entrepreneurship Center at the Goddard School of Business and Economics at Utah’s Weber State University suggests that an equal split, especially in early-stage companies, has another unexpected effect - making it unclear who’s driving the bus. According to Professor Noack’s research, if no one feels that they have ownership and responsibility, no one takes the wheel, which has a real effect: 

Companies with an unequal split were 21.7% more likely than other firms to be up and running a year later.

And just like in a marriage, having a “pre-nup” conversation can be awkward, even when people know the data about divorce. 

While it’s uncomfortable to do so, hosting a conversation to explore all the negative scenarios that might occur in the future, with corresponding actions to help avoid them, can help founders avoid headaches later on…and increase startups’ chances of success.

This is a conversation worth listening to…And I’m excited to share it with you!

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

EDAWN - Startup Reno

Growth Pioneers Podcast

Minute 2

Daniel Stillman:

So for somebody who is starting down the path to entrepreneurship and is starting something out, what kind of advice would you give to them in terms of hosting a valuable, worthwhile, powerful conversation with somebody that they want to be a co-founder with or a partner with in an endeavor like building a thing?

Doug Erwin:

Yeah. Yeah, no, that's a great question. I think there is a bit of this myth of the solo founder in our world. Hopefully that's being dispelled. I mean, that does exist still, but a lot of people... I heard this flippantly that to create a startup company, you need a hacker, a hipster and a hustler, right?

So you need these three different people that make a startup work. But at a minimum, a lot of these companies are going to have partnerships. The way I look at that honestly, is I look at it as a marriage. You're about to embark on a life journey with someone for a long time and you're going to spend a huge amount of time together. And so, to at least treat at the same level of seriousness that you would a marriage.

Minute 6

Doug Erwin:

But the fact was, the founders that had unequal distributions had those hard conversations. You might go through that whole conversation list and say, "No, actually look, we're all contributing equally." And that's fine, but it was really indicative of like, "Let's actually have the hard conversation up front. It's sort of like, I mean, when is the best time to discuss divorce? When you're getting married, you know? When the things are good. No one wants to talk about divorce, but it's best to talk about the challenging times when things are good, because there's less at stake at that point. And so I think that it's like being very intentional upfront.

Minute 28

Doug Erwin:

But I mean, the reality of it is most startups fail. I mean, that's the truth of the matter, right? And to deny that is to deny just math. And so I think... It doesn't-

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, not always a good path.

Doug Erwin:

No, not a good path. No reason to be in conflict with reality. The greatest suffering is when you're in conflict with reality. Now again, I know people don't want to jinx it or put some negative energy into it, but just having those, it's almost like how we talk about it when you want to have the money conversation one time. If you can just sit down and lay out, "This is what it looks like. This is how we break up." Now it may not be that way, but at least you've had that. It's there. It's filed. It's in the documents. And you just know that it's there and hopefully you don't have to go through it. I mean, when you buy a new car, you're really excited about a new car. You still buy insurance.

Minute 39

Doug Erwin:

I think so much of that is getting your own alignment around what you really want to create in the world, right? This is creating from an intentional place. And then also linking that with the reality. I think so much of that is those limits. Finding the right capital structure for your company is just aligning what you're trying to create in the world with the right form, right?

If you're going to go create a biotech company and you think you're going to bootstrap it, probably not likely given how much money it costs. Or if you're going to start a boutique in Midtown and you think you're going to get a bunch of angel investors or venture capitalists, that's the wrong form as well. But just aligning that and getting really clear about what your long-term goals are and then fighting the right form to match the essence of what you're trying to create.

More About Doug

Doug Erwin is the Senior VP of Entrepreneurial Development at the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada (EDAWN), and a former serial entrepreneur turned economic developer and executive coach. Doug is committed to growing Northern Nevada’s startup and technology ecosystem and supporting entrepreneurs as they embark upon their own journeys. Doug’s work in community has helped change the perception of Reno and lay the foundation for future generations of entrepreneurs to thrive in the region.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

So we're live.

Doug Erwin:

We're live. Okay. Well, let's do it.

Daniel Stillman:

Doug. I want to officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory, and I'm grateful for this time.

Doug Erwin:

Me too, Daniel, I'm really grateful to have some time to chat with you. I really appreciate our friendship and what you're doing in the world.

Daniel Stillman:

And I'm inviting myself to slow down a little bit, because I think that's something that you're really, really good at doing and always reminding me that that has value. And so the reason why I wanted to have this conversation with you is because of your wealth of knowledge and experience around making businesses in both good and bad ways and because of your work at EDAWN. And so I'm hoping. For the folks who don't know who Doug Erwin is, can you give us the being, thinking, and doing of who you are? What's your essence?

Doug Erwin:

Sure. Yeah, no, I'll do my best to put in that context. Now I sort of describe myself as a serial entrepreneur turned community developer. Over the years, I've had a lot of different entrepreneurial experiences, but for the past 10 years, I've dedicated my life to helping develop the Reno startup ecosystem. And so kind of really building on my own challenges as a startup founder, my own experiences growing up in the Silicon Valley ecosystem and then really trying to bring those lessons to bear at a community level through EDAWN, which is the Economic Development Agency of Western Nevada. So for almost 10 years now, my sole focus has been on supporting entrepreneurs and growing a community of support so that entrepreneurs can find success in Northern Nevada. And then of course you and I have known each other. I've sort of built upon that over the last few years. Got really interested in doing more deep personal work, and so we went into doing some executive coaching where I mostly work with entrepreneurs and founders.

Daniel Stillman:

Nobody can do anything on their own. I think this is where the foundation of this conversation comes from me. I think we always have to bring other people into the creative conversation, whether it's enrolling people to our mission and vision, or literally splitting up the work and/or bringing on a co-founder or an employee. And I feel like there's always something gained from bringing someone to the creative conversation. And then there's always tensions because each party in that creative conversation can want to take things in a different direction.

Daniel Stillman:

So for somebody who is starting down the path to entrepreneurship and is starting something out, what kind of advice would you give to them in terms of hosting a valuable, worthwhile, powerful conversation with somebody that they want to be a co-founder with or a partner with in an endeavor like building a thing?

Doug Erwin:

Yeah. Yeah, no, that's a great question. I think there is a bit of this myth of the solo founder in our world. Hopefully that's being dispelled. I mean, that does exist still, but a lot of people... I heard this flippantly that to create a startup company, you need a hacker, a hipster and a hustler, right?

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Doug Erwin:

So you need these three different people that make a startup work. But at a minimum, a lot of these companies are going to have partnerships. The way I look at that honestly, is I look at it as a marriage. You're about to embark on a life journey with someone for a long time and you're going to spend a huge amount of time together. And so, to at least treat at the same level of seriousness that you would a marriage.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes, totally. I think one of the tensions I've found is when something's new, you don't know what it's going to be. When something's new, it can feel like putting a lot of heavy weight onto those conversations can feel like a burden. So how do you find that balance? How would you suggest to somebody that they find that balance between the sort of robust depth of the conversation and the like, "Let's get it started, let's be agile and let's move quickly."?

Doug Erwin:

Yeah. No, that's a great question. One of the things that was really helpful, I can't remember exactly where the data was but I think it was Kauffman Foundation, looked at the success of companies, startup companies based on the founder share allocation. And so the companies that the founders had equal share distributions performed much worse or worse than the ones where they had uneven distribution. And so this was a little kind of like, why is that true?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Doug Erwin:

And fundamentally, I think the answer to that question is they had the hard conversations up front that said "My contribution is this. Your contribution is that. How does this work?" Those founders went through and said, "Okay we all are bringing different things to the party. How do we create an equitable distribution for that?" And so what their point about that was those founders already had established the right type of relationship, such that when hard times came, they could already face some of those challenges instead of like, "Oh yeah, yeah. We're all 1/3 partners." And so they didn't really create a structure to have those difficult conversations. And when things happen that are hard, which they always do at a startup, Then they have less resiliency to navigate through that.

Daniel Stillman:

That's so interesting and that is counterintuitive. I would think that if people are equal partners and see themselves as equal partners, that that would create more, more buy-in. But what you're saying is being clearer about who's contributing what and what the value of that is to the success of the company, it may not be equal.

Doug Erwin:

It may not be, and I'm not even sure that the real takeaway point was the share split. But the fact was, the founders that had unequal distributions had those hard conversations. You might go through that whole conversation list and say, "No, actually look, we're all contributing equally." And that's fine, but it was really indicative of like, "Let's actually have the hard conversation up front. It's sort of like, I mean, when is the best time to discuss divorce? When you're getting married, you know? When the things are good. No one wants to talk about divorce, but it's best to talk about the challenging times when things are good, because there's less at stake at that point. And so I think that it's like being very intentional upfront.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. So what would you advise or coach someone who's got a co-founder who's like, "I don't want to have all that negative scenario planning"? Because it really is. I mean, I remember going through that, sitting down with a lawyer and being like, "Okay, so if this happens, if this happens, if this happens, if this happens," and you're like, "Wow, this is getting pretty dark pretty fast."

Doug Erwin:

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's a difficult one, because I mean most people want to turn away from discomfort. I mean, I don't know that I have brilliant wisdom. I think there was another... I don't know who said it, but it's like contracts keep friendships. I'm not totally sure that's been my experience, but at least if it's laid out. I've had a couple personal experiences where I've had co-founders and it hasn't come together the way that we thought. Both cases I did not have contracts. And so it left a lot for interpretation. It maybe my fantasy about this, but I think there would be reality to it. It would've been much clearer if we had a buy-sell agreement or some other mechanism that said, "Hey, look, if we need to get out for whatever reason, this is what it looks like." Because in the moment there's a lot of emotion which leads, in my experience, to irrationality and lots of hurt feelings and other challenges.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. If you feel comfortable, I'd love to unpack, maybe give some more color to that challenge for you.

Doug Erwin:

Yeah. Yeah, for sure. Well, I have two examples where I was a co-founder. The one that was probably the most challenging of the two was my first real startup endeavor, which is a company called Pria Diagnostics. We built an at home male fertility test kit. The co-founder was my brother, which brings in a whole other element of complexity. He brought me into the company. He was a PhD out of Stanford. It was technology that came out of Stanford. I was really the only entrepreneurial guy he knew that he trusted. And so we came together in that. We ran that together for about eight years. We went and raised a bunch of angel money. We set up a bunch of partnerships.

Doug Erwin:

At some point our core product just wasn't going to work in the market, and so it started to unravel. We lost our key partnership. We needed to try and pivot, but it was 2008. Lots of difficult financial situations. And in that situation, basically he, after we'd laid off a big portion of the company, decided to go, leave and start something else. It was supremely challenging for me. I mean, I'll fast forward to it. Thankfully he and I have worked through that and there is a happy story here, which we're close and our kids are close and all of that. But for many years we were estranged. And so much of that honestly, for me, if I think about it was a lot of the expectations I had and these ideas that he and I were going to work together forever, like we were going to work together on these multiple startups. This was the first of that. And the hardest part about that for me was just that shattering of that fantasy.

Daniel Stillman:

That's brutal. And also, I can't imagine. Eight years is an amazing run.

Doug Erwin:

Yeah, it is.

Daniel Stillman:

An amazing amount of intimacy with your brother. And then the business breakup, him wanting to leave must have been really hard to deal with.

Doug Erwin:

It was very difficult. It was a combination of that. And then I was the CEO, but we had got down to like, we went from 27 to four or five people. The COO, in order for him to stay, he needed to become the CEO, but then ultimately I got the deal close. So there was, for me personally, just a lot of status, social status, estrange from brother, and then of course I didn't have any very good coping skills so that led to some personal challenges. I was drinking too much and just... It was not a good situation. Although of course upon reflection, it's the best thing that ever happened, it taught me so much. But in the moment, it was very challenging. And so much of this, I guess for me, was around unspoken expectations.

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Doug Erwin:

We didn't have a language to discuss it. When he left, I felt abandoned by him.

Daniel Stillman:

You had no allowance for him for an exit for him before you would had sold the thing. That was presumably going to be the exit.

Doug Erwin:

Correct. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

So what do you think kept you from having some of that worst case scenario early on?

Doug Erwin:

A naivete. I mean, I think I was 29 when we started that company. He and I had been through a lot together, right? He's my stepbrother. We went to college together. We moved to the Bay Area together. There was just all of this implicit trust. Not once did it ever cross my mind that we needed to even have that conversation.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Yeah. There's this unspoken trust, which is we should take for granted and we assume that it will always be like this.

Doug Erwin:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

And because of that, we just avoid having the difficult conversation because I mean I guess it didn't even occur to you. But then when you get towards the middle of the downward arc, the beginning of the end, the end of the beginning, I don't know, when did you realize there was some trouble that you needed to start having these difficult conversations?

Doug Erwin:

Yeah. Of course we were also living together at the time, so I was living in his spare bedroom because I was in Reno and he was in the Bay Area.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh, my God. Talk about entanglement. Oh my God.

Doug Erwin:

Oh yeah. No, I remember that we were in the couch in his living room one time having a pretty heated argument and his wife was basically saying, "Hey, you guys got to work on some things." But again, it hadn't dawned on me that that was an outcome. I just thought that we were just going through something challenging. And again upon reflection, I think it was the right choice. I mean, it was definitely a difficult one and he needed to go move on. And in many ways, he may have been protecting me because ultimately I was CEO and I probably needed to go, but I had so much of my own identity wrapped up in that. And so I've looked at it from many lenses. There was definitely warning signs, I just wasn't aware and I was in denial.

Doug Erwin:

Just to add insult to injury, one of the things I'm very sensitive to with entrepreneurs is right around 2005 I won the Entrepreneur of the Year Award for the state of Nevada, which was this awesome... I got this great accolades. And at the same time the company was imploding and I knew it. Our partnerships were on the rocks. And so this dissonance between being put up on this pedestal and knowing things are crashing was brutal. So yeah, there was a lot packed up in that one.

Daniel Stillman:

It's interesting to think about like... It sounds like you've done a lot of work on looking at that past version of you. I'm hearing empathy for yourself.

Doug Erwin:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

He wasn't asking... Oh yeah, sorry. Go ahead, Doug.

Doug Erwin:

Well, no, I just think one of the things, I mean for the longest time and our mutual friend Robert really helped me with this is I walked around thinking that was a failure. The most powerful reframe, the thing that it really opened up for me was like, no, it's not a failure, it was a lesson. And then when I really started to dig into the lessons, to create a lot of compassion. And that's why I said I honestly wouldn't have traded it for anything. I mean, I don't prefer not to go through that again.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Fair. Well-

Doug Erwin:

But...

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah?

Doug Erwin:

It was worth it.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, because you were willing to learn from it.

Doug Erwin:

Yes.

Daniel Stillman:

What do you feel like when you went into your second big startup? What do you feel were lessons you took forward in the early stages of that one? Did things change for you?

Doug Erwin:

Well, so [inaudible 00:16:03]-

Daniel Stillman:

Did it take you longer to learn things?

Doug Erwin:

Yeah. If I was to summarize that startup, I would say it was a rebound startup. It was kind of I had this... I think my ego was very bruised. It was very difficult time. I think the guiding and thinking in my mind was I've just got to get back on the horse that kicked me. All of my identity was wrapped up in being an entrepreneur. I was in Entrepreneurs' Organization which I think is an amazing organization. But everything around my life was around being an entrepreneur and I just needed a new idea. And so I didn't spend a ton of time looking into the new ideas. And I ended up starting a standup paddleboard company. I co-founded a company called Tahoe SUP. So going from medical devices to consumer sporting goods is kind of a strange transition.

Daniel Stillman:

But also given... What year was this? I mean, I remember standup paddleboarding was exploding at one point.

Doug Erwin:

Oh yeah. We were early. It was like 2009.

Daniel Stillman:

And for people who don't know, I remember meeting this couple who did standup paddleboard stuff in the Rockaways. I did some standup paddleboard yoga, which is super fun. Because I'm really bad with inversions and it's just so fun to know you're just going to fall in. But these people were doing competitive... I was like, "There's competitive standup paddleboarding?" It blew my mind because I think of it as this relaxing sort of endeavor, but no, there's competitions. People take this shit real.

Doug Erwin:

Oh absolutely. And we were so early. I mean, if you ever read the book Blue Ocean Strategy, it was like a perfectly executed blue ocean strategy even though I didn't know that's what we were doing. At that time all the standup paddleboards were coastal and here we are in Tahoe and we created the whole category for touring boards and recreational paddleboarding. So very different board design, totally different messaging. Our tagline was, "We're not in it for three second thrills. We're in it for day long adventures." It was just a completely different way of looking at paddleboarding. And so it was amazing. I mean, we went from nothing to $3 million in sales in like a year and a half and was like a rocket ship. I mean, not a tech rocket ship, but nevertheless, a pretty big rocket ship at that time.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. A business is a business as far as I'm concerned.

Doug Erwin:

And in that situation, I joined a co-founder. Again, I didn't really process the learnings. I mean, I think I processed it a little bit, but I didn't really put it into action. I think one of the things was still in this... There's something about being a young entrepreneur where at least for me there's just a lot of youthful exuberance and you can really drive on that and that naivete gets you a long way, but ultimately you have to have some wisdom. And so I just think I was just trying to get right back up on that horse that kicked me off. And so we created a partnership that was really set up for failure probably from the day one. I brought in one of the investors from my other company, lovely woman, but was probably not her industry. And so we had this three way partnership between myself, this woman, and this other gentleman. It just was fraught from problems from day one. It kind of plagued us the entire time of the company.

Daniel Stillman:

Really? Is it okay to say a little bit more about what was off about the way you had partnered?

Doug Erwin:

Sure. I think there was a little bit of unequal power dynamic. The co-founder who really was the person who had the idea didn't have any capital and was sort of first out. So we brought in some capital and some business advice or expertise and he brought in all of these skills. And so there was a... I think he always sort of felt maybe like he wasn't unequal footing. I felt that partnership was... There's a lot of passive aggressive behavior going on. There wasn't a lot of communication. And almost from the very beginning we had to do a lot to try and keep the partnership functioning. It became a lot of work. There was just so much operational overhead that it was very distracting.

Daniel Stillman:

Just to keep the peace between the three of you.

Doug Erwin:

Just to keep the piece. Yeah, between the three of us.

Daniel Stillman:

I mean, I feel like this brings up the question of like, whether or not the people who are in partnership are doing their own work on themselves and are working with their shadows and their denied parts, their feelings of inadequacy or guilt or all of these pieces that we're bringing into a relationship.

Doug Erwin:

Well, I can just say at least for me, because that was in 2009, I hadn't even really started on my own spiritual personal development journey at that point. So I think my strategy for dealing with pain and complexity was drinking. I had started a little bit as a result of-

Daniel Stillman:

Was it an effective strategy at the time?

Doug Erwin:

Of course not.

Daniel Stillman:

No?

Doug Erwin:

I mean, it temporizes things. I was just in the beginning stages. I mean the Pria breakup sent me down a path that I just... I remember I was in Belize. I found this book in the airport of San Francisco called The Secrets to Happiness. It was like a one paragraph on all of the spiritual and philosophical traditions. I'm reading this, licking my wounds in Belize, trying to figure out what I'm going to do, and I was like, "I think Buddhism is the answer." And that's where it all started for me. But I was very early on in that I had no real training or understanding. I was working with my own therapist to unwind all of my own challenges. So I definitely was working through that at the time. But it was very early for me, so still leveraging former strategies. I had the pain and I wanted to try and avoid a few things, but fundamentally I was probably using the same strategies.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I mean, because from what you're telling me about your co-founder who had the idea but not the money, I could really empathize with that position of like, "It's my idea" and the feeling of pride in that and the feeling maybe of shame or embarrassment or weakness that I didn't have the money to make this happen, that I have to rely on these other people. Instead of it feeling like a real partnership, it can feel like an unhealthy dynamic.

Doug Erwin:

Yeah. We were sort of bringing a tech startup approach into really a manufacturing business. I mean, one of my biggest takeaways from that was matching the right capital to the type of business you had. I mean, we were literally looking at this as an angel funded, high growth tech startup, and this is much more of like factory receivables and industrial manufacturing. It was just a different animal. I think there was just some inherent misalignment that. So I think that was definitely challenging. But I'm with you. As I think back on our co-founder's experience, I could imagine... The plus side of that whole thing is he ultimately ended up with the company. It's been sold a few times, but I think as of even last month, the company's still in business, he's running it. It's been a long journey to get him there, but it was ultimately the right fit. That one actually had a very positive outcome for me, meaning I got out without too much damage. The company went through a lot of damage, which is unfortunate, but the product exists and I learned a lot of lessons from that.

Daniel Stillman:

I think we only have a little bit of time left so I feel like one of the most powerful frameworks that I learned from our coach Robert is the very unique application of triple loop learning and that many people think about transformation just from the perspective of doing things better, but not realizing that requires us to think differently in order to do differently. I think a lot of advice out there falls under the do and think categories and ignores the triple loop of how do we be in order to think in these ways. Because the early advice you gave of at the beginning... In sales it's such simple advice. Just at the beginning before things get super hard, have the deep dive conversation about all of the scenarios and then work out the partnership deal in accordance to that conversation.

Daniel Stillman:

Now that's a pretty basic advice. And by basic, I mean basic like, "Yeah, basic." I mean basic like "Yeah, that's it." But unless I'm willing to be a certain way, I can't invite that conversation. And so I think that's maybe where the real transformation comes in. How shall we be in order to be able to invite and host this kind of a conversation in a powerful and effective way from your experience?

Doug Erwin:

What's coming up for me is really turning into what was uncomfortable. Like being okay with sitting with discomfort. There's so much excitement and exuberance when you're starting a company. There's so much potential. And that feels really good. That's such an uplifting energy. And so the idea of talking about what it happens if it doesn't work out is sort of the opposite of that. And so in that beginning phase, you sort of feed on that energy. At least I did.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Doug Erwin:

But I think it's sort of, again, recognizing that turning towards something that may be dark or uncomfortable is actually warranted, A, and will not diminish the light. There's so much light.

Daniel Stillman:

I think that's the fear, right? Certainly I've read way too many articles about the power of Steve Job's reality distortion field and how impactful that was to getting amazing things done and how entrepreneurs really create the future through this will. I think there is this real fear that if I step back and look at the discomforting possibility of failure and look at everything that could go wrong, that it will erase the light. But you're saying it doesn't have to be that way.

Doug Erwin:

I don't think it has to be that way. I think that's probably why people avoid it.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Doug Erwin:

But I mean, the reality of it is most startups fail. I mean, that's the truth of the matter, right? And to deny that is to deny just math. And so I think... It doesn't-

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, not always a good path.

Doug Erwin:

No, not a good path. No reason to be in conflict with reality. The greatest suffering is when you're in conflict with reality. Now again, I know people don't want to jinx it or put some negative energy into it, but just having those, it's almost like how we talk about it when you want to have the money conversation one time. If you can just sit down and lay out, "This is what it looks like. This is how we break up." Now it may not be that way, but at least you've had that. It's there. It's filed. It's in the documents. And you just know that it's there and hopefully you don't have to go through it. I mean, when you buy a new car, you're really excited about a new car. You still buy insurance.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Doug Erwin:

You're going to get an accident. It's kind of in that vein.

Daniel Stillman:

I love this mindset of having it one time. I mean, I don't know if that's actually accurate. I feel like we generally have to revisit these conversations, but I like the idea of saying like, "Let's set ourselves up for success by building a platform and a foundation. Let's have this conversation." So I'm thinking of these two ways being of like, "Let's turn into discomfort and the willingness to do that." And the, "Let's really build a platform. Let's have this conversation. Let's have it one time." I mean, I think that's a little idealistic, but I think it's a nice way to... It feels like a very encouraging way to start, like, "Well, let's just have this one time." And it may be enough if you really have it in the right way. Maybe it is enough. Maybe I've just never been doing it right, Doug.

Doug Erwin:

Well, one time again, maybe idealistic, but at least you're getting it out in the beginning and it's being codified in whatever documents and you have an agreement. It's like how do we create an exit plan broadly? I mean, obviously if it comes up, you can never capture everything, but at least you have a framework for it so that everybody's in agreement and they know what it's going to look like. I mean, it's going to be uncomfortable if the founder relationships break up regardless, but I think having the conversation up front can make it less uncomfortable.

Doug Erwin:

Plus not to mention I can't tell you how many times I've seen these deals where people come in. Forget about the breakup, they just don't even have stock purchase agreements and things like that. So I've seen more than a few deals where a co-founder exits with all of their stock, and that pretty much kills the company's ability to go raise a future round of financing. And that scorned founder holds a lot of power over the deal. That is just not a good deal. It's a very novice deal that shouldn't happen, but I've seen it happen more than a few times.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, do you mind? I mean, this sounds like worth getting into the weeds a little bit, because I imagine that founder who wants to leave wants to take their investment and their capital with them. How do you balance the needs of the company as a whole and the future of the company to the desire of somebody to keep what was "theirs"?

Doug Erwin:

This is a great question. I think it really comes back to what type of company you're structuring. So if you're going to build a company that's going to take outside investment, by definition you are going to be selling equity over some period of time, generally speaking if you're building a high growth company. Any of those companies, the founders, the intellectual property, all of that really is property of the company. Any equity you have, generally speaking, would be earned out over a period of time. But you can see sometimes naive founders or people that go through that process end up with like 30% to 40% of the company, but have not agreed to be under a vesting agreement or something like that. When they leave they're fully vested and they can take all those shares. And that just creates... I mean, even worse if they don't have an assignment agreement, they haven't assigned their property. I mean, you would think that wouldn't happen given all of the accelerators and things, but I have seen it more than you know.

Daniel Stillman:

So if you were... Yeah, sorry, go ahead.

Doug Erwin:

Well, and I think that's maybe a little bit different. I mean, it would definitely be different if you're building a brick and mortar store or something like that where maybe you're not necessarily building it for outside investment from day one. But in a lot of cases, people maybe structure something originally, "Hey, we're doing this one thing" and they shift it to another thing and they just keep operating like that. Who likes to spend money on attorneys? Nobody.

Daniel Stillman:

Show of hands in the audience.

Doug Erwin:

However, that would be the other thing, is always get the right attorney in the very beginning and spend the money. No one wants to spend the money on attorneys, but getting those documents done up front save so much money on the back end.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh my God. Oh my God, I don't even think... I mean, this is my own horror story, but I think we spent a lot of time in a company I co-founded putting all those documents together and then I don't think we ever signed them. I was like, "Wait a minute. How did that happen? How did that happen?" I'm so ashamed. Did that bite me in the ass? Yes, it did. Am I ashamed about it? Yes, I am.

Doug Erwin:

It's a good lesson.

Daniel Stillman:

It's a good lesson.

Doug Erwin:

It's a good lesson. Transform that shame into a new learning.

Daniel Stillman:

So there's one other thing that I'm thinking of that sounds like from the level of mental models and being that is helpful in getting to yes in the Harvard program on negotiation they talk about creating more value and increasing the size of the pie. That it's not just splitting up the pie. Actually, I don't know if you've read that book Slicing the Pie.

Doug Erwin:

No.

Daniel Stillman:

It's a great primer on some of the stuff that we're talking about. It helped me back in the day, or at least it would have if I had signed my agreements.

Doug Erwin:

Page 1, sign the agreements.

Daniel Stillman:

Page 1, sign the agreement. Whatever you do, sign it. But I think there's this idea of like breaking up the pie. But what you're talking about, if your hope is to create a larger company over time, then there's this idea of the whole pie should get bigger through whatever it is that we do, right? There's like, "Well, this is my third." It's like, "Well, would you like 1/3 of zero? Or would you like 1/3 of 2X or 3X?" Or sorry. "Or would you like 1/5 of something that's three times as big?" It's like, well, that's a very different conversation to be having.

Doug Erwin:

Yeah, especially for high growth companies. I mean, I guess this is a real challenge with first time founders. This question of would you rather have 100% of nothing or 30% of a billion dollar company? You really have to buy into that mental model if that's the type of company. Now, it's not always done that way. There's a local company here, the founder owns 85% and he's never taken a dollar and he's bootstrapped it. That's great. He's going to be very successful. Most of them don't work that way. And so just that idea of... Well, and really, I mean, if you think about it, I mean, when you create a company, you are creating another entity altogether. And ultimately that entity transcends the founders, right? It becomes its own thing. I mean, we don't even need to get into politics, but I mean, the fact that corporations can be involved in political things, all that is just another example of the fact that they are their own entities. And so what you're really doing is how do I best-

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. We could talk about whether or not that should be there.

Doug Erwin:

No. Yeah, yeah. That's a [inaudible 00:36:38]-

Daniel Stillman:

We should definitely get less corporate money in politics.

Doug Erwin:

Totally.

Daniel Stillman:

We'll have another podcast about that.

Doug Erwin:

We should make that one longer.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Doug Erwin:

But I mean, a bit fundamental, you're creating this entity. And so what's in the best interest of this entity that's going to most likely outlast the founders?

Daniel Stillman:

See, that's a very different level of thinking and being, right? It's like, "Well, I want my 1/3" versus, "What's going to create the long term health and wellbeing of this thing that we're creating together?"

Doug Erwin:

But I also think that starts with the intention of what you're trying to create, right?

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Doug Erwin:

And so we're largely talking about venture funded startups. I mean, there are other companies that are multi-generational. And so I think in that very beginning, what are you trying to create? What do you really want to create and how does that business best align with your desires?

Daniel Stillman:

So when it comes to facilitating, leading, or coaching others or yourself through this conversation, I'm hearing some really powerful questions that we should be asking ourselves, right? What are we really trying to create, right? Am I going to put my needs over the needs of this thing that we're creating together? How might we turn into discomfort? My mom, I quote my mom I feel like in every podcast, partly because I know she's going to listen to the episode. Hi mom. She always says, "Start as you mean to continue," which is a very profound idea.

Doug Erwin:

Wow.

Daniel Stillman:

And it's like do you want to have a relationship where you can't talk about the hard things? I mean, nobody would cop to that. And yet we find ourselves backed into a situation where it's uncomfortable to bring something up. And so if we don't bring it up, it won't be brought up.

Doug Erwin:

Well, first of all, I'd like to meet your mom. She sounds like a wise, wise person.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh, you would love my mom.

Doug Erwin:

A wise person.

Daniel Stillman:

My mom would love you too, 100%. Mainly because she... All the spiritual stuff we talk about, she's the source.

Doug Erwin:

Yeah, I know.

Daniel Stillman:

She's the source of many of theses things.

Doug Erwin:

I appreciate that.

Daniel Stillman:

You should go straight to the source, not through the conduit.

Doug Erwin:

No, I appreciate all that. I think so much of that is getting your own alignment around what you really want to create in the world, right? This is creating from an intentional place. And then also linking that with the reality. I think so much of that is those limits. Finding the right capital structure for your company is just aligning what you're trying to create in the world with the right form, right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Doug Erwin:

If you're going to go create a biotech company and you think you're going to bootstrap it, probably not likely given how much money it costs. Or if you're going to start a boutique in Midtown and you think you're going to get a bunch of angel investors or venture capitalists, that's the wrong form as well. But just aligning that and getting really clear about what your long term goals are and then fighting the right form to match the essence of what you're trying to create.

Daniel Stillman:

So you mentioned mindfulness and we're talking about form in essence. And so I'm wondering with literally our last few minutes, because you do a lot of work on mindfulness and you also coach people on essence, where do you feel mindfulness and being aware of our essence comes into this conversation about being a conscious co-founder?

Doug Erwin:

I mean, to me it feels like table stakes. How do you not have mindfulness if you're going to go into something consciously? And knowing what your own motivations are, understanding your having your own relationship to your mind, I mean, I don't know, this sounds a little cheesy, but that's the most important co-founder you need to have a relationship with it, which is your mind.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh, man. Wow. I mean, we were talking about this last weekend, this Carl Jung quote which I will mangle that until you make the unconscious conscious, it will rule your life and you will call it fate. I think that's the...

Doug Erwin:

Yeah, no, I think you're on it.

Daniel Stillman:

I mean, that's what you're talking about. Your mind, what we're working with here, is what we're bringing into the conversation. And we have to have that conversation with ourselves. What do I want? Am I working against myself?

Doug Erwin:

Absolutely. When I think about my own... I remember the first time I recognized mindfulness and it was in the midst of all the trauma of Pria failing. It was just a glimpse, but it was really powerful. But just knowing how my identity and all of my actions were completely unconscious, only upon reflection have I been able to do that. And now that I have a strong practice, I have a much... I mean, I'm not perfect in any regard with regard to this, but I see much more alignment with my actions and my intention and what I'm really trying to create. I think that was the first thing. Again, using Robert's frame, my first company's worked absolutely built based upon status seeking, scarcity and survival. Absolutely. I was fortunate to get an opportunity to go to do community work and create a whole startup community. And it gave me a lived experience of building from a place of abundant service and trust. And of course, and then ultimately understanding my essence and all of that.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Well, we're almost out of time. Is there any parting thoughts, anything I haven't asked you about this topic that I ought to have asked you?

Doug Erwin:

I think that we've covered a lot of ground. Again, I think the most important co-founder is your own mind, like really getting clear with what your intentions are and understanding that. And again, turning towards everything. Again, just taking Robert. It's so much easier to turn towards it in the beginning when things are good and when things are difficult.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. Well, that's really powerful, man. Thank you so much for making this time. I know you've had a very, very big week and you're about to head on vacation, so I'm not going to keep you here any longer. But I'm really grateful for your time, Doug. It's really great to hang out with you and have this conversation.

Doug Erwin:

I really enjoyed it, Daniel. Thank you so much for having me in your podcast. It's just an honor to be in relationship with you, my friend.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you. Likewise, brother.

Doug Erwin:

Yeah, [inaudible 00:43:52].

Daniel Stillman:

We'll call scene.

Doug Erwin:

Awesome.

Prototyping Partnerships

How do you make a friend?

How do you become lovers with someone?

How do you become business partners?

In RomComs, there’s a “meet-cute”...the hilarious and unlikely way two people in this topsy-turvy mixed-up world collide and fall madly, rapidly in love. 

In the real world, taking time and gradually testing, trying and yes, prototyping a relationship is ideal. In love, we call it dating. There’s no good word for “friend-dating”, especially when you’re doing it with someone of the same sex. 

And with founding a company…where does the conversation start?

In this conversation, I sit down with Jane Portman and Benedikt Deicke, co-founders of Userlist, on how they connected through shared communities, and learned how each other really worked through real-world, previous projects.

They also share their insights on setting the stage both for a long-term vision for building a company AND for a possible exit from a partnership through thoughtful conversations.

Userlist is a tool for sending behavior-based messages to SaaS customers and recently completed a pre-seed round with 21 angel inventors.

Benedikt is a software engineer from Germany who loves to plan, build, and grow web applications. He co-hosts the Slow And Steady Podcast and organizes the Femto Conference, a tiny conference for self-funded tech companies. Jane is a leading UI/UX consultant specializing in web application design, and has been the host and founder of the  UI Breakfast podcast since 2014 (she kindly invited me to join her show in early 2022).

Enjoy my conversation with these two delightful co-founders as much as I did.

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

UI Breakfast

Userlist

benediktdeicke.com

Better Done than Perfect podcast 

Jane's Story: Turning Thirty: Story of My Life

Culture, Values, Operating Principles & More

Inspire, Not Instruct: How We Do User Onboarding at Userlist

Minute 8

Daniel Stillman:

So at that moment, how did you decide to go all-in? All three of you said, "Yeah, we're going to make this happen." How did you decide to structure your relationship at that beginning stage of this new idea?

Benedikt Deicke:

If I remember correctly, Jane had that proposal and connected all three of us, and I think the first thing we did was have a conversation about what we want from this. And we did an exercise about... I don't remember the name of it, but it was something from Google Ventures about company culture and tone of voice and stuff like that just to get a feeling of we're aligned in terms of values and goals. And that was pretty helpful to get a rough understanding of each of our expectations and where we might differ. And I remember that one of the exercises was, let's plan for, "Where do you see yourself in the next five years, 10 years, 15 years?" And I think one of the learnings from that was that we were pretty well aligned in terms of expectations and goals. And that made it easier in terms of starting just together, because we knew we were on the same path and not heading in different directions with the expectations and where we wanted to take this.

Minute 15

Benedikt Deicke:

I guess one thing that was valuable in entire process of doing that, I think it was the Google design sprint exercise that we did. And having the founder agreement and just talking through all those things aligned expectations from the get-go. And I feel like that's already a good way to minimize disagreement down the road, because I feel like a lot of the fights that founders might have between each other is because they're not on the same page and have slightly different ideas about the future and slightly different expectations. And by just making sure that we're on the same page, for the most part at least, already helps with reducing the conflict.

Minute 17

Jane Portman:

To be entirely honest, all these measures and being aligned and the vesting schedule and everything, this is all great. But the biggest success factor is that we had worked together prior to that. I would not jump into co-founder relationship these days without having worked with the person. And that's the only idea how you can judge their communication, their work ethics, and a lot of other things you can never understand if you don't get involved. We were lucky that, I had not worked with Claire for example, Claire had an amazing track record as a marketer, so I just took the dive. But the relationship that now keeps working is between me and Benedikt, and we had tested it prior to starting. So I consider that the key success factor. Everything else, surely great, allows you to part ways, but at the core of it is maybe bringing somebody for money first, or somehow before trying to bring them on into the shares or something like that.

Minute 28

Daniel Stillman:

What advice would you give to someone else who feels like their co-founder isn't putting in as much as they should? It's a difficult conversation to have.

Benedikt Deicke:

But it's one you should have, right?

Jane Portman:

Even though it must be had. It must be had. This communication principle, I think I saw it in Crucial Conversations. I forgot the author of the book. It's pretty famous. Basically, you have problems with your boss, your spouse knows about it, your colleagues know about it, except for your boss. So if you feel like something is unfair, that is the conversation to have. And these fundamentals of being rewarded for your time, either with salary or with shares and keeping it fair for everybody, this is fundamental so that everybody can perform so that they feel everything is honest. Without that, without the feeling of fairness, without the fundamental of being fair, this is broken. You're feeling like you're trapped or something like that. This is not going to move forward. So it's fundamental.

Minute 34

Jane Portman:

I'd like to touch on how we do planning. And we borrowed this principle from Shape Up by Basecamp. And it says, basically, "Don't worry about your backlog as much as people do." So previously, before adopting this, we would religiously every month meet and reprioritize 60 items in our backlog. And this is just such a ridiculous activity, because in software, everything changes all the time, because you learn, you keep learning the circumstances, change, opportunities arise, things that seemed important, don't seem as important because you've learned something that is crucial to your customers in higher degree. And we just plan out the next, I don't know, let's say two, three big features. Even one, two, I would say. One, two, three, something like that.

That is true for product and for marketing, so we usually have a marketing theme direction for the next, let's say quarter or something. And there is also the things in the product that Benedikt is working on with the technical team. So there is high level roadmap, but there's definitely nothing set in stone, and we are fine with it. And that relates to that level of fluidity that we discussed. We're comfortable with that. There might be some people who are not, but works for us.

More about Jane and Benedikt

About Benedikt

Hi! I’m Benedikt Deicke, a software engineer from Germany. I love to plan, build, and grow web applications. These days, I build my own products, organize a conference, contribute to open source, and co-host a podcast.

About Jane

Jane Portman is a UI/UX consultant specializing in web application design, founder of UI Breakfast and Userlist. At Userlist, Jane's goal is to provide flawless UX and help users be awesome at their customer messaging. Jane has also been running UI Breakfast Podcast since 2014.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

Oh, my God. We're live. Welcome to the Conversation Factory you two. Thanks for making this happen.

Benedikt Deicke:

Yay.

Daniel Stillman:

Big yay indeed.

Benedikt Deicke:

Thanks for having us.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It only took a couple of tries on calendar.

Jane Portman:

Thank you, Daniel. Thank you, Daniel.

Benedikt Deicke:

True.

Daniel Stillman:

So the basic question, how did you two find each other in this crazy mixed up world? I've been thinking about this idea of serendipity and how extraordinary it is that anything happens at all. So how did you two... Maybe you can introduce yourself a little bit, but I want to put it in the context of, how did you two find each other and decide to do this project, to start this thing that you're doing? That's the big question.

Jane Portman:

So we run Userlist, a software that helps SaaS companies send email automation, send email messages to their customers and leads. That is a fairly complex software product, and I'm really excited that Benedikt, the brilliant technical brain on the other side of the microphone has been on this journey. And we have known each other for 10 years, I think, roughly.

Benedikt Deicke:

Not quite, but it's getting close.

Jane Portman:

We're getting there.

Benedikt Deicke:

Yeah, it's getting close.

Daniel Stillman:

So you've known each other for 10 years, but Benedikt, when did you start thinking about what userlist became?

Benedikt Deicke:

So after meeting each other, I think we met online in a community or so, and I think a couple years after we've met at a conference and basically have been in touch after that on Twitter and social media in general. And at some point Jane was thinking about starting her first software product and was looking for a developer to work on that with her. And it wasn't userlist at the time, but in the end, I joined that project and she hired me as a developer. And in that process, we discovered that there was a tool missing in our stack that was basically userlist. So that's where the original idea came from.

Benedikt Deicke:

But it wasn't for another couple of months where we, I think, figured out that the other project we were working on wasn't quite the right thing or didn't quite work out that I think Jane, you got an inquisition offer, right? That got you thinking about moving on to the next thing. And then I think in the end, it didn't really pan out with the acquisition plan. But suddenly, there was free time and a new idea and Jane was like, "Hey, let's maybe tackle this other thing we discovered along the ride," and that's what we did.

Jane Portman:

Yes. Yes. And there were three of us in the beginning, and the second try, I thought we've got all the bases covered and we are going to skyrocket to 5K MRI in five months or so. And yeah, a lot of things went differently, but ultimately, it was a good start. And maybe today we can talk a bit more about how we can help others find their good co-founders and what's the best way to set it up, right? Because, as you can see, one of us left and we're still friends, which is a rare thing, if you think about it.

Daniel Stillman:

Very much so. I'm wondering though, I want to go back because Benedikt, this is really interesting. I think Jane, maybe you had mentioned this, that you had known each other for a while. So there was a community that you two had connected on and exchanged some messages. You sort of knew who each other were, and then you met IRL.

Jane Portman:

We met a few times at MicroConfs in Europe in person. We hang out in the same, I don't know, Slack community and definitely had a lot of friends in common. And also, my first experimental book in 2013, I think, there was a guy who bought it and I thought, "Hmm, what an interesting guy. Weird name, long hair." And then I saw his picture popping up again and again, and then we met in Prague, I think, eventually. And yeah, we met a few times.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, you wrote your book around 2014, you met-

Jane Portman:

13. 13.

Daniel Stillman:

2013.

Jane Portman:

It's nine years. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Wow. And then you had a couple of interactions in real life, and it was just friendly, collegial, I guess you might say.

Benedikt Deicke:

Yeah.

Jane Portman:

There's great spirit in the startup community, around this ecosystem of raw balling startup for the rest of us, MicroConf and now Tiny Seed, a lot of fellow founders, I was a consultant serving them design, Benedikt was a consultant serving them-

Benedikt Deicke:

Development.

Jane Portman:

... engineering. And also, Benedikt had his own product back then. Was this nice vibe going on. But yeah, when I was looking for a developer, another friend of mine said, "Well, if Benedikt suggests his help, go take it. He's the best you can find." So I did.

Daniel Stillman:

That's amazing.

Jane Portman:

And I really took him up on the deal. I really took him up on the deal, because, well, I'm a non-technical founder and I didn't have massive budget back then in 2017, I think, in the fall. Or actually 16. That was the fall of 16, I think.

Benedikt Deicke:

Right. Yeah. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

And so you had this moment where you were like, "Okay, this is..." So Benedikt, you were saying that Jane, you had got an offer for that company that wound up not working out, but it got you thinking, "We should start thinking about the next thing," and that seed of that next thing was inside of what you had been building together. Yeah, we can't see video, but she's waving her head, so I didn't get it quite right.

Jane Portman:

We just discovered a gap in the tools that can be used for running a SaaS. Back then, there was, at least in my head, I could only see Intercom that could send both email and in-app notifications based on user behavior. Also, this problem of... When Benedikt helped me launch the product, was a launch day and I realized we don't have a dashboard and building one takes money and time, and how can I see who my customers are? Because I had expected analytics to solve this problem, but analytics don't really solve this problem of CRM-ing your customers to a sense.

Daniel Stillman:

Do you remember the conversation the two of you had about where the gap was and the seed for this next idea?

Jane Portman:

Well, I wrote emails. I wrote emails to Benedikt and to Claire. I thought we will have all the bases covered. Claire was a marketer, Benedikt's an engineer, I can do design and the rest, and we were a killer team. And I can't believe they both said yes, so that was the process.

Daniel Stillman:

So at that moment, how did you decide to go all in? All three of you said, "Yeah, we're going to make this happen." How did you decide to structure your relationship at that beginning stage of this new idea?

Benedikt Deicke:

If I remember correctly, Jane had that proposal and connected all three of us, and I think the first thing we did was have a conversation about what we want from this. And we did an exercise about... I don't remember the name of it, but it was something from Google Ventures about company culture and tone of voice and stuff like that just to get a feeling of we're aligned in terms of values and goals. And that was pretty helpful to get a rough understanding of each of our expectations and where we might differ. And I remember that one of the exercises was, let's plan for, "Where do you see yourself in the next five years, 10 years, 15 years?" And I think one of the learnings from that was that we were pretty well aligned in terms of expectations and goals. And that made it easier in terms of starting just together, because we knew we were on the same path and not heading in different directions with the expectations and where we wanted to take this.

Jane Portman:

Because all three of us had experience consulting other for other SaaS companies, and we've seen different flavors of those SaaS companies, and it could be that, for example, me and Benedikt could go and expect a more calm, bootstrap business, and Claire would see, "Oh, let's raise five million in the next year," and just put fuel there. And we were more or less aligned with the sustainable bootstrap journey where we could take our time to build a sustainable product without burning a lot of money right away. So for example, one of those things.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Yeah. So who facilitated that conversation or who brought the plan for that dialogue? Was that you Jane or was that Claire or?

Jane Portman:

I had an original three pager doc, and then Claire started piling on more questions, and then Claire brought this format for the workshop that we did together, so it was a collaborative effort. There were other resources we used, for example, for the concept of vesting, for the concept of not splitting the shares absolutely equally. We had this point system that we bought somewhere, where you first have equal amount of points and then you score a couple of points to the person who starts, a couple of points to the person who has the audience, a couple of points to the person who can do this and that, and we ended up with a slightly different number so that it's not a 50:50 split, which sounds to many founders, it's an obvious choice, "Yeah, let's do 50:50," but maybe it's not the best choice. Who knows? Well, we do.

Daniel Stillman:

How long did you spend on this conversation? You had your three-page doc, Claire brought in some of these visioning conversations from Google and the points conversation, how much time did you put aside just to facilitate that dialogue?

Jane Portman:

A few weeks. And we also put together a co-founder agreement. That was also part of this dialogue, that we fleshed out a few more details about specific scenarios that could go right or wrong. We even invited... What's the word for it, Benedikt?

Benedikt Deicke:

What was the name?

Jane Portman:

Third-party friend.

Benedikt Deicke:

A mediator basically.

Jane Portman:

And independent friend who could judge... Yes, mediator. A third-party friend who we all know who could help us resolve disputes if we could totally not do it on our own. Well, thankfully, we didn't do that.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Well, just to be clear, this is a fourth-party friend, because there was three of you.

Jane Portman:

Yeah. Well, we all knew the person that we named the mediator. That was the idea, so that-

Daniel Stillman:

Oh, I see. So all three of you knew the mediator, and this was the person who was going to come in if you hit a bump, or were they-

Jane Portman:

It was the plan.

Daniel Stillman:

... also judging your partnership agreement as well?

Jane Portman:

Not much at all. Just for the bump role.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Did you hit some bumps? Did this person have to come in?

Jane Portman:

Not for this person. No.

Daniel Stillman:

That's very interesting.

Benedikt Deicke:

It was basically a safety measure. I guess we were worried that when there's conflict, it would be two against one, and getting into unfair situations, and we wanted another neutral party that was able to put things into perspective and maybe have a neutral outside perspective and be like, "Yeah, you can't do this because it's unfair to that other person," and stuff like that. So we were lucky that we had a mutual, well, not close friend, but acquaintance that we all knew and trusted with this. And they were nice enough to agree. And in the end, luckily, it never came to it, but it was good to have it set up just in case.

Daniel Stillman:

It's so interesting. I feel like in a way almost having that... Or maybe I should ask this as a question instead of a presumption. Do you think having that backstop helped you manage your disagreements or did you just not hit any rough patches in the time that you were together?

Jane Portman:

I think all three of us were not naive, rather mature. Not 19 years old when you just jump in, build something and then figure it out. We're bitter and we've seen different situations in life. It's a lot similar to marriage. And even after you've seen a few couples divorce, you realize that nothing is really forever, and many scenarios may arise. So we wanted to put guard rails in place for potential different scenarios that could arise, that of course we might see eye to eye at the moment, but what if something comes along we don't know about, then what happens?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Sorry, Benedikt. Was there something-

Benedikt Deicke:

No.

Daniel Stillman:

... you wanted to add about that? I just love the idea that you put the guardrails there, and if they're good enough, you don't even need them ideally.

Jane Portman:

Like a prenup.

Daniel Stillman:

Like a prenup, yeah.

Benedikt Deicke:

I guess one thing that was valuable in entire process of doing that, I think it was the Google design sprint exercise that we did. And having the founder agreement and just talking through all those things aligned expectations from the get-go. And I feel like that's already a good way to minimize disagreement down the road, because I feel like a lot of the fights that founders might have between each other is because they're not on the same page and have slightly different ideas about the future and slightly different expectations. And by just making sure that we're on the same page, for the most part at least, already helps with reducing the conflict.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. Yeah. There's two things that I'm hearing here that are great principles for anybody. One is to spend significant time thinking about the near and longer-term vision, the 3, 5, 7, 15 year, and just align on, "Are we making a fast company or a slow company or something in the middle?" That's a really important decision to be straight on. And the other negotiation theory, there's this idea of interests, options and legitimacy. It's called the circle of value. It's, as we enter into this negotiation and we both have interests, we both feel like we have certain options and we both have our ideas of what legitimacy is. And I love that the three of you picked a person that you all agreed they would be, in a sense, an arbiter of what is legitimate and fair, so that it wouldn't be a two against one conversation. I think that's really amazing.

Jane Portman:

To be entirely honest, all these measures and being aligned and the vesting schedule and everything, this is all great. But the biggest success factor is that we had worked together prior to that. I would not jump into co-founder relationship these days without having worked with the person. And that's the only idea how you can judge their communication, their work ethics, and a lot of other things you can never understand if you don't get involved. We were lucky that, I had not worked with Claire for example, Claire had an amazing track record as a marketer, so I just took the dive. But the relationship that now keeps working is between me and Benedikt, and we had tested it prior to starting. So I consider that the key success factor. Everything else, surely great, allows you to part ways, but at the core of it is maybe bringing somebody for money first, or somehow before trying to bring them on into the shares or something like that.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I mean, I think it's an interesting question of... And this may be a weird way to describe this, but Benedikt, you and Jane now are co-founders, right? So there is a difference in relationship between when you Jane brought Benedikt on as a contractor for hire on an idea that was yours. Now this is an idea that belongs to both of you.

Jane Portman:

I think the consultant relationship, it has different dynamics. And it's good because Benedikt could see that I'm adequate when it comes to money, I can see that Benedict is adequate when it comes to money. If we had only worked on a, let's say, non-for-profit project, it was just fun, might have been different. Who knows? But I just knew that it was fine. I don't know. It just felt fine. Felt secure and nice. And he didn't trick me into big money, even though he could definitely charge the hell out of me for what he did.

Benedikt Deicke:

And I guess what also plays into this is that we had very compatible styles of working. I feel like this is also something that is easily overlooked, is that the amount of planning you need and the amount of stuff you maybe do ad hoc and a spontaneous work stuff, if it that part doesn't align, one of the parties, or maybe both parties might get frustrated really quick. Because you might think, "Ah, this other person always needs two weeks of planning things out and then being able to execute. I want to execute right now." And the other person maybe is like, "Ah, he's always switching focus and making a mess and there's no structure." So I feel like a lot of it is also about matching styles of working on stuff.

Jane Portman:

I'm so glad you brought that up. It's not just the working style, not just the planning, but also the quality standards of what you put out. Because we are both rather fluid in planning, but we are super nitpicky that we need to put out the quality product. It's got to be close to perfect. Of course, it's not possible to achieve complete perfection in real life, but both in engineering and in design, we will strive for the best. And some people like it messy. I couldn't work with somebody like that, I'm pretty sure.

Daniel Stillman:

Fair. Yeah, there are the people who believe that you should put it out when it's at 80%, because of the Pareto principle, but you're like, "No, I want that last 20% before it gets out the door." That's good.

Jane Portman:

Email automation. We're sending bulk email to somebody else's customers. Seriously, 80%?

Daniel Stillman:

No. Well, and I'm glad that you have that shared perspective. Have there been challenges that you've had to manage in your relationship?

Jane Portman:

There have been disagreements.

Benedikt Deicke:

Yeah, it's not always a smooth ride.

Jane Portman:

One co-founder quit. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, let's talk about it. I'm curious how you've managed some of the bumps in the road that you've experienced with each other.

Jane Portman:

Benedikt, what do you think? How do you describe that?

Benedikt Deicke:

I was wondering what to talk about. I mean, we should probably touch on Claire leaving the company at some point, because that's probably the most significant one so far, because it made a lasting difference and changes everything-

Jane Portman:

Changes everything.

Benedikt Deicke:

... and changes the dynamic, so.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I mean, it's very interesting because you guys did a lot of upfront work to check on alignment, and then it... Between the start and... When did Claire decide to step down? What was that arc?

Benedikt Deicke:

I think it was one year in-

Jane Portman:

Just one year in.

Benedikt Deicke:

... something like that.

Daniel Stillman:

Just one year in.

Benedikt Deicke:

I mean, we talked about all that planning and the goals and the future and expectations, and what I probably have to say about this is, yeah, we made a plan, and yes, we had visions, but none of this was true. We expect it to be-

Daniel Stillman:

So I hope everyone listened to this point in the podcast.

Jane Portman:

No, the plan was true. We were true to ourselves. It's just, the plan didn't work as expected, as it often happens.

Benedikt Deicke:

I mean, we still had the shared vision and stuff like that, but everything took a lot longer than we expected. So I think one year in, we didn't even have the product done in a way that people were actually using it, so we were not making any money. And all three of us have been doing this on the side, we had still our consulting gigs where we were making the money to pay rent and food and stuff like that. And that of course took away from working on the product and everything was a lot slower. And yeah, about a year in, Claire was like, "Yeah, I have two other businesses I'm running and they are making money and they're taking most of my time and focus, and unfortunately I can't spend more time on userlist, because what's the point? It doesn't make any money, and I'm short on time anyway, so I'll focus my efforts on those other two businesses."

Benedikt Deicke:

And while it was a bummer for us losing our marketing expert, there wasn't a big argument about it because it made sense. In a way, we were in similar positions, just that each of us only had one other side business and not three. So it was sad, but in the end, I mean, because we had those guardrails in place, it was clear what needs to happen to have a transition out of the company. And the way we set it up in our agreement back then was we had to allocate the shares of the company roughly a third each, and we had the vesting schedule, so we'd only gain ownership of our shares over, I think, 50 months, something like that. So every month, we would-

Jane Portman:

Yeah, 50 months.

Daniel Stillman:

Five, zero.

Benedikt Deicke:

Five, zero, yeah. Almost five years, not quite.

Jane Portman:

And we just finished that with Benedikt, by the way, we're fully invested now. Just a few months.

Benedikt Deicke:

Yeah, we're fully vested [crosstalk 00:24:46].

Daniel Stillman:

Congratulations. How does it feel like to finally own your own company?

Jane Portman:

Not much different.

Benedikt Deicke:

It doesn't change much. But the goal was you'd earn 2% of that block of shares per month that you keep working on it. So when Claire was like, "Yeah, I don't have the time to put effort into this anymore," we first reduced her vesting rate from 2% to 1% for a while. And eventually we decided, okay, it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep her on this, and we stopped it at some point. And that overall reduced her amount of shares to whatever she had earned by that date and kept things fair in a way, because now we definitely own larger shares than her because she stopped working on it after a year or so.

Jane Portman:

Technically, going back in time, we should have just stopped vesting altogether. But this was this half measure that we reduced her vesting in half. And it felt nice to do because she was advising, but going back in time, and even if you're a young startup, every month of vesting counts. So if the person is not putting in work, don't vest them shares just because you want to look nice or hope for something, because the company will be worth much more down the road, and every percent becomes a sufficient thing. We don't regret this. It was just for a while, and we're happy that we're friends with Claire, but making difference between being nice and rewarding shares for work, these are different buckets, don't mix that. Don't mix that with friends or-

Daniel Stillman:

This is a very hard thing to do. Last night, I was-

Jane Portman:

Am I phrasing this right, Benedikt? You're just grinning.

Daniel Stillman:

Since you were all at that time working part-time, how did you define what was the right amount to be working on the project? Was it value created or was it hours logged?

Benedikt Deicke:

I think we had an informal agreement that it was 50% of our time sort of, but we didn't track hours or something like that. It was basically, we'd see each other's progress and be fine with it, or when you had the impression that, "Hey, you're not putting in enough work," then we'd call each other out on that. But overall, it was never an issue for the most part. I don't remember having a big conversation about that at any point, so.

Jane Portman:

Up to this point, we don't track hours, because why we're in is for freedom. But there's also pretty serious peer pressure and motivation and accountability that comes from having a co-founder. And if you're not putting in the hours, you're the one who feels guilt and suffers after all.

Daniel Stillman:

What advice would you give to someone else who feels like their co-founder isn't putting in as much as they should? It's a difficult conversation to have.

Benedikt Deicke:

But it's one you should have, right?

Jane Portman:

Even though it must be had. It must be had. This communication principle, I think I saw it in Crucial Conversations. I forgot the author of the book. It's pretty famous. Basically, you have problems with your boss, your spouse knows about it, your colleagues know about it, except for your boss. So if you feel like something is unfair, that is the conversation to have. And these fundamentals of being rewarded for your time, either with salary or with shares and keeping it fair for everybody, this is fundamental so that everybody can perform so that they feel everything is honest. Without that, without the feeling of fairness, without the fundamental of being fair, this is broken. You're feeling like you're trapped or something like that. This is not going to move forward. So it's fundamental.

Daniel Stillman:

Anything you wanted to add to that Benedikt?

Benedikt Deicke:

No, not much. I mean, it's an unpleasant conversation, but it's one you must have, because afterwards, things will feel better, because at least the opinions are on the table and you might fight about it, but maybe you agree. I mean, I remember we had some bumps like this a year or two ago, where I felt like Jane was a little bit distracted with other stuff, and we brought it up, and in the end, we agreed that yeah, maybe we have to restructure things a little bit. And in the end, it worked out and it was definitely better after having that conversation than the couple of weeks before it was like, "What's going on? We're not making enough progress on whatever task was on the to-do list back then." So might be uncomfortable at first-

Daniel Stillman:

Do you remember that conversation, Jane?

Jane Portman:

Hmm?

Daniel Stillman:

Do you remember that time?

Jane Portman:

Oh, sure. Yeah. It's not like everything is clouds, unicorns and roses and stuff. We just switched to full time maybe a year ago, it was a smooth transition. And we had some funding from Tiny Seed, which was good, but not enough to just hire full time, big time, but it already gave us some freedom. So there was this transition from, do everything yourself to get help and where and how and how this looks like. And at that point, I didn't have a clear picture of exactly how to efficiently delegate, let's say, the marketing department was the first we started like delegating out, and there was a series of experiments with hiring generalists, specialists. Not all the experiments were successful. And then there was this fundraising question because we did raise another angel round last year. So we were wondering, "Do you have good enough product market fit to support this fundraise? It doesn't make sense. How do we do this?" and other things, more discussions. But I'm happy we came out of the other side, happy and invigorated in a sense.

Daniel Stillman:

How often have you revisited that conversation you had at the very beginning that Claire helped co-facilitate, where you talked about your vision and your values?

Jane Portman:

Roughly speaking, once a year, we have a bigger planning goal. Maybe a couple times a year. Benedikt, what's your impression of that?

Benedikt Deicke:

Yeah. I feel like it probably wouldn't hurt if we just went back to that exercise from then and do the exact same thing again, because we haven't done that. But of course, at the beginning of every year or-

Jane Portman:

It's be fun to look at the responses. It would be fun to see the responses.

Benedikt Deicke:

Yeah. Right. Let's see how the vision maybe changes and the expectation changes. But overall, I mean, we're having conversations once per week about the short-term roadmap and what we are planning to do and things that are happening in the business and all of that. But I feel like, at least at the beginning of each year, we make a rough plan of like, what are the next big steps? Where do you want to go next and what needs to happen, and what are the problems? So in a way, we're doing it on a regular basis, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to have this deep workshop type of conversation where we try to realign on stuff. I think it wouldn't hurt doing it again.

Jane Portman:

Never hurts. I'd like to touch on how we do planning. And we borrowed this principle from Shape Up by Basecamp. And it says, basically, "Don't worry about your backlog as much as people do." So previously, before adopting this, we would religiously every month meet and reprioritize 60 items in our backlog. And this is just such a ridiculous activity, because in software, everything changes all the time, because you learn, you keep learning the circumstances, change, opportunities arise, things that seemed important, don't seem as important because you've learned something that is crucial to your customers in higher degree. And we just plan out the next, I don't know, let's say two, three big features. Even one, two, I would say. One, two, three, something like that.

Jane Portman:

That is true for product and for marketing, so we usually have a marketing theme direction for the next, let's say quarter or something. And there is also the things in the product that Benedikt is working on with the technical team. So there is high level roadmap, but there's definitely nothing set in stone, and we are fine with it. And that relates to that level of fluidity that we discussed. We're comfortable with that. There might be some people who are not, but works for us.

Daniel Stillman:

Say a little bit more about that. What's important about letting go of being strict about the backlog.

Benedikt Deicke:

I feel like-

Jane Portman:

The thing is, it will never be implemented in the order you put it. What's the sense of ordering 50 items?

Daniel Stillman:

Pair-wise.

Jane Portman:

You can barely make the first five happen in time, and given the fluidity of everything, product, customer, market, anything.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. That's fair. Benedikt, what was on your mind?

Benedikt Deicke:

Yeah, basically that. The backlog, they're all good ideas. You look at each one of them, you're like, "Yes, yes, that's a good idea. And we have this one customer asking about it and it makes sense for everyone else." But you only have so much time and you have to pick something and stick for it for a while to make meaningful progress on it. And by the time you're done with it, you can pick one other thing maybe, maybe two, if you're lucky, and you still have 50 other things on the list that are still good ideas, but not necessarily the best thing to work on right now. And therefore, just keeping that list and working through that list. I mean, we did that in the early days, and I remember going through that list every couple of weeks and being like, "Yeah, yeah, we should probably do that at some point, but we just don't have the resources right now. So let's move to the next thing and look at that. And yeah, same thing."

Benedikt Deicke:

And at some point, you just keep looking at the things and being reminded of all the nice things that you potentially could be doing, but you are not because you're working on other stuff or more important stuff. It just becomes in a way, becomes a little bit frustrating because you're always feeling like your product falls short and your product is way from done and way from useful, even though that might not even be the case, because a lot of people are already using it.

Jane Portman:

I there's anything we had learned after these four years of userlist, and we had been consulting prior to that, but I had never realized that it's such a tale of limited resources. It's all about limited opportunities that you can pursue, exactly like Benedikt said. And when you're a consultant, it seems like, "Oh, why don't they do that? That's on the surface. Why don't they do that? Why don't they do this?" And it's so easy to give advice, but when you're inside of it and you only have this much development resource and you have this much time, you have to A, prioritize, and B, somehow live in peace with this. So understanding that you can surely have the vision, but it's not always up to that vision because of resources. And I ask people who are way up in the letter and it's the same for them. It's the same for our big integration partners. It's never that you can make everything happen, so you have to live with it.

Daniel Stillman:

So how do two people choose one thing to focus on as the whole company? What is that conversation like for the two of you? What's easy about that? What's challenging about making that choice? And what do you do instead of having that list of reminders of things you could do, what do you have instead?

Benedikt Deicke:

We still have a list, but it's not super detailed. It's more like gut feeling, broad ideas and not super fleshed out. And our planning process these days are usually... One thing I think we do really well is we have a lot of customer interactions, either in customer support or during demo calls with potential new customers, or just keeping in touch with our audience. And that usually informs the next steps pretty well, because the things you keep hearing over and over again are probably the things we want to tackle next. And that makes the conversation relatively easy. And so far, I feel most of the times, we're on the same page about stuff. We have the same gut feeling that should probably go into this direction and ensure maybe we fight about like, should we do this particular part of it first or that other part of it first? But it's so far working out relatively well. I don't think we had big disagreements on product direction so far.

Jane Portman:

And moreover, there's the marketing department, my kingdom, sort of speaking, and there is the product department, which as a UX designer, I have a word to say, but it's Benedikt's ultimate hand touching the code. And if he doesn't write it, it's not going to happen, so he's the product owner for sure, and I'm totally at peace with that. I'm happy. Basically, we do call the shots to some extent in each of the departments. However, we do consult before pursuing some major directions. That's the key, but on daily basis, it's us ruling two different departments in fact. The marketing machine for this is insane. We did not pick an easy battle. It's always a lot of education and everything we have to do. Education, brand building, everything for such an essential tool, it's very important.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Because not everybody has the mental model of why they need it.

Jane Portman:

And how they should use it once they install it. It's like everybody has an understanding they need email automation, but using it well to the full power, nobody's born an email automator, and we're trying to make up for that.

Daniel Stillman:

That is true. It is not a native capacity for anybody.

Jane Portman:

You can be born a designer, you can be born an engineer, you're hardly ever an email automator really. Let's face it.

Daniel Stillman:

So listen, the two of you, we only have a little bit of more time left and it's been a lovely conversation. Is there anything we have not talked about that we should talk about when it comes to sketching the arc of your co-founder conversation together?

Jane Portman:

There is a great deal of infrastructure that surrounds a software business that it's not talked about much, but it includes co-founder agreements, the legal paperwork, the bank account, postal addresses, cell phone numbers, having all the passwords in place, I don't know, support desk, shared emails. There's so much to do that should be done properly so that if anything happens, first, you pass the bus test, or if somebody decides to leave or I don't know, gives birth to a baby or something-

Daniel Stillman:

The what test? The bus test? I missed that.

Jane Portman:

Yeah. The bus test is like, can your business still survive when one of the founders gets hit by bus? And it's especially true for a solo founder business. I'm not kidding.

Daniel Stillman:

Wow.

Jane Portman:

What are you going to do? And it can happen.

Daniel Stillman:

Okay. And Benedict, what haven't we talked about that's on your mind? I've learned about the bus test. This is a new one.

Benedikt Deicke:

Yeah. I mean, this is a good point. What else? I mean, one thing that we hinted at earlier is the plan and reality don't always overlap. And I think looking back at the last four years, or almost five years, four and a half, something like that, things move a lot slower than you want them to and that you expect. And what I definitely underestimated is the toll that puts on you on a mental level, just the ongoing slog of putting in hours and hours and hours of work and the company just growing slowly, super slowly. And that was hard over the last year or so. It was hard for a while. I feel like there's this valley of despair where the product is used, but it's not making enough money to fully sustain the business, but it's not bad enough to easily call it off as a failure when it's in the state of barely working.

Jane Portman:

Definitely not bad.

Benedikt Deicke:

When it's barely working, it's insane. The stress that puts on you is crazy, and I underestimated that for sure.

Jane Portman:

The startups survive by not dying.

Benedikt Deicke:

Sort of, yeah.

Jane Portman:

You just need to keep going, and it's a slog. It's much more routine and boring than it seems. It seems like, "Yeah, exciting idea. Snap, we're going to make it happen," but-

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. How do the two of you take care of yourselves given that stress and that slog? What do you do for yourselves to keep sane?

Jane Portman:

Human maintenance stuff; sleep well, eat well, exercise as much as you can. It's the simplest and the hardest thing to do.

Benedikt Deicke:

I mean, I think what we do well, maybe better than others, I don't know, we're very strict about boundaries. For example, we usually don't work on weekends unless a thing is on fire. The weekends are off, evenings are off. We don't have expectations to be on call 24/7 for whatever comes up. And I think that helps in keeping your mental side in check by just having breaks and taking vacation and taking time off and being fine with that, and not expecting the other person to be there and answering emails and answering messages all the time. I think that helps with keeping us sane.

Jane Portman:

There's another angle we do fairly well compared to people I know, is hanging out with other founders, peer support. And all of us have our own mastermind groups when we hang out with other founders just to talk life and to talk business every two weeks let's say or something. And we have great advisors and we have over 20 angel investors who, if we have hit a wall, I just write up a giant notion doc describing the problem and we send it to a couple of most relevant people and we try to brainstorm that. So it's never like we're in a box or alone, there's always some sort of input from peers or mentors.

Daniel Stillman:

One thing I'm taking away from this conversation is you met inside a community, and it seems like community is also helping you stay afloat and stay sane.

Jane Portman:

It's not always the same community, but yeah, it's different levels of community. Many levels of it has evolved. Definitely. But you can't just go alone.

Benedikt Deicke:

Yeah. I mean, if you want to take away one thing from all of this, I guess just building a network is the best thing you can do, in whatever we talked about, either finding a co-founder, finding advisors, finding investors, employees-

Jane Portman:

Employees too.

Benedikt Deicke:

... just get out there and make friends with people, and that will come a long way. It will take a while to build that network and to nurture those relationships, but in the end, a lot of the good things that happen to userlist, we can probably.... Yeah, no, I'm not finding the right word, but at the root, if you follow it back long enough, you find this was based on this one relationship that we had in our network or whatever, that friend and that recommendation or whatever. So I feel like that's one of the key skills to develop, is making friends.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I think it's really beautiful. I mean, I can't imagine that either of you thought when you first logged on to that community, that this is what it would've led to.

Benedikt Deicke:

Definitely not.

Jane Portman:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I think that's a really great place to close out. I'm really grateful for the time, for the both of you being so reflective and open and honest about your experiences and your insights. I really appreciate it.

Jane Portman:

This was fun to share, going down the memory lane.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. There's a lot to be gathered from memory lane. It's awesome.

Benedikt Deicke:

Yeah. We enjoyed that conversation.

Jane Portman:

Thanks so much for having us.

Daniel Stillman:

All right. We'll call scene. Yeah. Well, I really appreciate it guys. Thank you so much.

Jane Portman:

Thanks for having us, Daniel.

Wired to Create Together

Today I host a conversation with Carolyn Gregoire and Scott Barry Kaufman, the co-authors of the 2015 bestseller, Wired to Create. Their working title was “Messy Minds” and one of the core ideas of the book is just that - deeply creative folks can manage messiness, plow through paradox and move calmly through contradiction. 

These capacities are also powerful tools for managing a creative relationship.

I’m doing a series of interviews with co-founders on how they design their conversations (ie, their broader relationship) and manage themselves and each other while building and running a company. 

A book is a mini-company, and so when I met Carolyn through a friend, I thought she and Scott would be amazing folks to unpack how a high tolerance for dissonance, complexity, ambiguity, and chaos can help us make amazing things, together.

Creativity, making something new, isn’t ever a clear linear progression towards the dream, the magical ideal goal. There’s always iteration, recursion, re-invention…and being patient with the process, your creative partner and yourself - that last one is a truly powerful key.

One of my favorite insights was the idea of the importance of sensitivity and awareness of your own inner state and the willingness to take downtime…both to manage yourself, refuel and to trust that stepping back will always help - since constant production isn’t possible!

One thing you’ll hear over and over again is the complementarity and flow in a positive creative relationship: being able to feed back and forth between each other and also give and take, grounded in respect and admiration for each other's skills and contributions. This respect for the other’s skills allows for a dramatic increase in output through parallel work, or relay-race style collaboration.

Make sure to check out Carolyn’s other writing and book doula work at carolyngregoire.com and Scott’s podcast, course, and his recent best-selling book, Transcend, at scottbarrykaufman.com.

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

Carolyn Gregoire's website

Scott Barry Kaufman's website

Wired to Create, by Scott Barry Kaufman and Carolyn Gregoire

Trust the Process, by Shaun McNiff

The Messy Middle, by Scott Belsky

Origami: From Angelfish to Zen

Minute 8

Carolyn Gregoire:

I always think of creativity in terms of birth metaphors, which is a little bit cheesy, but I think they're very apt. I do think you go into a project with these just big dreams and expectations and all of the hopes of what it can be. That's important because I think it gives you the fuel, but then you do confront the challenges and the reality, and I loved working on the book. And of course, though I had my moments where I was like, "Can I really do this? I've never written a book before. I'm going to fail," all of this self-doubt, the moments of stress.

But then, if you can keep the seed of the magical thinking alive, which is I think part of what we're tasked with doing as creative people, it does carry you through to the end. And then, yes, I did have like a postpartum dip afterwards. It's like, you put something out into the world that's been with you for what I think our process was nine months actually, and there's a little bit of a sense of emptiness and you want to fill it up. At least I experienced wanting to fill that immediately with something else, but it's good to sit in that open space after you put something out into the world and just give yourself some breathing room and then let the next thing come in and emerge as opposed to what I sometimes tend to do, which is just reach for something else. So I totally agree with both of those things.

Minute 11

Carolyn Gregoire:

But I think having a collaborator in whatever form really helps you to sustain the commitment and keep the energy flowing. It's not that it can't be done, but it's just not as fun and it's harder to sustain the motivation, I have found, in my own projects, and then helping other people with books, which is part of the work I do now. It's so key to have someone else there in some capacity.

Minute 20:

Carolyn Gregoire:

The creative process, I think, comes from that, the tension and the unknown. There's actually two great books that speak to the point that Scott just made. One is actually called Trust The Process. That's by an art therapist and it's incredible. He really talks about how those moments of attention that we see as an obstacle or something going wrong or getting in the way are actually what push us to be forced to break through it. That's kind of what the breakthrough always comes from, and I think that's absolutely true. And then there's another book called The Messy Middle, which really talks about the stage of the process where things really get convoluted and you just don't want to continue and it all kind of like... You're not feeling good about the project anymore and obstacles arise, et cetera.

Minute 24

Carolyn Gregoire:

That's a great question. I don't know if this is a map that may be a key that would unlock a part of the map, which is something that I've only learned more recently after going through so many creative processes and it helps me now that I understand it for myself, but that when you're stuck with something or something's not working, or there's real doubt or frustration, there's valuable information in that. It's not just like a personal... Usually, at least for me, it's not just my own self-doubt of I'm going to fail or whatever. It's like there's actually something missing here or there's something wrong and I'm feeling that, and if I push into it and if I really investigate, instead of turning away from it, I realize there's something that that's telling me.

Minute 34

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I get the sense that for a lot of creative people, the reward is inherent in the process and it's not so focused on the goal and focused on producing the work and making sure the product gets out there. You have a lot of creative people that enjoy the process so much that it's like, "Oh, now it's out there. Yeah. I forgot." I mean, I'm kind of that way. Once the book's out there, I want to move onto something else.

Minute 35

Scott Barry Kaufman:

to me, creativity mirrors the self-actualization process more generally. It's a never ending process. One goes their whole life continually growing and learning and finding meaning. And to me that's what's enjoyable. That's what's enjoyable about life. It's the continuous nature of the change in the learning and the creating. It's not the doing, at least for me, and I can say a lot of creative people.

Minute 38

Daniel Stillman:

What do you feel like is your brightest key to trusting the process?

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Oh, well, it's also trusting yourself. It's trusting your own capacity to fail and get up again, and being able to be comfortable in the space of trial and error. A lot of people's being is not very comfortable with trial and error. The second they have an error, they're done. They're not trialing again. I mean, look, I got an interesting taste from this. I tried out stand-up comedy recently. It's been a long-term dream of mine, and it's interesting. Some jokes fall flat, and you're like, "Okay, we've got to bring that one to the laboratory and tweak some words and then try it again. See if it gets a laugh." That trial and error process to me is fun. It's something I trust myself that I can learn from my mistakes. I think that's a big key, is that you trust that you can learn from mistakes so you're not so scared of mistakes.

Daniel Stillman:

When I was a younger man, I was much older in the sense, in the Bob Dylan sense. I really wanted to not make mistakes. I thought the only way you learned was by doing things right, and it's a heavy burden to carry. Ironically, I mean, we all know this, that no experiment ever fails. Experiments are information, but there is a lot of fear that comes from looking bad, from falling flat, of our own expectations or expectations that we think others have of us.

More About Carolyn and Scott

About Carolyn

Hi! I’m Carolyn. I am a Brooklyn-based writer exploring the realms of psychology, spirituality and creativity. I’m the co-author of Wired to Create: Unravelling the Mysteries of the Creative Mind (Penguin) and creator of the Webby Award-winning CREATIVE TYPES personality test, which has been taken by over 7 million people worldwide.

My writing has appeared in publications like Scientific American, TIME, Harvard Business Review, The New Republic, Quartz, Yoga Journal, Tricycle: The Buddhist Review and The Huffington Post, where I worked for five years as a Senior Writer. I have written or contributed to nine books on creativity, health and human potential, including Arianna Huffington’s New York Times bestsellers, Thrive and The Sleep Revolution, and the foreword to a new translation of the classic philosophical work, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

About Scott

Scott Barry Kaufman is a cognitive scientist and humanistic psychologist exploring the mind, creativity, and the depths of human potential. He is a professor at Columbia University and founder and director of the Center for Human Potential. Dr. Kaufman has taught at Columbia University, Yale, NYU, the University of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. Dr. Kaufman received a B.S. in psychology and human computer interaction from Carnegie Mellon, an M. Phil in experimental psychology from the University of Cambridge under a Gates Cambridge Scholarship, and a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology from Yale University. He is also an Honorary Principal Fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Wellbeing Science.

Dr. Kaufman hosts the #1 psychology podcast in the world The Psychology Podcastwhich has received over 20 million downloads and was included in Business Insider’s list of “9 podcasts that will change how you think about human behavior.” Dr. Kaufman is interested in using his research to help all kinds of minds live a creative, fulfilling, and self-actualized life. His early educational experiences made him realize the deep reservoir of untapped potential of students, including bright and creative children who have been diagnosed with a learning disability. In 2015, he was named one of “50 groundbreaking scientists who are changing the way we see the world” by Business Insider.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

You all are officially welcomed to The Conversation Factory. Scott, Carolyn, welcome aboard. Thanks for being here.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Thanks for having us. Good to be here. Good to talk to you again.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, thanks. So, I want to start... I mean, when's the beginning of any story? But I want to start with how you two found each other. The serendipity that maybe brought you together, and, yeah, let's just start there. How did you two find each other in this crazy mixed-up world?

Scott Barry Kaufman:

You bring us way back. I need to, in my head now, have to go back to when I was another person. I feel like we grew up since then, if that makes sense. That person back then feels like a kid in my head and now I feel like an adult to some degree. But, yeah, do you remember the exact origin story? Because I remember sitting down with you at Huffington Post and you're interviewing me for an article about creativity and I loved your work, of course, and I was excited to be interviewed by you. I remember us just having a conversation about creativity, but do you remember how that interview came about?

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah, it actually went back a little earlier than that. So I was writing about psychology and personality psychology for The Huffington Post. I was a reporter there for six years, and I have this just personal obsession and fascination with daydreaming. And just because I've always been spacey, but also always dreaming up new ideas and things in my head, it's been something that's been an obstacle in my life and that I've been criticized for, but secretly I felt it was actually really important to me and that good things were coming out of it. And so, anyway, I was thinking that I wanted to write a piece about daydreaming and I found that Scott had done some research and written a paper about the positive qualities of daydreaming and about this trait called positive constructive daydreaming as differentiated from rumination or distraction.

Carolyn Gregoire:

It was just so incredible finding that paper because I finally could see that there was research saying that actually daydreaming is so important for creativity, for empathy, for self-understanding, all of these different positive traits, and I was just beyond thrilled to find it. And so I reached out to Scott and I wrote a piece about his paper on daydreaming and then we collaborated again. I wanted to do a piece about the personalities of creative people, which is something that I was just also fascinated by, and immediately thought of Scott since he had done research on creativity.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Yeah. I remember you asked me, "What do you think creative people are like?" And I said, "They have really messy minds." I really never know what's going to come out of my mouth, just in general in life, and that was one of those moments where then I heard myself say that and I was like, "Yeah, I like that. Messy minds." And then I just feel like that was just a great encapsulation of creative people that you really resonate with, Carolyn.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah. I think that phrase stayed at the center of our collaboration and all the work we did together. The article that I wrote about creative people went really viral, got five million views or something, much to my surprise, and became the basis of the book that we wrote together. And really at the heart of all of it was this idea of messy minds and paradox and contradiction. That's something we'll probably get into more later in this conversation. But I think that was the reason for the virality, was just people were like, "Yes, this is me," and it's something that there is some literature around, but that is not really talked about a lot. So that idea I think took hold in that moment and took us pretty far together in our collaboration.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I miss your Huffington Post articles. I would look forward to them every week. You're my favorite science writer, and, yeah, that was just a nice period. That was a nice time period where stars aligned, where I was a really nerdy scientist, I thought you were an excellent science writer, and it was just so much fun to team up with you. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

I love the phrase of stars aligning and...

Scott Barry Kaufman:

It felt that way. Yeah.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah. Very, very kismet. It just kind of happened.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Yeah. Organically.

Daniel Stillman:

It's always interesting to zoom into the moment inside the moment and that feeling of pull, instead of push from the universe, because we all know that feeling of pushing to try and make something happen. And this sounds like pull from the universe where it was like this yes moment. Well, of course, we're going to do this thing.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah. I [inaudible 00:05:06]-

Daniel Stillman:

Do you remember that feeling?

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah, this is something I think about and talk about a lot because I always say that the things that come to me are always so much better than the things that I chase after and reach out for and strive for myself. Every job I've had, it's happened its way into my lap, and this project, which is one of the most fun things that I've gotten to do, which has led to other wonderful things, sort of just came to me. I think that when you have that sweet spot of something drops in and then you really run with it and the passion is there, it's always the best. Those are the wonderful opportunities in life.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Absolutely.

Daniel Stillman:

One of the things I was listening to, a talk you'd both had given at Google. This is a million years ago, and you do look like babies, by the way, Scott. It's amazing.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I mean, I looked at that video and we... At least I look much younger. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I mean, this is going back. This is 2015 y'all wrote the book, so I think this was just maybe a year after that.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I think Carolyn looks the same.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah, maybe.

Daniel Stillman:

Whatever your moisturizing routine is, stick with it. Good job. So, here's the thing. I think you talked about... I'm going to mispronounce this. It's the positive aspects of... There's negative aspects of schizophrenia and there's these elements in a creative person. I think the term was magical thinking, like the positive aspects of magical thinking. I feel like at the beginning of any project there is some magical thinking. You're like, "This is going to be great. We don't think of the bad sides at all. This is just going to be amazing." And I feel also in every collaboration there's always a dip after that peak, and I'm curious if you experienced that dip and/or the magical thinking flow. I can see Scott's thinking to the side.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I mean, I've had the blessing to have had two major collaborations with a coauthor. Just wrapped up a new book with a coauthor, Jordyn Feingold, and of course my collaboration with Carolyn, and they were both so magical on my end. I'll be curious to get Carolyn's perspective. I'm just going to start with my perspective. They both... I've been so blessed. They were so magical in that there was flow from start to end, and it almost seems like an incredible, crazy thing to say, but it somehow happened.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I guess you've picked the right people with the right energy. It just flows from start to end. I felt that way with Carolyn. I felt that way very much as well, equally, with Jordyn with this new book I did. There is a certain kind of complimentary aspect with both of those two coauthors where they're really good at feeding off... Like a there's a give-and-take. I can do something and they can take that and just make magic out of that, and then I take that and refine it, and then we move onto the next thing. That's how it felt to me.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah, I agree with that. And I agree that there was a lot of flow in this project, and I especially appreciate that having gone through other projects, smaller ones, where there's less flow, you really learn to appreciate it in those moments. But to the point about the magical thinking and the dip, I always think of creativity in terms of birth metaphors, which is a little bit cheesy, but I think they're very apt. I do think you go into a project with these just big dreams and expectations and all of the hopes of what it can be. That's important because I think it gives you the fuel, but then you do confront the challenges and the reality, and I loved working on the book. And of course, though I had my moments where I was like, "Can I really do this? I've never written a book before. I'm going to fail," all of this self-doubt, the moments of stress.

Carolyn Gregoire:

But then, if you can keep the seed of the magical thinking alive, which is I think part of what we're tasked with doing as creative people, it does carry you through to the end. And then, yes, I did have like a postpartum dip afterwards. It's like, you put something out into the world that's been with you for what I think our process was nine months actually, and there's a little bit of a sense of emptiness and you want to fill it up. At least I experienced wanting to fill that immediately with something else, but it's good to sit in that open space after you put something out into the world and just give yourself some breathing room and then let the next thing come in and emerge as opposed to what I sometimes tend to do, which is just reach for something else. So I totally agree with both of those things.

Daniel Stillman:

It's so interesting because the idea of magical thinking as a seed to be nourished is a really unexpected way to think of it, right? And I think that's really beautiful. Scott, I was listening to one of your TEDx talks around the four Cs of human intelligence, like capacity, competence, commitment and creativity.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I'm glad someone watch that talk.

Daniel Stillman:

I think that there's some numbers there. I don't think I'm the only person.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

But I think there's this idea of commitment, right? Seeing something through. But it sounds like it really kept its own energy, which is amazing.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah. I think that's part of the collaboration, or the magic of the collaboration. Writing, it truly is such a lonely endeavor when you're writing a book on your own. I personally believe that, I think it can be lonelier actually than other forms of solo creative practice, because you're basically talking to yourself. Writing is about communicating and when you don't have someone that you're working with, you're just in your own head, literally, talking to yourself for months on end.

Carolyn Gregoire:

And eventually you're talking to somebody else when the book gets out into the world and you can have conversations about it. But I think having a collaborator in whatever form really helps you to sustain the commitment and keep the energy flowing. It's not that it can't be done, but it's just not as fun and it's harder to sustain the motivation, I have found, in my own projects, and then helping other people with books, which is part of the work I do now. It's so key to have someone else there in some capacity.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. So one of the things... Is there more you wanted to elaborate on with that, Scott?

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I said, for show.

Daniel Stillman:

That's all good. So I was looking at some of the aspects of what a creative person is in this messy minds concept, the high tolerance for dissonance, complexity, ambiguity and chaos seemed to me to be the perfect skills to work through what you were talking about, the complementary, the give-and-take, and the flow. I'm curious with what give-and-take looks like keeping ambiguity and complexity and chaos as values in a collaboration.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Well, I think that this book didn't have a fully-formed... I got the sense they were going kind of chapter by chapter and things kept emerging. I don't think we had the whole thing planned out in our head. Like we would maybe chapter outlines, but we were very open to it going in all sorts of different directions and... Well, this is my recollection.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah, absolutely. And I think what, again, emerged was the play of opposites that became such a central theme in the book. And then I think to your question how that plays out in the collaboration is I think having someone who's more of a writer and someone who is more of a researcher was really helpful to just get into that dance of the idea and then its expression, and to play around with that. Like Scott would bring in really the research and the evidence, and then we would be like, "Okay, how can we play with that, and where does that take us?" And there was always a give-and-take and a dance within that.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Totally. And I also wasn't always quite sure how Carolyn was going to masterfully integrate a big dump of science. I would give her like a Dropbox dump of like a hundred articles and I never knew exactly how, in a draft of a chapter, she was going to integrate these things. And so she surprised me with like... I mean, new things emerged. I was like, "Huh, I hadn't really see... Connected those dots," and yet she'd connect those dots. So don't count yourself out as a good researcher too there, Carolyn.

Carolyn Gregoire:

[inaudible 00:14:55] I've definitely learned to research, but I think having... It was just a good balance having the science from Scott and then more of the editorial direction on my end.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Scott, I'm curious in your recent collaborative projects, there are some people who say that having clear roles and responsibilities, a division of labor or respect and admiration for, as it seems like you two were talking about, the different skills in the collective. Have you found that to be the case? And I mean, I suppose this is a question for both of you and the other collaborations that you've had since then. It seems like the messiness can become stepping on somebody's toes, or it can be, as you say, a dance.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Well, yeah, for sure. And I think that the benefit is in the Venn diagram. There really wasn't that much overlap of... It's not like Carolyn had this big aspiration to be an amazing research psychologist. I didn't feel there was much stepping on toes. I had and continue to have great admiration for her skill set, and I hope she still has appreciation for my skill set. But that just wasn't too prominent. I could see how it could have been different. I could think in my head about... Some people are coming in my head right now where I was like, "I don't think I'd want to write a book with them," because I feel maybe they would constantly want to kind of battle for minute credit of certain aspects of it, where it's like, we weren't too concerned with that because we did all the book tours together and stuff like that. We're proud of the whole product together.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah. And I think also, maybe breaking it up into phases. I agree that separate roles is valuable and I've been reflecting on that recently. I think with the ideation of the book, which we didn't know at the beginning exactly where we were going, we spent a lot of time hashing it out together, brainstorming, really breaking things down and looking at them from different angles, and then divided the roles. And I think that was helpful. I feel that in most successful collaborations, I think there's a part that you are doing together and then there's a part that's very individual.

Carolyn Gregoire:

I think if we were kind of in drafts writing together, I don't... Maybe people work that way, I don't know, but that feels to me like a very bad idea. I can't really imagine writing a book with someone that way. So having like, "Okay, here's the part where it's Scott," and then he's turning it over to me, and then I'm handing it back to him, and there is a bit of a division of labor, I think it was valuable.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

It's a good point. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

One of the things you said, Carolyn, in the conversation that you and I had a while back now, and Scott, you were speaking to this just now, is the evolution and the definition and the clarity of the project happening in an emergent fashion. And I think you had said, Carolyn, that the title of the book and what the book was really about, in a sense, came towards the end or the middle of the end.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

That wasn't our working title.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah. It did come towards the end. I think our working title actually was Messy Minds, and then our publisher thought that it was too negative or that people would be put off by it. So it became Wired To Create, but, yeah, there was definitely an emergence of... Even though we were working with this theme from the beginning about creativity being messy and paradoxical, I don't think it really came through until the end, both how central that actually was, that that was really what all of that was about was these oppositions. And then also the idea that creativity is something completely innate and hardwired, and there are these different sort of ways that we can tap into it a bit more, but it's naturally there. So that was emergent. Absolutely. Yeah.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Yeah. Agree.

Daniel Stillman:

It's funny. I put a quiz to a group recently, what's more important, the beginning of a story or the ending of a story? And it was really interesting to watch the results on the poll come out pretty much as a dead heat. And I think in a way, when we tell the story of creativity, I know Scott you've talked about our self narrative as a component of psychology, and in a way we're telling the story of creativity while we're doing it. There's something really beautiful about the idea that the story changes by the end, as we're telling it to ourselves.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Yeah, [inaudible 00:19:59]-

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah, I think... Go ahead.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I mean, there's so many processes that are part of... The whole creative process involves lots of different stages and some of those stages are stages we don't even tend to include as part of the creative process, like the revision stage, [inaudible 00:20:22], or the deliberative stage, like, "Oh, that's not creativity," and we include that as part of the whole process. And so some of these processes or stages can seem incompatible with each other and you have to trust the process is the point. You have to trust that at the end, that it was like... In the middle, but that the end, something great emerges and you got to trust that.

Daniel Stillman:

Carolyn what’s on your mind?

Carolyn Gregoire:

The creative process, I think, comes from that, the tension and the unknown. There's actually two great books that speak to the point that Scott just made. One is actually called Trust The Process. That's by an art therapist and it's incredible. He really talks about how those moments of attention that we see as an obstacle or something going wrong or getting in the way are actually what push us to be forced to break through it. That's kind of what the breakthrough always comes from, and I think that's absolutely true. And then there's another book called The Messy Middle, which really talks about the stage of the process where things really get convoluted and you just don't want to continue and it all kind of like... You're not feeling good about the project anymore and obstacles arise, et cetera.

Carolyn Gregoire:

But the point is, if you don't encounter those things, then you don't reach these new places and these new directions, and I think there's a big difference between production and creation. That's something that I reflect on a lot. I think production is when you know exactly where you're going from the beginning and you just execute and you follow through with that, and creation is something different. It's something that involves struggles that take you on detours, which ultimately contribute to the end product that you come out with, and that's always somewhere that you couldn't have exactly imagined from the beginning.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Very much agreed with that.

Daniel Stillman:

So from the sense of-

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I didn't know about those two books.

Daniel Stillman:

Neither did I. I'm looking forward to The Messy Middle, and we all know it. It's a good name. When I think about trusting the process, in order to trust the process, we have to know the process, and I feel like many people don't have a strong mental model — no pun intended — of what the creative process is. And I just so happen to have two experts on the call with me. And so I'm wondering, from your perspective, Carolyn, you laid out two fundamental poles, I guess, of a paradox, producing and creation, and that production and creation are not the same and that those are things that we might even iterate through. If you were giving advice to someone at the outset of a creative endeavor, what map would you hand them?

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Wow.

Carolyn Gregoire:

That's a great question. I don't know if this is a map that may be a key that would unlock a part of the map, which is something that I've only learned more recently after going through so many creative processes and it helps me now that I understand it for myself, but that when you're stuck with something or something's not working, or there's real doubt or frustration, there's valuable information in that. It's not just like a personal... Usually, at least for me, it's not just my own self-doubt of I'm going to fail or whatever. It's like there's actually something missing here or there's something wrong and I'm feeling that, and if I push into it and if I really investigate, instead of turning away from it, I realize there's something that that's telling me.

Carolyn Gregoire:

It's like this little devil on my shoulder that's like, "Something is wrong here." By realizing what's wrong or what's missing, something completely opens up. I guess that's what problem-solving is, in a way. There's a problem and you have to go deep into it and not run away in fear, and the going into the problem really opens something up. So, yeah, if that makes sense, that's really been one of the big keys for me, is like, okay, if I'm stuck with something, let's really get into the tension instead of resisting it and running away from it, or feeling like something is wrong, because it doesn't mean that something is wrong at all.

Daniel Stillman:

I think that's beautiful. Scott, when I asked the map question, what sparked for you?

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Well, a big theme in the book... This is amazing. You're bringing us back. It's like we're doing interviews again about Wired To Create. It's bringing back memories.

Daniel Stillman:

It's evergreen.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

But you know... What'd you say?

Daniel Stillman:

It's evergreen.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

It is evergreen. Absolutely. But you have to understand, we haven't done this together in like... It's five years, six years. But anyway, a big theme in the book really is the importance of downtime, and I think in one's model of creativity, they really have to allow themselves time away from the problem and build that into their model because too many people get too stuck in, one, they keep rummaging in one part of their brain network and they can't get out. And then they think, "The more I rummage in it, it'll come to me," as opposed to doing other activities and tangential act projects, like projects that you can make connections and projects which you can really actively force your associate network to go down a different path, and then you return to the problem. So I think that it's a very iterative process of going back and forth between the external world and your internal world. External world, internal world.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah. I actually want to echo that that's really so critical and also observing my own patterns over many projects is that what I naturally tend to do is start something and get the ideas down, and then often step away from it for a while and then really do the writing and bring it through. I've seen that with other people, too. I've learned to actually leave a certain amount of time for projects or to turn down rush projects, because even if you could do it in a shorter period of time, it's like, there's just this certain amount of incubation space that's needed.

Carolyn Gregoire:

So I never do rush projects anymore, even if I could, pretty much, because I like having multiple things at the same time so that I can take some space and shift from one thing to another, instead of like, "Let me just do this really quickly and then stop and then go to something else." It just doesn't work well for me, and I think it doesn't work well for a lot of people.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. This is like the old saying, "You can't give nine women one month to make a baby."

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Oh, and where it was going with this.

Carolyn Gregoire:

I never heard that.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It's like, "Well, I know it takes one woman nine months. Can't we just multitask this?" It's just not how that works. It takes nine months. It takes what it takes. And I just want to make sure I understand, Scott, and Carolyn, you were speaking to this too, downtime seems like it comes in several flavors. Like, as you were saying, Carolyn, way before. Like daydreaming can just be like phasing out. And Scott, I know you were saying before we started, you take an afternoon nap. That's just pure downtime? And then there can be taking a shower, which is like just letting your mind wander. And then what you're talking about, Scott, it seems like using your brain but on something that is parallel or tangential that can spark something? I want to make sure I understand that. It seems like there's several flavors of downtime-

Scott Barry Kaufman:

No, that-

Daniel Stillman:

... that we're talking about.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

... [inaudible 00:28:18] nuance. No, I definitely like that nuance. I think that some of the best kind of... Or getting away from the project at hand is, then you work on another project. For instance, if I'm trying to write an article and I want to synthesize lots of ideas, I'll go down one rabbit hole of ideas of an article and those ideas. Then I'll put that aside and I'll go down a completely different one and then I'll go down a completely different one. And then I'll return to the first one.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Usually you get a full night's sleep as well. You trust your mind at night to do some unconscious synthesizing, which it does, and then you return to it the next day, you find, "Wow, I have ideas now." So it's interesting. So much of what we're seeing really keeps coming back to the idea of trust the process. It just keeps coming back to that. It is a whole process.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. But also knowing the process-

Scott Barry Kaufman:

You can't cudgeon it. Or, what's the word?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Bludgeon or-

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Bludgeon.

Daniel Stillman:

... bludgeon I think is the word. There's a quote from... Have either of you read Kahlil Gibran's book, The Prophet? It's a very beautiful... My mom thought there was too many words in it. That was a funny response to this book of poetry. I know my mom will listen to this episode. It's not an insult. I promise, mom. I love that about her.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Okay.

Daniel Stillman:

There's a phrase where he says... He's talking about love. He says, "Let there be spaces in your togetherness." And I always loved that idea of togetherness, but spaces in the togetherness. And it seems like definitely with a creative partnership, there needs to be time apart, time to work on your own pieces, and where also spaces in your togetherness when you're talking about working on the project where it's pure downtime and also wandering and discovering and trying some other things. It sounds like really having that incubation time is super important to let it just settle in. I will have to find this. There's a book that's quoted one of my... I'm an origami nerd. You talked about being a nerd, Scott. I was an origami nerd in junior high school.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Wow, that's incredible.

Daniel Stillman:

It did not make me very popular. It was not a-

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I think that's really cool.

Daniel Stillman:

There's a book called Origami: From Angelfish to Zen. The whole first part of the book was about the math and the science behind origami. And there was a story he told that's from this book called The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. He told the story of these two twin sisters who were banging their heads against a math problem. And during the night, one of them was talking in her sleep and the other one woke up and heard her sister dreaming the solution-

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Oh, wow.

Daniel Stillman:

... to the problem. And what's amazing is that the sister who woke up in the night knew the solution that the sister's subconscious had solved it on some level. It's always been an interesting reminder to me that, yeah, as you say, Scott, sleep is important.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Oh, definitely.

Daniel Stillman:

Like really, really important.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Oh, definitely. Definitely. And the sleep process, to a lesser degree, when you're just doing things like meditating or taking a shower, you're letting your prefrontal cortex kind of relax a little bit. Those are good moments, too.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah. I was thinking about meditation actually with just this [inaudible 00:32:10] idea of creating space, because that's kind of a metaphor for this process. There's different types of meditation, and meditation, that's very much about single-pointed focus. It's actually not the best for creativity. Like a more Zen kind of Vipassana approach, whereas something called open monitoring meditation or mantra meditation, where you're having a really wide open focus and you're letting things flow through. The idea is to, instead of focusing on one place to just open and expand the awareness.

Carolyn Gregoire:

That's actually been shown that that really improves people's scores on tests of creative thinking. So it's like being able to switch between a really clear single pointed focus and then to open up and expand is important. And I think in the collaboration, you could say that as well. It's like the time together is like that, focused kind of energy, but then you need to step outside and expand and open up. If you're always in the focused energy, you start to get kind of stuck.

Daniel Stillman:

What's coming up for you, Scott? I'm just watching your face processing.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I couldn't have said it better than what Carolyn just said.

Daniel Stillman:

That's awesome.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

She nailed it.

Daniel Stillman:

She's a communicator. I'm coming back to these points. The high tolerance for dissonance, ambiguity, like the ability to step away from the work when it's not done seems to me to be what we're pointing to. It's like we're saying that we have to trust the process, which means we have to be focused, and then we need to walk away from it. We have to trust that the work will still be there when we get back, and also we will be different and we will see it differently. Which is not trivial.

Daniel Stillman:

I think for a lot of us, it becomes an itch we have to scratch. And there is this temptation, as you said, Carolyn, or I think Scott used the word, to bludgeon it, to just squeeze out more mind juice, if that was a thing we could do, right? Like, "Well, I'm just going to bang this one out, and I'm just going to produce." But I'm not hearing that that's what creates real sparks, emergence of something new as opposed to something that's conventional or expected.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I get the sense that for a lot of creative people, the reward is inherent in the process and it's not so focused on the goal and focused on producing the work and making sure the product gets out there. You have a lot of creative people that enjoy the process so much that it's like, "Oh, now it's out there. Yeah. I forgot." I mean, I'm kind of that way. Once the book's out there, I want to move onto something else. I don't particularly love the promotion part of it. I have to be quite frank.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. I apologize for calling you back so far.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

No, this was special. This was like a really special moment you made happen, so I must thank you for doing that. But I hope you see my point-

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

... that to me, creativity mirrors the self-actualization process more generally. It's a never ending process. One goes their whole life continually growing and learning and finding meaning. And to me that's what's enjoyable. That's what's enjoyable about life. It's the continuous nature of the change in the learning and the creating. It's not the doing, at least for me, and I can say a lot of creative people.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah. And I think learning to manage the tension because there is that joy in the process, but there's also the tension that can feel so overwhelming and unbearable at moments. And that even as creative people who have a higher tolerance for ambiguity and dissonance, it can still be uncomfortable. And so I think part of it is, yeah, how do we find our own ways to manage that tension and that dissonance? And this way it sound kind of weird and silly, but for me, I really like visualization and something I've learned to do. I found that I get overwhelmed in a project when I'm just holding all of this information in my head for a really long period of time and I don't know what I'm going to do with it. And that, it can be really not helpful for me.

Carolyn Gregoire:

That's the part that I don't like. And so I've learned to, like, I take it all at the end of the day and I put it into a cauldron. I visualize that and [inaudible 00:37:10] stir the cauldron and then I leave it to bubble and all mix together. And it actually kind of helps because I'm training myself to let things simmer and not keep it at the front of my mind all the time so I'm trying to figure out the problem. It's like, "Okay, just putting all of these ideas into this melting pot, letting... And I'm giving myself space to step away." But I think we all have to find our own ways to learn how to work with that, with the dissonance and the tension, and to remain in a state of not knowing and of creative percolation, which is while we have the joys of the process, we have the struggles in equal measure.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. So I'm glad you looped back to that, Carolyn, because when this question of what's... When I said a map for being able to trust the process, you gave us a key, which is great, and the ability to say that stuck is information. Instead of rejecting uncomfortable feelings, we can become aware of them. We can lean into them and just know that it's information is really important. And I don't know, maybe my notes aren't so good, but Scott, if there was a key you were going to put on our key chain to be able to trust the creative process, is there one more key or a key of, as my dad likes to say, a used key is always bright. What do you feel like is your brightest key to trusting the process?

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Oh, well, it's also trusting yourself. It's trusting your own capacity to fail and get up again, and being able to be comfortable in the space of trial and error. A lot of people's being is not very comfortable with trial and error. The second they have an error, they're done. They're not trialing again. I mean, look, I got an interesting taste from this. I tried out stand-up comedy recently. It's been a long-term dream of mine, and it's interesting. Some jokes fall flat, and you're like, "Okay, we've got to bring that one to the laboratory and tweak some words and then try it again. See if it gets a laugh." That trial and error process to me is fun. It's something I trust myself that I can learn from my mistakes. I think that's a big key, is that you trust that you can learn from mistakes so you're not so scared of mistakes.

Daniel Stillman:

When I was a younger man, I was much older in the sense, in the Bob Dylan sense. I really wanted to not make mistakes. I thought the only way you learned was by doing things right, and it's a heavy burden to carry. Ironically, I mean, we all know this, that no experiment ever fails. Experiments are information, but there is a lot of fear that comes from looking bad, from falling flat, of our own expectations or expectations that we think others have of us. So I think this-

Scott Barry Kaufman:

That's a really brilliant point.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I mean, I think you're giving us good advice and it's important. It's hard advice, but it's important advice.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

It's brilliant. I never quite thought of it that way. No experiment fails and you're so right. It doesn't make sense to do a psychology scientific study and for it to fail. You're just doing a study. It's, wow. I mean, look, Daniel, I thought that was brilliant.

Daniel Stillman:

Got the price of admission. There you go. We created value.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I agree with you. I agree with you. Yeah.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah. I agree with that point, too. So many people say that persistence is the most important key, and I think part of that is just that you get to know the terrain and you've realized that the failure which is in your mind, this big, scary thing when you haven't experienced it or haven't experienced it that often, the more you do it, you realize, first of all, it's not that bad and you'll be fine. And on a deeper level, it actually will often redirect you in a really interesting direction. I mean, I started working on a personal writing project right after Wired To Create that I totally abandoned and walked away from, but it actually led me in so many interesting directions and sparked some kind of synchronicities, actually, similar to what I experienced with the book with Scott, that never would've happened if I hadn't had that failed project.

Carolyn Gregoire:

And so while it felt kind of awful at the time, because it was my first major failure, I'm just so grateful for it. It really was a huge part of the path. Someone once told me, the mistakes are the path. I think sometimes we feel like we're messing it up or we're getting off of our path, whether it's your career path or your path of personal growth, but you can't mess up the path because you're the one creating it. So, it's all part of it.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

I love that, too. I love that. You can't mess the path because you created it. Wow. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

One of the things that's come up in my research so far is that... I mean, this is really like relationships. We have all had rebounds. You mentioned this way earlier in our conversation. You finish a big creative project and you just want to get cruising on the next one. And sometimes it can be the love of your life and other times it can be a rebound, but you will never know until you get into it.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yeah. And the rebound serves its own kind of [inaudible 00:43:03] I guess.

Daniel Stillman:

The rebound serves its own... It's information.

Carolyn Gregoire:

It's inferior to the great love, but it still has a particular purpose in the moment.

Daniel Stillman:

So we are just about coming up against time, which means I have to ask you, what have I not asked you that I should have asked you? Scott, what is still unsaid when it comes to this very important topic of Wired To Create together?

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Ask Carolyn if she'll write another book with me someday. I'm joking. I'm joking. I won't put her on the spot, but-

Daniel Stillman:

The jumbotron is on us both.

Carolyn Gregoire:

We have an idea that's been-

Scott Barry Kaufman:

We have an identity.

Carolyn Gregoire:

... [inaudible 00:43:44] for a while. It's all about the timing. So we'll keep you posted on that.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

That's true. That's very true.

Daniel Stillman:

Wow.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

That's correct. That's what it's all about. So is there any questions you didn't ask us? I don't think so. It was nice to talk about the creative process again, after all these years with Carolyn.

Daniel Stillman:

Thanks, Scott. Carolyn, any unsaid...

Carolyn Gregoire:

Anything unsaid? Yeah, I guess it's maybe been said. I'm circling back to the theme of conversation, but it's really just through doing that we learn, I think. I guess I'm just really feeling from this conversation and how that we learn how to trust ourselves and learn how to trust the process and something that... The subtitle of the book was Unraveling The Mysteries of the Creative Mind, and something that we talked about a lot was just how mysterious the process is.

Carolyn Gregoire:

And I still say that all the time, is that creativity is this huge mystery and I know nothing about it because it's all just beyond us in a certain way. You can't boil it down into a formula, but at the same time, yeah, you keep doing it and you start to recognize a path and you start to recognize these trail markers. I think that's how we can start to feel a little bit less scared or overwhelmed or burdened by the challenges and start to enjoy it a little bit more. So, yeah, that's what I'm feeling right now.

Daniel Stillman:

And it goes back to... I've been just sitting with the thing that Scott you said earlier about this journey of self-actualization and growth as a human being, and just increasing our capacity for complexity and self-manifestation, I guess, you might say. I mean, this is what do we take from each experience and what do we bring forward from it?

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Bingo. Bingo.

Daniel Stillman:

Where should people, should they want to learn more about all things y'all, where should they go on the internets to find out more about the things that you all are and do, if you don't mind-

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Check out my podcast. It's called The Psychology podcast and scottbarrykaufman.com, and the Center of Human Potential, humanpotential.co. These sorts of things will get you in roads to the world of SBK, as my friends affectionately call me.

Carolyn Gregoire:

And you can find more of my work on my website, carolyngregoire.com. I have a lot of my personal writing there and I also work as what I call a book doula. That is a mix of being an editor and also a guide in exactly the process that we've been talking about, and something that I've come to really enjoy and love. So, you can learn more about that on the website.

Daniel Stillman:

That's awesome. Well, thank you two very much for taking this walk down memory lane and being so reflective. Being a reflective practitioner is really important, so I appreciate you making time to do this with me.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Thank you for inviting us, Daniel.

Carolyn Gregoire:

Yes. Thanks for having us.

Scott Barry Kaufman:

A real pleasure.

Daniel Stillman:

Well then I'll call "scene."

Building an Intelligence Engine

I’m excited to share this rambling and wide ranging conversation with Srinivas Rao.

Srini is the host of The Unmistakable Creative Podcast, and has recorded over a thousand episodes with such luminaries as Danielle Laporte, Tim Ferriss, Seth Godin and me! Srini describes his podcast as “If TEDTalks met Oprah”.

Srini has interviewed so many different types of folks, from bank robbers to billionaires. He also has a business degree from UC-Berkeley and an MBA from Pepperdine   University.

We talk about podcast interviewing (meta, I know!) and we unpack a topic that’s close to both of our hearts: creative output.

One of my early podcast episodes was with Sara Holoubek, CEO of Innovation Systems consulting firm Luminary Labs. Sara introduced me to the idea of having what she called an “Intelligence Engine'' - a process by which organizations turn insights into action and action into opportunities, not just every so often, but consistently and regularly. It’s not a dissimilar idea from Jim Collins’ “Flywheel effect” in that, ideally, you tune up your engine often, and even upgrade it when you need to.

One of my core beliefs is that conversations exist at different scales, and that they act in similar ways at these different scales. I also might take the idea of a conversation too far…in that I feel that any iterative, adaptive cycle is, in essence, a conversation.

So, Sara’s Intelligence Engine is essential for a healthy, growing company’s conversation with the world - after all, intelligence at the product and/or organizational innovation level requires a consistent cycle of making or creating new things, testing or trying those things out and reflecting on how it went, ie, harvesting insights. That’s an innovation conversation, at scale.

That cycle is pretty much the same at the level of the individual. We all need to seek new input, make and try new things, and then reflect and inspect the results.

Serendipity Engine vs Intelligence Engines vs Curiosity Engines

As with organizational intelligence, individual intelligence engines need to have a balance of intention and wandering. We need to be actively seeking new insights and ideas that matter to us, while also being open and curious about the unexpected. So, having a curiosity engine, like my guest Glenn Fajardo suggested  in our episode on connecting remote teams, is a powerful way to rev up your intelligence engine, for yourself, your team and your organization.

Managing the flow of input, insight, and output

If there is one key takeaway from this episode, it’s that the open/explore/close // diverge/emerge/converge ARC of our own intelligence conversation is input-insight-output.

Srinivas’ top tips for building your own personal intelligence engine:

  • Limit your Input

  • Diversify your input

  • Read books, not articles (they’ve digested complexity already!)

  • Use a networked tool to capture your smart notes (srivas recommends Mem.ai which I also use!)

  • Reflect and Connect dots regularly

  • Monotask to reduce the cognitive costs of task switching (check out my friends at Caveday and use the code 1STMONTHONE to get month of community-based monotasking support for $1 or use TRYACAVE21 to get your first cave free)

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

The Unmistakable Creative podcast

Sara Holoubek on Human Companies and Solving Problems that Matter

Three Systems Every Creator Needs to Build by Srinivas Rao

You're Not Listening by Kate Murphy

The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit

Effortless Output in Roam course by Nat Eliason

How to Take Smart Notes by Sönke Ahrens

Maximize Your Output course by Srinivas Rao


Minute 6

Daniel Stillman:

Before we got started you were saying a lot of people are terrible interviewers, and I'm wondering what makes a terrible interview? And then maybe we can backtrack into what makes an amazing one.

Srinivas Rao:

Well, yeah, I think what makes a terrible interview is one where the person is not attuned to the guest or the questions or stilted, you can tell they just have a list of questions that they're going through. That's probably the worst thing is you just feel like you're answering a list of questions. They also don't do the research. I think there's this balancing act with research, people think I do more research than I do, but at most I will read somebody's webpage.

Of course every single person who writes a book, I read their book, that's my default policy, I'll cancel the interview if I haven't finished the book. And nobody ever gets mad about that, because it's, to me, the sign of respect. Plus it gives you a scaffolding to have a conversation. I think there's this also combination of not just the ability to ask good questions and show that you understand your subject, but there's a social component of this, right?

There's an energy exchange that a lot of people I think don't quite get, they think they can just press record and the conversation will be interesting, which it doesn't really work that way. I think the thing that I find is when people basically build questions off of the answers you're giving them, that's what I do, so I think scripting questions in advance is literally probably the worst thing that makes for a bad interview.

And the other, like I said, is that people will ask you questions when they should know all this. I had somebody once email me and say, "Hey, could you send us the questions you want us to ask?" And I was like, no, that's your fucking job, I'm being interviewed. And I'm like, are you serious? You want me to send you the questions that I want to be asked? Isn't that your job?

Minute 10

Daniel Stillman:

But some people do go to the script, and I think the best stuff happens, as you say, when you get off script. So, how do you get people to go off script?

Srinivas Rao:

Ask them things they've never been asked before. So, you've been a guest and you know that when I start a conversation, you're just like, "What the hell does this have to do with my work?" And so I always preface [inaudible 00:10:11], "Look, I'm going to ask you questions that seem like they have nothing to do with your work, but you'll see there's a method to my madness, we'll get there." And the reason for that is that human beings are hardwired to listen to stories.

And the other thing is that you can't answer any of those questions without telling a story. You can't just spout off the same old bullshit that you have on 1,000 other shows, it's part of why we turned down Gary Vaynerchuk as a podcast guest, because I was like, not going to happen unless he agrees to my terms.

Minute 14

Srinivas Rao:

If you have the same guest on every show saying the same things, listening to the same people, you're not really reaching an audience, you're kind of inside of this filter bubble or this sort of echo chamber which that's one of the reasons I constantly go out of my way to find people that you've never heard of because, one, I don't want to be exposed to the same bullshit over and over again, because that makes your worldview myopic and you can't be insightful and you can't have original insight if you have a myopic worldview or your content consumption is just the same old online marketing garbage

Minute 15

Daniel Stillman:

Well, so let's loop it back around because I think my impression is that your podcast is designed potentially to optimize for the same thing that I think I'm optimizing my podcast for, which is my own learning, my own insight and creating more creativity for myself as well. It sparks new ideas and new things for you. Is that a fair perception? From what I'm hearing you say.

Srinivas Rao:

That's spot on, if you think about it, I just told you I choose every guest based on what I'm curious about, so it's kind of like, I'll give you an example, I had a former guest, Amy Chan, who wrote this really great book called Breakup Bootcamp, which was all about the science of recovering from heartbreak. She shared something that she was doing with a friend who was a professional dominatrix. And I'm like, now that sounds fucking interesting. I want to talk to her. And she was amazing, she was wicked smart, and it was great because she shattered so many misperceptions that people might have had about sex work. She was valedictorian at her high school, went to UCLA on a full ride, Berkeley graduate school.

And it's like, what? That's not the path to professional dominatrix that most people would think. So, it was really cool to get to hear that kind of story because I think that that's the other thing, is that one of my goals really is to challenge people's perceptions of what certain people are like, because media is a powerful tool to shape both perception and misperception.

Minute 18

Srinivas Rao:

Well, the fact that people make these blanket statements like everybody should start a podcast or these are the things you should do to become a millionaire. I'm like, yeah, okay, well, no, because the context matters. There's nothing everybody should do.

More About Srinivas

Srinivas Rao is a top branding and creativity keynote speaker, host of the podcast The Unmistakable Creative, and the bestselling author of The Art of Being Unmistakable. He has been the conference keynote speaker for The International Live Events Association, The Healthcare Design Expo, Catersource, and The International Association of Event Planners. He has also worked with corporations like Citibank, Meredith Corporation, and Bayer.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

Well, then I will officially welcome you to The Conversation Factory, Srinivas Rao, you really need no introduction, but maybe you do. How do you usually introduce yourself?

Srinivas Rao:

It's weird, I think people have this misperception that I'm more well known than I really am. I jokingly say I'm the most connected person that nobody has ever heard of. I think that I'm far more known because of my guests than for my own work, and so to sum it up, I'm the host of The Unmistakable Creative Podcast, where you've been a guest, along with porn stars, bank robbers, drug dealers, performance psychologists, authors, entrepreneurs, artists, just people who I think are interesting. That's my default is to just choose based on whoever I'm curious about.

Srinivas Rao:

These days we have no shortage of people with pitches, but I am pretty adamant about the fact that I don't choose people based on fame or status or any of that, I choose people based on how interesting I think their story is, and it really comes down to everything is always done in service of two things, a listener and a story. Is this a story I want to tell? Is this a story that will benefit our listener in some way?

Daniel Stillman:

So, I think, man, the reason I thought it would be interesting to talk to you, to me the idea of having a creative conversation versus an interview, before we got started you were saying a lot of people are terrible interviewers, and I'm wondering what makes a terrible interview? And then maybe we can backtrack into what makes an amazing one.

Srinivas Rao:

Well, yeah, I think what makes a terrible interview is one where the person is not attuned to the guest or the questions or stilted, you can tell they just have a list of questions that they're going through. That's probably the worst thing is you just feel like you're answering a list of questions. They also don't do the research. I think there's this balancing act with research, people think I do more research than I do, but at most I will read somebody's webpage.

Srinivas Rao:

Of course every single person who writes a book, I read their book, that's my default policy, I'll cancel the interview if I haven't finished the book. And nobody ever gets mad about that, because it's, to me, the sign of respect. Plus it gives you a scaffolding to have a conversation. I think there's this also combination of not just the ability to ask good questions and show that you understand your subject, but there's a social component of this, right?

Srinivas Rao:

There's an energy exchange that a lot of people I think don't quite get, they think they can just press record and the conversation will be interesting, which it doesn't really work that way. I think the thing that I find is when people basically build questions off of the answers you're giving them, that's what I do, so I think scripting questions in advance is literally probably the worst thing that makes for a bad interview.

Srinivas Rao:

And the other, like I said, is that people will ask you questions when they should know all this. I had somebody once email me and say, "Hey, could you send us the questions you want us to ask?" And I was like, no, that's your fucking job, I'm being interviewed. And I'm like, are you serious? You want me to send you the questions that I want to be asked? Isn't that your job?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, it's so interesting because on one level, I was on a podcast recently where somebody sent some of the general questions they asked, and they were reflection prompts for me. On the one hand I was like, you want me to do work before I go in to do this interview? On the other hand, it gave me some room to think, but then there's this question of is it spontaneous versus not?

Srinivas Rao:

I never send anybody questions and even if I do, I don't ask them. I'll send them, and I'll be like, "Here's a few for you to think about, I'm probably not going to ask any of them." Because here's the thing, if you ask somebody questions they've answered 1,000 times, then they're going to say the same damn thing they've said every other show, so you basically don't get anything insightful. My goal is always, to me, I know the best compliment you could possibly get when you ask somebody in a question is when somebody says, "Nobody has ever asked me that before."

Srinivas Rao:

So, Kate Murphy wrote that amazing book, You're Not Listening, which I think is probably the bible for podcast hosts as far as I'm concerned. And the funny thing is if I wrote that book it would've been called Nobody Has Ever Asked Me That Before. That would be my title for a book about podcasts, but I have no interest in writing a book about podcasting.

Daniel Stillman:

Fair. Well, two things I heard that I think are really interesting is the list versus being responsive.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

And so that's basically a huge difference between what I would call a creative conversation or one that is dead.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah, absolutely. You wouldn't go to a first date with a list of questions on a piece of paper, would you?

Daniel Stillman:

Well, some people do. Some people who get really nervous do, and I don't think they're great dates. But here's the flip side of this is I think that would maybe, I would say, make a creative conversation is when I've definitely interviewed people and certainly heard podcasts where people just go to the script. And so I think one part of it is the questions, and teeing up those softballs, like, "Tell us about your book," which is so general as to not be helpful. But some people do go to the script, and I think the best stuff happens, as you say, when you get off script. So, how do you get people to go off script?

Srinivas Rao:

Ask them things they've never been asked before. So, you've been a guest and you know that when I start a conversation, you're just like, "What the hell does this have to do with my work?" And so I always preface [inaudible 00:10:11], "Look, I'm going to ask you questions that seem like they have nothing to do with your work, but you'll see there's a method to my madness, we'll get there." And the reason for that is that human beings are hardwired to listen to stories.

Srinivas Rao:

And the other thing is that you can't answer any of those questions without telling a story. You can't just spout off the same old bullshit that you have on 1,000 other shows, it's part of why we turned down Gary Vaynerchuk as a podcast guest, because I was like, not going to happen unless he agrees to my terms. And the funny thing is, who the hell are you to dictate terms to Gary? I'm like, I'm Srini Rao, the host of The Unmistakable Creative, this is how we roll. You don't like it then go fuck yourself.

Srinivas Rao:

Honestly, I don't have anything personally against Gary Vaynerchuk, but the thing is he's just one of those people that I feel like says a lot of the same things on all the same shows, and it's like, not going to happen, not on our platform, I just won't allow that. And so I basically, I think somebody on our PR team, [inaudible 00:11:12] team, was like, "Hey, Gary wants to be on your show or he's expressed interest," and I was like, all right, great, here are the three conditions on which we'll have him on the show.

Srinivas Rao:

Every show is an hour, he has to listen to an episode beforehand, and, three, it cannot be about anything social media related, it has to be about his personal story because my audience could care less about anything social or tactics or marketing. And I think that is probably the last time I'll ever hear from Gary Vaynerchuk, which is fine because I don't feel like I'm missing anything. But that's the thing, it really comes down to asking questions that elicit stories.

Srinivas Rao:

Because the thing is, you don't want a question that somebody can give you a bullet point answer to, right? And the problem is that a lot of these professionals are media trained by a publicist, a publicist will be like, "Keep it short and sweet, stick to the talking points." When you've been on my show, my first instruction is do the exact opposite of whatever your publicist has told you. Because the problem is, publicists are trained to prep people for short form, 10 minute interviews on NBC or whatever, but this was a long form conversation.

Srinivas Rao:

And you need that freedom to go to different places. I'll have guests walk out on an interview, it's like an hour of therapy sometimes, what they'll tell me. Mainly, again, I'm asking questions that I genuinely am curious about, and that's the other thing, I think people, they mix up the idea of asking questions that they think are going to be valuable to listeners, and then questions they're genuinely curious about. And those two things are not mutually exclusive, in fact you're better off going with something you're curious about because that's going to come across.

Srinivas Rao:

Whereas if you ask this scripted list of questions, it just doesn't feel very genuine, it feels almost robotic. There are people who literally use the same questions for every show, and I'm like, then why the hell do you even do the interview? Why don't you just have the guest record their answers and you guys don't have the waste the time to be on air together?

Daniel Stillman:

Well, Tim Ferriss does do some shows like that. I find them a little less interesting, I think because there isn't that rhythm of a creative conversation, the energy between two people responding to each other.

Srinivas Rao:

Totally, yeah, that's one thing that I think is lacking from a lot of these conversations. Plus, at this point the interview based format where you just interview entrepreneurs or online personalities, I know this because I was so early to this, it's kind of saturated and that's the reality. People don't think about this from a business standpoint either if they're serious about it, it's like, okay, if you enjoy doing this and you have no outcome in mind then great, that's cool.

Srinivas Rao:

But if you're trying to compete with what is effectively the gigantic circle jerk, then you're really not going to have much traction, because you're not doing anything that is substantially different or unique from whatever else is out there. Because that's the thing, now you're making me think, I just had an article idea, the commoditization of interview based podcasts, because that's what's happened. It really has.

Srinivas Rao:

If you have the same guest on every show saying the same things, listening to the same people, you're not really reaching an audience, you're kind of inside of this filter bubble or this sort of echo chamber which that's one of the reasons I constantly go out of my way to find people that you've never heard of because, one, I don't want to be exposed to the same bullshit over and over again, because that makes your worldview myopic and you can't be insightful and you can't have original insight if you have a myopic worldview or your content consumption is just the same old online marketing garbage that [inaudible 00:14:54].

Srinivas Rao:

I remember people asked me when I grew a blog, the best thing that I ever did, my blog started to grow the day I stopped reading books about how to grow a blog. I stopped reading all online marketing, all social media books. And that was the best, that's when I finally started to have real insight.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, so let's loop it back around because I think my impression is that your podcast is designed potentially to optimize for the same thing that I think I'm optimizing my podcast for, which is my own learning, my own insight and creating more creativity for myself as well. It sparks new ideas and new things for you. Is that a fair perception? From what I'm hearing you say.

Srinivas Rao:

That's spot on, if you think about it, I just told you I choose every guest based on what I'm curious about, so it's kind of like, I'll give you an example, I had a former guest, Amy Chan, who wrote this really great book called Breakup Bootcamp, which was all about the science of recovering from heartbreak. She shared something that she was doing with a friend who was a professional dominatrix. And I'm like, now that sounds fucking interesting. I want to talk to her. And she was amazing, she was wicked smart, and it was great because she shattered so many misperceptions that people might have had about sex work. She was valedictorian at her high school, went to UCLA on a full ride, Berkeley graduate school.

Srinivas Rao:

And it's like, what? That's not the path to professional dominatrix that most people would think. So, it was really cool to get to hear that kind of story because I think that that's the other thing, is that one of my goals really is to challenge people's perceptions of what certain people are like, because media is a powerful tool to shape both perception and misperception. Unfortunately media in our modern day does more to shape misperception than it does to shape truth, with misinformation.

Srinivas Rao:

And we don't really look beyond the surface of what we see. And so the result is copious amounts of bullshit. We literally had a guy who wrote a book called The Life Changing Science Of Detecting Bullshit. And the thing that really struck me as I was writing about this is that on a large enough scale, you can take popular platitudes, cliches, fad diets, and basically mistake bullshit for truth because enough people agree.

Srinivas Rao:

But the thing is that if you don't seek evidence to the contrary and you don't seek evidence that something is overwhelmingly true, then you're kind of just lying to yourself. You're just taking something at face value and that's half the problem with the way we consume content today. We're inside these walled gardens. The other thing is that context is something that really matters, you and I may have talked about this and I feel like I did talk to you about this, I feel like I can't stop talking about it, but it's true.

Srinivas Rao:

Context makes a big difference in terms of the results that you see people get, particularly with self help, context really matters because people leave out the context when they sell things, they leave out the context when they consume things, they leave out the context when they look at their role models. And it's kind of like, well, look, you're not going to get my results. I have certain skills that, honestly, and I also have certain advantages that you can never replicate. I got a 10 year head start on a massive cultural trend. And we don't talk about that stuff. That pisses me off beyond belief. This is why I always joke that my first book, Unmistakable-

Daniel Stillman:

Which pisses you off? I think I missed that.

Srinivas Rao:

Well, the fact that people make these blanket statements like everybody should start a podcast or these are the things you should do to become a millionaire. I'm like, yeah, okay, well, no, because the context matters. There's nothing everybody should do. And the problem is the fact that we believe that. I think that in one way people are like, maybe I'm not as inspiring, I think I've become much more realistic. And, honestly, the thing that one of the iTunes reviews that I was most proud of was like, "There's no fluff here, no feel good fluff." And that was, to me, the ultimate compliment because that's what so much of self improvement has become, is feel good fluff that doesn't actually lead to anything.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Well, so this goes, just to really highlight something for folks who might be listening to this conversation, to me, the ability to have a creative conversation with someone, to learn from them, to get insight from them, is for a purpose. And what is the purpose for you? The things that you are learning, that you're developing and growing, what is the output that you want to do with it?

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah, that's a good question. Well, so the joke I've always said is if I could actually take all the advice of my podcast guests and apply it to my life, I would be a billionaire with six pack abs and a harem of super models.

Daniel Stillman:

I know, you would be a galaxy brain me.

Srinivas Rao:

No, think about it, I have probably the largest encyclopedia of random shit inside my head of probably anybody you know.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, and you can't and haven't acted on all of it, which is fascinating to me.

Srinivas Rao:

Well, some of it probably wouldn't make sense to act on, I always joke, if you want to rob a bank, become a porn star, or run for president, I can either tell you how or introduce you to somebody who could teach you.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. So, then what's it all for? Seriously.

Srinivas Rao:

Well, I think there is this love of learning, but to me more than anything it's to mix up other people's ingredients to diversify my perspective, because it takes us back to that whole myopic viewpoint thing, I think that Robert Greene gave me this metaphor once when we were talking about the concept of mastery. And he said the analogy is biodiversity. The more species that you have in the ecosystem, the richer that ecosystem will become.

Srinivas Rao:

And so the more diverse the set of people I interview is, the more diverse I'm going to be in my thinking, my ability to ask questions, and my ability to find new guests, and that is something I pride myself on is the fact that that's a very common comment is why do people listen to Unmistakable? It's because we have guests that you will honestly never find on any other show, because they're not famous, they don't have huge personal brands.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah, we have all those people and it's funny because every time somebody introduces me and they kick off my intro by saying, "You've interviewed Seth Godin and Tim Ferriss," and I'm like, listen, those are the least interesting people. Seth is fantastic, I love Seth.

Daniel Stillman:

They are framed behind you, if you're listening at home, I love the...

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah, so that's the thing, it's not that there's anything wrong with Seth, but you ask me, okay, so you see the other picture behind me on the wall, you may not know who that is, but Justine Musk, would I rather talk to Justine or... Everybody knows Elon, Justine is brilliant, there's so much wisdom inside that woman's head. Obviously she's had a front row seat to Elon in a way that none of us ever will, and she herself is absolutely one of the most thoughtful, brilliant and just poetic writers you'll ever come across.

Srinivas Rao:

She has a way of explaining things and understanding things that you're kind of like, wow, she's just wicked smart. And so I think that that's one thing that I look for is really, more than anything, to go out of my way to find these people that I'm curious about. More than anything it's I want a diversity of ideas in my idea ecosystem, so that I'm not just drawing from one well to come up with ideas, because you want what they call I guess in design thinking, this is probably more your forte than mine, but the reason this is fresh on my mind is I was going back through Tim Brown's book, but it's a diversion thinking, right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Srinivas Rao:

Where it really is a multidisciplinary way to give yourself an education I guess is the way that I think about it, because you'll pull these random ideas from conversations, and you don't even know how they'll affect you. That's interesting, I should try that. That's part of what drives it, the purpose really more than anything is to satisfy my curiosity, at the end of the day.

Daniel Stillman:

So, I think this is a really interesting segue, because we're zooming in and I always want to zoom out, because it's very clear that you do a lot of preparation for the conversation, and then there's all the stuff that happens during the conversation, the moves you make to make sure that you get somebody off script and don't just ask them a list, et cetera. And then now we're talking about all the stuff that happens after the conversation. And this is where I'm curious about the second brain mindset and the databasing of your insights, the idea that your ideas can start to have sex with each other.

Daniel Stillman:

And this is where I think maybe my pushback, we were talking about the benefit statement, the marketing of your second brain, and is it about keeping track? Is it about maximizing input, or output rather, but I think there's also this question of how they cross fertilize and cross multiply. And to me, I like the maximize output idea, because to me I want to be able to pull threads together and say, I was thinking about writing these three things, and you know what, they're actually just three chapters in one longer essay.

Srinivas Rao:

Right, you just gave me the subheader now.

Daniel Stillman:

So, what's the subheader?

Srinivas Rao:

Well, you gave me the update to the subheader, because somebody had said to me, and I literally took this word for word from our survey data, it was just like, build one trusted source where everything is, where you can basically connect your ideas together, come up with new ones, and manage everything without having to use 50,000 different apps.

Srinivas Rao:

But, yeah, here's the thing, part of the reason that I got into all of this is the very thing that we were just talking about. I wanted to be able to access the knowledge that is inside of my head from interviews, from books, and be able to actually put it into action, which this is great, you're actually giving me so much fodder for the copy now. I was trying to figure out how to explain why this was so important to me, but you just gave it to me, so thanks.

Daniel Stillman:

It's my pleasure, maybe you can explain it to me now.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah, so the thing that if you look at the consumption habits that I have, one, I probably consume more content than the average person, particularly in terms of books. I don't listen to podcasts, I hardly ever read anything online. Every now and then, I've stopped reading Medium, I think Medium has pretty much just gone down the toilet as far as I'm concerned, there's really nothing good there anymore.

Srinivas Rao:

So, I read two blogs, I read Cal Newport and I read Seth Godin, that's about it. And then every now and then I'll come across an article or two, every now and then I read [inaudible 00:26:11] newsletter, because I'm subscribed to it. But for the most part, I don't consume very much. I do consume books, that's the primary thing that I consume is books. And I like some TV shows, but I don't even listen to podcasts, despite hosting one, I actually don't like them. I don't like listening to them. They're just not my preferred form of media consumption, which is kind of bizarre considering I make a living doing this.

Daniel Stillman:

It's not bizarre, it just makes you a hypocrite, [inaudible 00:26:39].

Srinivas Rao:

No, I honestly think that's been one of my biggest advantages in terms of being able to be insightful and original, because I have no idea what people are doing on their shows so I don't interview people that other people interview, I don't hear the questions they're asking, I remember somebody once told me, "You're interviewing this person, you should listen to the interview he did with this other person." I'm like, why the hell would I do that? I don't want to sound like that other person.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, sometimes I listen to one or two other interviews just so I can not ask those questions, to that point you were asking before.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah, that is fair, right? And the thing is that I'm not worried about that ever because I know that I won't ask those questions at this point, that's never a concern for me because I already know that people don't ask the questions that I do.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It's really interesting because you don't have the contexts, I'm guessing, in which people consume a podcast vary. It used to be the drive or commute, sometimes I'll listen to one where I'm folding laundry, but it's not everybody's context, some people just want to have silence or music while they're folding their laundry, or have someone else fold their laundry, I don't know how you live your life.

Srinivas Rao:

Ideally, yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

But so I guess the question is, and maybe this is the question of how do you digest a book? You have your second brain, you use Mem, right?

Srinivas Rao:

This is good, yeah, this is actually a good question. So, a lot of this was honestly changed in this year, it wasn't until this year that I got so refined about it, and credit where credit is due. So, first I took Nat Eliason's course called Effortless Output in Roam, because I wanted to understand it, and I hated the user interface of Roam. I was just like, I love this idea conceptually, but it's just clunky, it's ugly, I think it was really meant for academic research.

Daniel Stillman:

And just for people who don't have the context, Roam Research, some people rave about Roam, it's another databasing tool.

Srinivas Rao:

The function is phenomenal, but for me the user interface was a big issue, I just found it clunky and difficult to navigate. Even Cal Newport was like, "I use Roam, I don't think I use it well," and I felt the same way. So I basically took everything that I saw in Nat's course and I just said, all right, let me apply what he's taught me inside of Mem and see if I can replicate this conceptually. And so the thing that changed, the best way to explain this I think is in terms of studying for exams in college, because I think that that's a perfect way to really give you this jump off point for how I started to think about this.

Srinivas Rao:

There's a book called How To Take Smart Notes that a guy named Sönke Ahrens wrote, and that book is kind of a goldmine in terms of your ability to really draw insights from the content that you consume and to actually use it in a way that is useful. So, if you look at the average college student in terms of how they study, how they take notes, what do they do? They basically go to lectures, they try to copy down what the professor says, they do problem sets, they go to office hours, if you go to a gigantic school like Berkeley, you go to discussion sections where the TA explains the same stupid thing you learned in class and maybe you do more problem sets. And then so you kind of delude yourself into thinking you actually understand this idea.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, people highlight books, which is not how... You highlight it thinking, I now am letting myself know that this is important, therefore I will remember, but that's not how it works.

Srinivas Rao:

No, not at all. So, you took me to the next point, I remember at Berkeley sometimes you'd get these used textbooks, and somebody highlighted this entire fucking textbook, really? As if they're going to remember everything in the textbook.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Srinivas Rao:

And then I had certain friends who almost never went to class and got straight As, and it was just like, what the hell are these guys doing differently? And what I realized is that... So, if we go back to high school, this is a good [inaudible 00:30:44]. We can't exactly do this linearly, because the funny thing is, once you start to understand how this works, you'll realize it's not linear. So, you go back to high school, and my old roommate, [inaudible 00:30:55], was like, "You were a straight A student in high school." I was like, I'm Indian, of course I was a straight A student in high school, my parents would have disowned me if I wasn't.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, there are some Indians that have parents that just don't like them and make them cry.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah, the reality is we're conditioned to do that, straight As were not a question around our house. Nobody congratulated you for that, it was like, why the hell did you get a B? That's it. And that was invaluable because...

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, that's the standing Asian parent joke. It's immigrant parents in general I think.

Srinivas Rao:

Totally, yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

It's like, come on.

Srinivas Rao:

You're Jewish, right? I hear that's pretty standard for Jewish people too.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, it's like, come on, you're just going to get an A and you should probably get a Masters degree, or what the hell are you doing with yourself?

Srinivas Rao:

And the A is basically the bare minimum, right? It's like this is the minimum standard of performance.

Daniel Stillman:

Yep.

Srinivas Rao:

And so, but here's the thing, you don't have to be smart to get good grades in high school. Any idiot can get good grades in high school if they're just semi organized, and does what the teacher says. Because all you're doing is largely memorizing and regurgitating, that's part of why we have such a fucked up education system, you don't want to get me started on all that. That rant is another podcast entirely.

Daniel Stillman:

Totally.

Srinivas Rao:

But the thing is that we don't actually learn, we memorize and we regurgitate, which anybody that can do that can get straight As in high school. But then you get to college, especially at a place like Berkeley, and the same thing that made you a straight A student in high school no longer works. Like I said, I only can understand this now 20 years later after being a C student at Berkeley, where you take an economics exam, so we go back to the whole thing of problem sets, highlighting and all that, right?

Srinivas Rao:

So, you think that you understand something, and then you go into an exam and it's presented to you in a context that you've never seen. And so suddenly, because you only understood it in the one context it was presented in, so suddenly, because you didn't elaborate on your understanding, which is critical. That's a big part of how to take notes. So, the premise of smart notes is that unlike your previous notes, people are like, isn't this really tedious and slow? And I'm like, yes, but don't you actually want to retain the knowledge that you've consumed and actually put it to use?

Srinivas Rao:

You'll get more out of doing this with one book than you would from reading 10 books and just underlining a bunch of crap and copying it and pasting it. This is not just copying and pasting books, and that's the thing, I used to do that as well. And so if you look at Ryan Holiday's note card system, that has effectively made him one of the most successful authors of his generation, a big part of it relies on elaboration of what you've consumed, and really looking at how it fits into the context of the work that you're doing.

Srinivas Rao:

And so the fundamental premise of smart notes, which basically [inaudible 00:33:58] Zettelkasten, which is a system that was invented by Niklas Luhmann, this German social scientist who wrote 58 books and published 500 papers in his life, is that instead of just copying what it is, he would make it a point to basically rewrite whatever insight he had in his own words and then link all those things together.

Srinivas Rao:

And now, with a modern day note taking [inaudible 00:34:22], and this is kind of hard to explain verbally because it's one of those things that when you see it visually it makes so much more sense, but inside of a note taking tool like Mem, you have this concept called bidirectional links, and bidirectional links are in a lot of ways, in numerous ways, the more you dive down this rabbit hole, the more you start to discover different ways of describing it. So, in a lot of ways it's kind of like Google's page rank but for your brain.

Srinivas Rao:

It shows you what keeps surfacing over and over again. But the other thing is that it allows you to have insight without taking immediate action on that insight. Sönke Ahrens had a really good way of putting this. He said, insight isn't something that you can plan for.

Srinivas Rao:

So you might be writing something, and while you're writing that one thing, you say, that sounds like a nice idea for a blog. But it's like, one sentence in one article is potentially another article in and of itself. And the thing is that you lose that idea because of the fact that you think I have to stop now and capture that idea. And that's where Mem comes in because you have bidirectional links and networked thinking.

Srinivas Rao:

The funny thing is that this is very counterintuitive. The irony is that we built all these tools to allow us to take notes, to organize information. And the irony of all of it is that they don't actually work the way our brain works. They're all designed to basically facilitate linear thinking. But anybody who has a brain knows that the brain is a network. It's not a hierarchy.

Srinivas Rao:

You have all these different dots that are connected inside, and that's what you do. It's not a coincidence Steve Jobs was like creativity is just connecting dots. Everything is just acting dots. And so what you're able to do as a byproduct of this is you start to connect dots between your ideas and you will quickly start to see that the more that you capture, the more you'll be able to create.

Srinivas Rao:

And so, if I showed you my own database right now, there's probably 5,000 notes in there, all of which are from books and other random thoughts. But the other thing is when you rewrite somebody else's insights in your own words, you'll also start to come up with your own insights that you didn't have before, just randomly, you'll be like, well, I didn't know that was going to happen. So you're basically feeding the ecosystem. There's a metaphor for this I can't quite... You're planting seeds is really what you're right. And you don't know when they'll bear fruit, and that's really why, the people who are prolific plant a lot of seeds.

Daniel Stillman:

So, I want to pull back and look at this arc that you've painted for us. If we're looking at the whole arc of the conversation of ingestion and output, I want to just paint it as it's a larger dialogue. And what I'm seeing is that you actually limit your diet. That's one thing that I heard you say is you're not doom scrolling on the feed. There's something about a book, which is it is a digested, synthesized piece of knowledge. Somebody's already done a lot of work to take all of this and dial it down. But then you're making that as a diversion point for yourself. You're limiting your input.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Sorry, go ahead.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah. Limit your input, diversify whatever content you're consuming and you maximize your output. Yeah. Steven Kotler put it well in his last book, The Art Of Impossible, he ROI on a book is far greater than the ROI on reading some stupid article. And not only that, if you think about retention, I can tell you all sorts of stuff from every book I've read. So, let's say I've been creating content on the internet for 10 years. I can tell you 10 articles off the top of my head and what they're about. So, just think about the amount that I've been exposed to versus my actual references. You want to talk to me about books? We can talk about that until you're blue in the face. That I wouldn't give you endless amounts of...

Daniel Stillman:

I think this might be one of Tim's questions, but I love this question too. What's the book you gift the most? Are there some books that you think, oh my God, everyone should just read these three books.

Srinivas Rao:

Well, it's funny because the book that I gifted the most probably in the last year and a half was The Bullet Journal Method by Ryder Carroll. He did such an amazing job with that book. It's beautifully written. And once you start, it's funny, because every single person I've introduced the bullet journal to wonders how they ever lived without it.

Daniel Stillman:

I don't know if it was my dad who said this or it's just a famous saying, what the hand does the mind remembers.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

When I was in grad school and I had to study for a test, I made a mind map because I'm a mind mapper. I would just get a big piece of paper out and I would just make a map.

Srinivas Rao:

Well, so here's the other part of that. One of the things that you'll notice, and I've been making a point to do this and honestly it's a pain in the ass and it's not something that everybody has the patience to do, but I've started printing out my blog posts and then going in and then looking at them and then rewriting each section by hand, after I write a first draft, because what you'll find is that because you can type so fast, you might say, okay, I wrote something in three or four sentences and then you can condense it into one and you start to become much more concise and economical with your use of language, because you're forced to.

Daniel Stillman:

Or because the handwriting shifts how you write out the sentences.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah, absolutely.

Daniel Stillman:

That's so interesting.

Srinivas Rao:

It changes everything. And I have atrocious handwriting, so it's really frustrating, but it makes a world of difference and every single writer I know who is an amazing writer, Ryan Holiday, Dani Shapiro, Amber Rae, all of them, two things, they all read physical books and they write by hand. And I think there's something to be said for that.

Daniel Stillman:

So, the flip side to limiting your input, and this is something I noticed when I was looking at your second brain landing page, is it seems like reflection is an absolute necessity. It's not like Evernote where I just highlight and I clip and it's, quote unquote, "saved and searchable," it is on me to reflect.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah. That's largely what this whole smart note idea is about, is to reflect on the ideas that you have been exposed to and elaborate on them. So, I just published this article titled The 21 Life Lessons From 2021, which is just 21 things my podcast guests taught me this year. Each one is basically an expansion of some idea that I learned when I interviewed one of my guests. And what does that force me to do?

Srinivas Rao:

It forces me to take one little quote from that interview and basically derive as much insight from that one little nugget as I can, because that's one thing, we don't do that, typically it's like we just have... This is of the things why I think people who think podcast transcripts are useful are idiots. Personally, what are you going to get from that? Because if you're scanning through a transcript, you don't have any context. So, it makes no sense, you don't even know what you're looking for.

Daniel Stillman:

You're saying it's useless for, useless for whom?

Srinivas Rao:

For a person who just wants to, for the most part, for a person who could listen, for somebody who's hearing impaired, that's fair. They can't hear. In my mind, those people are justified in wanting to read a transcript because they can't hear. But for most people, if you're somebody who has perfectly good hearing and you're just going to scan through a transcript, you're not going to really get the gist of what's going on there because you don't have the context, I don't see how that would lead to any insight that's actually useful.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, yeah. That's interesting because I use is the transcript for myself.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

To redigest the interview.

Srinivas Rao:

Well, see, that's the difference, right? It's different because you did the interview.

Daniel Stillman:

I am different, it's true.

Srinivas Rao:

You know what to look for. Yeah. Well, trust me, I have all my transcripts inside of Mem now because I wanted to make sure that it would be easy to access them when I wrote this life lessons post. And the funny thing is putting together the basis of the article takes 10 minutes. It's really editing and arranging it and elaborating. That's where the real work happens, and that used to take me almost a month and a half. And now if I really wanted to, I could do it a day.

Daniel Stillman:

In what context do you feel like other folks who maybe aren't thought leadery, bloggy people, what is the average adult, the average thought worker, what does this look like for them? How do they judge success of this method, do you think?

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah. So, the average person, it's not like they have any shortage of information they're dealing with either, right? Making notes, projects they're working on all sorts of stuff to move things forward. And so I think it's just a matter of, okay, yeah, you're not a creative, but you're a knowledge worker who works at a company.

Daniel Stillman:

And then you are indeed a creative, yeah.

Srinivas Rao:

Well, you have tasks to manage, there are things that you need to get done. All of which kind of use the same principles. You're just changing the backdrop, but it's not as though the principles don't still apply.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. And I feel like there was, somebody who I'm coaching took Tiago's goes course on this, I think you talk about this on your page as well. There's a difference between projects and tasks. And I think there's a third container.

Srinivas Rao:

So it's PARA basically, projects, areas, resources, and archives. So, areas are basically the things that are ongoing, so The Unmistakable Creative is not a project, it's an area because it's something I do daily, writing is an area. But if I'm writing a book, that's a project. So, a project is something by definition that has an end, a defined end date.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. So, everyone basically needs to be able to define for themselves what their elements of PARA are and then really control their input, be voracious and diverse, but controlled in terms of feeding those components of their PARA.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah, exactly. So, you want to be deliberate about what you consume, not just sort of let me just... It's the sort of balancing act between being very deliberate, but also allowing your curiosity to guide you, but not in some different directions that you don't go, you go one mile in a thousand directions instead of a thousand in one.

Daniel Stillman:

You know, it's funny, the fear that's sparking in me, which I feel like would spark in everyone else is that this sounds like it takes time.

Srinivas Rao:

Of course it takes time.

Daniel Stillman:

Of course it does, it has value. And I feel like so many people...

Srinivas Rao:

What is worth doing that doesn't take time?

Daniel Stillman:

No, of course. I just feel like many people don't feel like they have control of their time.

Srinivas Rao:

I go back and forth on the time management complaint on the one hand I'm a single guy, I don't have kids who are screaming at me. And at the same time, these same people who bitch about all the things that are not enabling them to get the things they need to do done are also digging around on Facebook all day. So, you can't tell me, "I don't have time to do this thing because I have kids, but I can find an hour and a half a day to just doom scroll." It's like, all right, well then fine, yeah, your kids are a valid excuse, but you're lying to yourself when you... You're using them as a reasonable justification for not doing the thing you actually know you can do.

Srinivas Rao:

To me, when I hear this argument, I'm just like, none of you are are the President of the United States, none of you are Elon Musk. I promise you you're not as busy as you think. And I don't get that, in my mind, that argument is somewhat flawed that you don't have time. Everybody has 24 hours, find one. That's the other thing, you're right. This takes time. You're not going to get anything you want if you're not going to give something else up, in every area of your life, there's a trade off.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Do you feel like an hour a day is a reasonable investment in building a second brain that creates a...

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah. Of course. I spend more time on all this stuff because it's my job, but yeah, an hour a day can potentially give you exponential results in comparison to the way that most people manage things now. I think that if you look, so typically one of the big causes of all these issues is perpetual mid task context shifts. I had to actually hop into my inboxes, I didn't have my link for my conversation with you, otherwise I would not have opened my email again until five o'clock. And again, I'm also a person who's ADD, so for me, this is 10 times worse than the average person. So, I have to go out of my way to do this. This is in a lot of ways out of necessity.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. Perpetual mid task interruptions. I feel like that is just...

Srinivas Rao:

That's the kiss of death.

Daniel Stillman:

It's the kiss of death. Well, there's a term in Sanskrit, [Sanskrit 00:47:50], the disease of existence. And I think perpetual mid task disruptions is another version of the disease of modern existence.

Srinivas Rao:

Absolutely.

Daniel Stillman:

Which is why monotasking is so powerful and so important.

Srinivas Rao:

Well, and that's one of the things that's really nice about a tool like Mem and this whole idea of a sort of central storehouse without having to ever leave it is that you can work on different types of tasks all within one app and not have to go to 50 different sources to get this thing that you need. Don't get me wrong, there are times when I still have to get out of it. Okay, I'm not saying...

Srinivas Rao:

That is literally what I'm trying to get towards. The founders of Mem and I were talking, I was like, guys, this is what I want. I want to never leave Mem all day if I can. I was like, I'm serious, I literally don't want to think about ever having to open another app for anything that involves writing, creating. And honestly, if I looked at my actual time tracking, you would probably see that I spend probably 80% of my day inside of Mem.

Daniel Stillman:

Which is why, and for anybody who's listening, an inbox is not a to-do list, because there is constant influx of somebody saying, "Hey, Srini, can you do this for me?" And I just started using a CRM for my business development, and I can write emails in it. And it's actually, when you talk about mid task disruptions, the fact that I can just be in a place where no email is coming in, it's just about me being clear about who do I need to talk to?

Srinivas Rao:

Well, you know that all the emails you ever get from me, I don't write any of those, they're all automated scripts on the backend. For you to be a guest on our podcast, the only conversation I ever have, the first time I talk to you, anything I did, the only request I... Now you're reminding me, this is something else I need to add into the automation, I need you to send me the book, but I think that that's actually going to be something... I'm just going to put that on the bottom of the we'd be glad to have you as a guest email now. Because I literally have had publicists forget to send me the book and I'm like, look, I'm not going to do this unless you send me the book, that's the way this goes. And no author gets mad when that happens, but their publicists are idiots. And that pisses me off.

Daniel Stillman:

You want me to give you a free $3 book?

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah. It's like, yes, of course, because we're going to tell 1,000 people about it. And so that's the thing. So, a lot of this is, like I said, it's out of necessity, but yeah, we shouldn't be living in this world where... Cal Newport calls this a hyperactive hive mind workflow, this just ongoing unstructured, conversation about work without actually doing the work.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. And this is about having a structured, consistent dialogue between the things you want to know and learn about and yourself, to make sure you're learning what you need to know. And then the output of that conversation, whatever it is, hopefully insights for you, an article for someone else, it might be a report. It might be the next conversation. Srinivas, I want to respect your time. We're getting up to time. This went really fast because there's clearly too much to cover.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah. This is a tough one to articulate. Tiago does such a better job articulating this than I do because he's lived and breathed it. I think it's really difficult to articulate network thinking verbally. Because even when I had Sönke Ahrens as a guest, [inaudible 00:51:22] understand conceptually in terms of taking smart notes was kind of... I struggled because I saw the value because I've experienced it. And that's one thing that is kind of weird about this. So, tools like Mem have what a term that I coined called the utility paradox. I don't know that I coined that term. Maybe somebody else did. And what I mean by that is you can't quite understand why they're useful until you use them enough. So, Twitter is a great example of utility paradox, right? Twitter seemed like the dumbest thing in the world when people first discovered it, it was like, why the hell do I want to hear what people had for lunch?

Srinivas Rao:

And then eventually you start to see that, wow, this is actually cool. And people have used Twitter in the ways the founders probably never envisioned they would. Nobody thought people would be using Twitter to topple democracies or dictatorships, well, maybe that was a Freudian slip, maybe I've said that a few too many times because I live in the United States. I realize I have made that slip three times in multiple conversations and I'm like, oh my God, what have I been reading that is making me say that? But you could use Twitter to topple a democracy too unfortunately.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Not for nothing, it almost happened.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Is there anything I haven't asked you that I should ask you? What haven't we talked about that we should talk about in our moments left together?

Srinivas Rao:

I don't know, I don't really know off the top of my head, I think we've covered a lot of interesting ground. I like the fact that this was kind of meandering.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Srinivas Rao:

It was very nice.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I have resisted the structure that goes into building a second brain, but looking at your page about it, I'm actually really excited to get started. If people want to find you on the interwebs, is there any place particular they should go besides...

Srinivas Rao:

So, Unmistakable Creative is a podcast and then maximizeyouroutput.com is where you can find all my knowledge management work. I also have a YouTube channel for Mem if you just go to, I think it's called The Creative Life or something like that. I don't know what the name is. It's funny because I focus on the videos, I haven't even bothered with the rest of it. I don't spend much time thinking about the semantics other than the content.

Daniel Stillman:

But the course is out there, it's live, people can...

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah. The course is available. People can buy it, [inaudible 00:53:49], it's there.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I'm excited. Mem sounds like a really interesting tool. It sounds like it's an investment to get it, as you said, jump started.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah, it is, so that's the thing, part of the thing that's challenging is it's very counterintuitive because it goes against the linear way that you're used to organizing things.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Well, I'm grateful for the time, Srinivas, and my mind is expanded and I think it's something everyone needs to be able to manage the flow of input, insight, and output. And I think it's really, really key and crucial.

Srinivas Rao:

Yeah, absolutely.

Daniel Stillman:

Well then I'll call scene.

The Power of Wondering and Wandering

This episode, Dr. Natalie Nixon and I dig into not just what it means to be creative, but also how leaders can create space for creativity and inspire it in their teams by letting in a little chaos.

Dr. Nixon is the author of The Creativity Leap, a creativity strategist, and a highly sought-after keynote speaker. In this conversation, we dive into the ideas behind her book, what makes someone "a creative" (hint: it involves being deeply human), and how important humanity and creativity are to the future of work - Natalie and I agree that we should let our AI overlords do what they do best…and we humans should focus on what we do best - be creative and empathetic!

Natalie and I have three unexpected things in common: Ballroom dancing, an enthusiasm for Chaordic Thinking, and a deep sense that these two things are deeply intertwined!

Dancing looks to regularly resolve the dynamic tension between chaos and order, and find a state of flow between the two.

Chaordic Systems Thinking, if you’re new to it, was first coined by Dee Hock, the founder and former CEO of VISA. He felt an ideal organization would balance order and control with disorder and openness, moving between them as it grew. Chaordic is just a made-up word combining chaos and order. I made a basic diagram of Chaordic systems Thinking for my book, Good Talk.

Total Order (O, on the right) is oppressive and stultifying. It also doesn’t deal well with surprise or adapt to unpredictability. Total chaos (C, on the left) can mean a total collapse of a given system - as Natalie says, without any boundaries, what is it even!?! 

A chaordic system moves between the poles of chaos and order, spiraling outward, growing and expanding as it does. A conversation can be chaordic, too, by the way.

For example, in a workshop, I sometimes feel the noise of collaboration and conversation rise, and I wonder, “Is this the moment to rein things in and move the conversation forward?” After all, sometimes that golden “aha” moment is just around the corner, just past my capacity to enjoy the chaos.

In the chaos and randomness, new patterns are sometimes found. Like in jazz, those new patterns are then played with, firmed up, made more orderly…until they get too controlled, boring or repetitive. Then the chaordic cycle swings back towards chaos. 

This is why, as Natalie points out, good leaders are also good followers: they are open to changing environments, and take the best of what’s emerging, reading their team and adapting to new situations.

Natalie and I also unpack the misunderstandings many folks, leaders included, have around the idea of being creative - one of most damaging being that the word doesn't (or can't) apply to them.

Natalie's ideas on creativity and flow are critical for the future of work, and something that every leader, whether you lead a team of artists or a team of accountants, needs to hear.

Enjoy the conversation!

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

figure8thinking.com

The Creativity Leap by Natalie Nixon

Your "invisible work" is key to your most productive self by Natalie Nixon

The Extended Mind by Annie Murphy Paul

There is Confusion by Jessie Redmon Fauset

How to Get Filthy Rich in Rising Asia by Mohsin Hamid

Bright Lights, Big City by Jay McInerney

Sand Talk by Tyson Yunkaporta

Sand Talk: How Indigenous Thinking Can Save the World, interview with Tyson Yunkaporta

Minute 1

Natalie Nixon: And when I talk about leading with questions, leading with inquiry, what it doesn't look like, is to invite your teams, people who you're working with. Come on guys, ask me your best questions. I'm open to your questions because people have been through a lot of question shaming, either through their educational learning experiences, through work. And so they might be a little gun shy for that. It starts actually with leaders being a bit more transparent about the questions that they have.

Minute 7

Natalie Nixon: because the gift that keeps on giving in terms of life lessons is that the best leaders are actually really good followers. Really good leaders are following in the sense that they are trying to align with. They're trying to adapt to the teams, the markets, the customer. They're listening actively. They're really observing. They're not barreling ahead. It absolutely can play out on the individual team and larger scale levels.

Minute 13

Natalie Nixon: But chaos is not anarchy, chaos is randomness. And order is not control, order is a structure, it's boundaries. The cool thing about chaordic systems, and Chaordic Systems Thinking is what a bunch of academics later called it.

And there's a whole group of scholars who have Chaordic Systems Thinking conferences and all that sort of thing. But once you start learning about chaordic systems, you literally cannot stop seeing them. Everything in the world and nature and our bodies is based on this beautiful ebb and flow between chaos and order. I wrote this down, what you just said, Daniel, polarity management and paradox thinking, it makes complete sense to me because it's another way of talking about chaordicness and chaordic systems. Clearly, I was deeply influenced by that way of thinking and I landed on this definition of creativity being toggling between wonder and rigor to solve problems. In all complex systems, all improvisation requires that ebb and flow between chaos and order. Chaos is the wonder part or wonder is the chaos part and rigor is the order part.

Minute 25

Natalie Nixon: To make room for creativity in our organizations, it's going to require a bit of an upheaval and overhaul in the way we are educating and the way we're invited to learn.

Minute 27

Daniel Stillman: How do you feel like you'd like leaders and teams and organizations to be investing in the creativity of their whole company?

Natalie Nixon: It's so interesting you're asking me this question. Before we started speaking, I just got off of call with a client who's asking me that as a starting place. And the question was, how do we begin to design in more space and time for creativity, so that we could build our creative capacity. And I looked at him and I was like, "We decide to build in more space and time for creativity on that space and continuum." How do you become a better writer? You got to write.

Minute 32

Natalie Nixon: What is something that can start happening weekly or monthly or quarterly that begins to tweak the way people are showing up? And it's important. Remember that starting to make creativity core to the capacity of an organization will not happen overnight. Culture change starts with shifts in our mental models, which leads to shifts in our behaviors, which finally leads to changes in culture.

Minute 36

Natalie Nixon: And what I'm really asking is, what if we start to devise, define, dream up new metrics of productivity. I wrote about how in the industrial age, productivity was measured based on output of widgets. In the information age, it's been about time on task. In this Fourth Industrial Revolution where we're going to have robots and AI mastering the task, what I'm observing is that if you followed the Pareto rule, the 80/20 rule, 80% of our most productive work, I don't know about you Daniel, but it's happening when I am letting myself walk away from the laptop, my desk, taking a walk, reframing a question in my head, wondering, sitting with my intuition, it's all those things that help me to, they're creating the scaffolding for the most productive work.

Which then pushes out and synthesizes in that last 20% time. And I know that's a very scary way to think about productivity when we think about this current way of metrics, metrics, metrics. But what if we shift the metrics? And what if we see a bit more control as manager. This way of thinking about productivity requires a lot more trust.

Minute 43

Natalie Nixon: Just what I want people to leave with is, they have the agency and the ability to build a creative capacity and it takes some rigor. It takes some work. It's not always sexy. It's often very solitary. That's the rigor part. But I have this corollary expression, that I think it's in the book and I have this postcard about it, which is that, wonder is found in the midst of rigor and rigor cannot be sustained with that wonder. So when I say that wonder is found in the midst of rigor, it's in the midst of doing the fundamentals, getting the mastery of skill, the solitary stuff. It's in those moments that an aha moment emerge. That's the wonder. And when I say that rigor cannot be sustained with that wonder, we will burn out if we don't integrate moments and time for the dreaming to ask new and different questions. Both are true and we have the capacity to do that. And it starts with oxygenating our ideas. Giving them light, giving them air, sharing them out.

More About Natalie

Creativity strategist Natalie Nixon is “the creativity whisperer for the C-Suite”. She is a highly sought after keynote speaker, valued for her accessible expertise on creativity, the future of work and innovation.

Natalie advises leaders on transformation- by applying wonder and rigor to amplify growth and business value. She brings an innovative and unique perspective to every keynote, strategic advisory engagement, and leadership coaching session. Her experience living in 5 countries combined with her background in anthropology, fashion, academia, and dance distinguish her as a one-of-a-kind creativity expert.

Natalie has been named among the top women keynote speakers by Real Leaders and BigSpeak; and has been featured in Forbes, Fast Company and INC. She’s the author of the award-winning The Creativity Leap: Unleash Curiosity, Improvisation and Intuition at Work and her firm Figure 8 Thinking, was named among the top women-led innovation firms by Core 77. Marketing guru Seth Godin has said that Natalie “helps you get unstuck and unlock the work you were born to do!”; and Jessi Hempel, host of LinkedIn’s “Hello Monday” podcast called Natalie “a personal trainer for your creativity muscle”.

Natalie received her BA (honors) from Vassar College, and her PhD from the University of Westminster in London. Follow her @natwnixon.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman: I'm going to officially welcome you to the Conversation Factory. Natalie Nixon, welcome aboard. Oh, it's all right.

Natalie Nixon:   Thank you, Daniel.

Daniel Stillman: We can just talk over each other the whole time, see if we can keep that going.

Natalie Nixon:   We could do. Thank you, Daniel. Good to be here.

Daniel Stillman: Thank you. And thanks for making the time. Listen, where shall we begin? Actually, I'm wondering, what question you would wish. I was watching a video of yours about problem framing and how often we're solving the wrong challenges. I'm sure you've discovered that's happened from time to time in your work. What question do you wish leaders would ask of themselves more often?

Natalie Nixon:   First of all, I love that you started with, I wonder. Your question to me, very meta, because I think literally, there's nothing bad that follows the utterance, I wonder. Actually, it is that level of self inquiry that I actually don't know that leaders do often enough or if they do, they don't share out more transparently their self inquiry. And when I talk about leading with questions, leading with inquiry, what it doesn't look like, is to invite your teams, people who you're working with. Come on guys, ask me your best questions. I'm open to your questions because people have been through a lot of question shaming, either through their educational learning experiences, through work. And so they might be a little gun shy for that. It starts actually with leaders being a bit more transparent about the questions that they have. It's very situational. It requires context. But good questions for leaders to ask are, I wonder if this tack still makes sense. And speaking of this tack, I mean, that story out of, I actually never sailed before my life. It's one of my [inaudible 00:02:14]. Tacking is a part of sailing.

Daniel Stillman: Yeah, it is.

Natalie Nixon:   When we never go about sailing and like, this is the course we set. We got to keep going in though. All the alarm bells are going off, clouds are rolling in, thunders rumbling. The waves are getting rockier and rockier. You tack and shift and adapt your course accordingly. Even starting with that question to oneself of, I wonder if this approach still makes sense, and sharing that question that you've had, couple your thoughts with asking teams their thoughts as well, is really important.

Daniel Stillman: It's so interesting. The idea that leaders should be more self-reflective and sharing the questions that they're sitting with, with their teams, is a really interesting one. And I'm wondering, the first thing that comes up to my mind is the resistance some people might have to that. It's like, "Oh, well, I need to show ...

Natalie Nixon:   Certainty.

Daniel Stillman: Certainty, and strength and ...

Natalie Nixon:   Clarity.

Daniel Stillman: Clarity. But on the other hand, what are the pluses and the what's the what's the cost and the benefit do you think to that strategy?

Natalie Nixon:   Yeah. On the other hand, who really knows what's going on? One of the slides I like to show in some of my keynotes is a slide that says, plans are fiction. And I love that statement because plans are fiction. And they're fiction because they haven't happened yet.

Daniel Stillman: Wait, wait, wait. You are a professor of strategic design.

Natalie Nixon:   Yes. It doesn't mean that you don't start with a plan. I love my to-do list.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   Every single morning, I start with that to-do list. But because I understand that plans are fiction, I can approach it more comfortably, in a much more adaptive way. There's a wonderful artist named Avery Williamson. She has a great Instagram channel. She posted something recently where she ... Her Instagram by the way is aisforavery, you must follow her. She's got outstanding visual art. But one of the things she posted recently was her rules for her studio and said something like, create your to-do list, cut that in half and then cut it off again. Just to be just to be adaptive and actually a bit more focused. That idea of leading with certainty is something that every MBA program worth its salt tries to instill. And yet, once we graduate people out into the ambiguous world of business and commerce and markets, we realize that you've got to be super adaptive. One of the reasons why I love behavioral economics, which didn't really take off until the early eighties is because it reconciled that markets are made up of people.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   And therefore markets are imperfect, inconsistent and not predictive, which was a total departure from the way economics had been thought about and taught, which was, and this is something in my previous life, I used to have to read through those academicy journals and older business marketing and finance journal article, scholarly articles to start with hypotheses. They try to be very scientific in their approach. But now we understand that we've got to be a lot more adaptive. And so leaders have to be much more adaptive. And actually, that level of transparency is absolutely terrifying, as a leader. And it opens the door for trust. It opens the door for communication so that you can actually lead in a much more effective way.

Daniel Stillman: It's really interesting. I'm wondering if we can apply this thinking. One of the hypotheses that I've been having about communication and conversations is they exist on these different levels. There's the conversations we have with ourselves, there's team conversations. In an organization, it's just the marketplace of conversations, with loads of conversations. I'm wondering if you feel like that reflective questioning is something that you'd like to see happening at all of those scales in an organization, at the leader level, maybe even at the individual practitioner level, at the team. What does that look like, do you think?

Natalie Nixon:   Well, I shared a post a month or so ago on LinkedIn that got a lot of engagement and I was happy to see it. I actually shared a bit more of a personal part of my life. I shared how I'm a lifelong dancer and I study ballroom dance.

Daniel Stillman: I saw that. I want to talk about dancing with you. But yes, please proceed.

Natalie Nixon:   I was going to kind of go there at this point because, you are right, there's opportunities to be much more transparent, self reflective on the individual team, society level, we can scale it on those three ways. Because one of the things I've learned from ballroom dance, as a student of ballroom dance, because the gift that keeps on giving in terms of life lessons is that the best leaders are actually really good followers. Really good leaders are following in the sense that they are trying to align with. They're trying to adapt to the teams, the markets, the customer. They're listening actively. They're really observing. They're not barreling ahead. It absolutely can play out on the individual team and larger scale levels.

Daniel Stillman: Let's talk about ballroom dancing for a second, because this is important. On Facebook somebody posted, it was a high school gym elective. It was the most popular, I don't know if this is the most popular. It was coveted by some nerds, gym elective in my high school. And so I took ballroom dancing and it wasn't many, many years later that I started swing dancing. Swing is my happy place.

Natalie Nixon:   Nice.

Daniel Stillman: And I think one of the hardest things for people to understand, who are new to this is, is the dynamic tension.

Natalie Nixon:   Yes.

Daniel Stillman: The push and pull. For those of you who are listening at home, Natalie and I are sort of putting our hands together and tugging because there's this feeling, it's like chewy. It's just like it's a very great feeling when at the end of a twirl or there's not a saggy arm. There's tension.

Natalie Nixon:   No. It's not a hard rigid arm.

Daniel Stillman: No.

Natalie Nixon:   It's not a saggy arm, but there is that slide you're there, I feel you, I'm with you, I'm responding to you so that I know what to do next. So that if I'm the leader, I have the confidence that you're going to have clarity about what I'm asking you to do next. If I'm the follower, there's going to be a clear transmission of the direction you want me to go there. There's intuiting at every single moment, but it requires that contact.

Daniel Stillman: Contact, yes.

Natalie Nixon:   It requires that contact, that communication.

Daniel Stillman: And sometimes I think my wife will interpret my signal differently. And she'll be like, "Oh, sorry." And I'm like, "No, that's okay. That's a great idea. Let's go with that."

Natalie Nixon:   We have to go with it.

Daniel Stillman: So this is the thing that I was thinking about. Wonder and rigor as these two poles that you talk about in The Creativity Leap, your book, that's behind you on the shelf. I've been doing a little bit of reading on this idea of paradox thinking and polarity management. And this is not my research. There's tons of research out there. I feel like I want to just zoom in on that set point. If wonder and rigor are on a little infinity loop and we're not supposed to just go all the way onto wonder and all the way onto rigor. We want that dynamic tension right in the middle. What's there at that beautiful set point?

Natalie Nixon:   I believe what's there at that beautiful set point is flow. One of the biggest things that I think people misunderstand about creativity is that, when people think that creativity is woo-woo and that it's only about doing whatever you feel like, which couldn't be further from the truth. That wonderful polarity that you're talking about, I really became equipped with the language of how to think about those dualities, that very dynamic ebb and flow, tension, however you want to call it when I learned about Chaordic Systems Thinking. And I learned about Chaordic Systems Thinking when I naively decided to earn a PhD while working full time, because I thought I was just a big old paper. How hard could that be?

Daniel Stillman: Classic blunder, like a land war in Sicily and whatever else discussed in the Princess Bride.

Natalie Nixon:   Exactly.

Daniel Stillman: For those of us who are listening in the audience, I have a little snippet about chaordic thinking in my book, but do you want to talk about Dee Hock's chaos order hypothesis on a sticky note?

Natalie Nixon:   Yeah. That's when I was introduced to Mr. Dee Hock who was the first president of Visa, the credit card company, most of us have a credit card.

Daniel Stillman: Perhaps you've heard of it, everyone.

Natalie Nixon:   You've heard of Visa. And to his credit, when he was asked to lead this global organization, based on the virtual exchange of currency in the early sixties, late fifties, he was a big naturalist. He's taken a walk through the woods, lots of walks through the woods. And he thought, what if I could lead and organize this company in the ways that I see nature behaving? Where there's some chaos and there's some order. And what Dee Hock was identifying. And these are my words, not his, he was identifying that organizations are organisms. Because they're made of humans because they're made of people. He did a mashup of those two words, chaos in order. And he made up the word chaord. And he has a great book, by the way, it's really a memoir called One from Many, if anyone is interested in reading more on Dee Hock's work. But chaos is not anarchy, chaos is randomness. And order is not control, order is a structure, it's boundaries. The cool thing about chaordic systems, and Chaordic Systems Thinking is what a bunch of academics later called it.

             And there's a whole group of scholars who have Chaordic Systems Thinking conferences and all that sort of thing. But once you start learning about chaordic systems, you literally cannot stop seeing them. Everything in the world and nature and our bodies is based on this beautiful ebb and flow between chaos and order. I wrote this down, what you just said, Daniel, polarity management and paradox thinking, it makes complete sense to me because it's another way of talking about chaordicness and chaordic systems. Clearly, I was deeply influenced by that way of thinking and I landed on this definition of creativity being toggling between wonder and rigor to solve problems. In all complex systems, all improvisation requires that ebb and flow between chaos and order. Chaos is the wonder part or wonder is the chaos part and rigor is the order part.

Daniel Stillman: You used the word toggle. Do you think a switch or is it an equalizer? Are you moving it again? What is the knob you're spinning when you're doing that?

Natalie Nixon:   Well, we rarely listen to AM/FM Radio anymore.

Daniel Stillman: I know.

Natalie Nixon:   But if any of your OGs out there-

Daniel Stillman: I am an OG. We didn't even have the search function on my first radio. We had those push buttons you could program the five stations.

Natalie Nixon:   The five stations and there's a round knob and you hear the static and you got ... Exactly. You start to hear the clarity. And actually, we started our conversation talking references to sailing. I suspect when sailors are out in the middle of nowhere, they're trying to get a signal, it's similar. It's like getting to that signal and doing these small, it's tweaking. That's what I mean by the toggling.

Daniel Stillman: Yeah. It's so interesting. I'm wondering, I'm wondering, there it goes. You just put it in my brain.

Natalie Nixon:   There you go.

Daniel Stillman: You've incepted it in us. Maybe we should take a step back for those of you who are listening who haven't read Natalie's book. It's behind her. You can't see it because you're listening to this. What made you decide to write this book? This idea is so important. I'm going to write a whole furshlugginer that's Yiddish for this pile o' book. You're going to do take all these ideas and just boil it down into this slim volume. What was that journey like for you?

Natalie Nixon:   Well, most things I set out to do in my life, I was very naive about what would be involved. It all starts from passion. It all starts from deep curiosity on my part. What had happened was ...

Daniel Stillman: That is the best beginning of ... I feel like that's a meme, isn't it? So what had happened was ...

Natalie Nixon:   What had happened was, I used to be a professor. I give this talk in 2014 at TEDxPhiladelphia about the future of work is jazz. And here's why and how. After I gave that talk, I get invited into companies to help them figure out how to be more adaptive and improvisational in the way they're designing their own work. And I'm getting so many of these invitations. My husband John, correctly said to me, he's like, "Babe, this is a thing. You should formalize it." I was like, okay. I created Figure 8 Thinking as my side hustle.

             And then I woke up a year later and realized, "Oh my gosh, I'm having more fun with my side hustle." And this is really the cliff notes version. There's a lot more that was evolved in this process. But basically, I decided to leave academia. After 16 years as a professor, I move on and full time, I'm a creativity strategist leading and building Figure 8 Thinking. First couple of years of work at Figure 8 Thinking, a lot of the projects I was getting invited to do were to help these organizations build cultures of innovation. It was all about the, I word.

Daniel Stillman: She's raising her hands up in a rah-rah symbol.

Natalie Nixon:   Yes.

Daniel Stillman: What year was this around?

Natalie Nixon:   This is like 2017, 2016, 17.

Daniel Stillman: Yeah. I mean, it's still a thing. It was definitely a thing then. We all need to be innovative, rah-rah, and let's get everyone rah-ing about it.

Natalie Nixon:   Rah-ing about it. Sometimes that we were talking over and around each other, we were missing each other. What does innovation really mean? What does it mean to us specifically as an organization? And it also would sometimes end up in what a lot of us, who work in this space called innovation theater.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   Which is not very sustainable.

Daniel Stillman: Or impactful.

Natalie Nixon:   Or natural. That got me to thinking, and it was really the sense, I was like, "I don't think we're going about this the right way of just landing, we got to innovate." And I started thinking, I knew enough to know, one cannot critique a system without offering up an alternative way to go about doing the work. I was like, "I can't critique some of my clients to start innovation if I can't give them an alternative way of where they might start.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   And I thought, I think we should be starting with creativity now. Now here's the challenge, in the how old halls of Corporate America, if you utter the word creativity, people look at you like you've three heads. Creativity is not murmured in the corporate boardroom.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   If it is mentioned, it's kind of an afterthought, it's country, like lipstick on a pig.

Daniel Stillman: And it's something that somebody else does. They're like, "Well, I'm not a creative like you all."

Natalie Nixon:   I'm not a creative like you all over there.

Daniel Stillman: Yeah. I mean, you can't see Natalie's glasses, she's clearly creative.

Natalie Nixon:   Exactly. You're right. These very kind of simplistic ways of thinking about creativity.

Daniel Stillman: But they limit people. You walk around with the whole, easily more than half of a company thinking, "I can't access that part of myself."

Natalie Nixon:   No agency. We've cut off agency that's embedded, in my view, in all of us. All of us are hardwired to be creative. That led me down this path of, how can I offer an accessible, simple way for people to think about creativity? And I use my keynotes speaking as a way to prototype ideas. Every time I give keynotes talk I'm landing with what my client, what they need, but I'm also trying to play with new concepts, new ways of framing things. And consistently, people who enjoyed my keynotes would come up to me and say, "That was awesome. Where can I read more about this?" I was getting enough of those questions to realize, I got to put all these ideas in a consolidated fashion, into a book. At the time, I was writing for Inc. Online. And I could send them that but they were kind of one off articles.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   So the real impetus for writing the book was what I was hearing from clients. This need that I identified as this need to really be able to explain very tactically, how people could really apply creativity in order to innovate.

Daniel Stillman: Yes. Because they need to. And I guess now's a good time to maybe transition into this idea of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Anything that can be put into a spreadsheet, eventually an AI or some sort of mechanistic approach can do it better than us. The only things that are left to humans in the future is being human. Being creative is something that only we uniquely can do.

Natalie Nixon:   It's interesting because the engineers and scientists who are playing around with AI, which we've thought of as artificial intelligence have also been playing around with dividend of AI, which they artificial imagination. They actually have been tiptoeing into this realm of how might machines be programmed for that randomness, that randomization. The thing about imagination is that imagination is so multidimensional. It's catalyzed by our past and in many other ways, it's contextualized in the present and what we are seeing around us. And then it's all about our ability to dream. And how one programs that into machine learning, I'm not really sure because I'm not an engineer. Who by the way, are incredibly creative in the ways that they are designing.

Daniel Stillman: Most definitely.

Natalie Nixon:   The sort of AI. But you're absolutely right, in this Fourth Industrial Revolution where tech is ubiquitous, because tasks are going to be taken over, the opportunity is for organizations, companies, associations, to figure out ways to invite our humanness to show up. Our humanity to show up. What only we as people can do. And whoever figures that out on consistent basis, those are the companies that are going to flourish and thrive. Because they're going to be able to attract and retain the best talent. People have been dying a slow death of only being asked to fill in the dots. I mean, we go back to our educational systems.

Daniel Stillman: Sure.

Natalie Nixon:   Where we have a two track system. I came up through the two tracks. I started out in urban public school in Philadelphia, where very clearly, I didn't realize until I was out of that system, we were being educated to fill the dot. To complete the worksheet, to stay in your lane. And then later in high school, I went to an elitist Quaker prep school in Philadelphia from seventh through 12th grade. And it was a culture shock for me on several levels. The main levels was the culture of learning. I was being invited to beg forgiveness, not permission. I was invited to be loud and wrong. I was invited to ask a better frigging question, which was counter. I had gotten so good. I showed up an A student in seventh grade because I gotten so good at knowing what the teacher wanted and really delivering what the teacher wanted.

Daniel Stillman: Playing the system.

Natalie Nixon:   Playing the system. And then all of a sudden, it was a different system. It was about, we don't know. Maybe the questions we've asked weren't quite the right questions. And so it took me two years to really understand that. And then it was around eighth, ninth grade, I thought, "Oh my goodness, my friends back on the block, my friends who are in public school." We were being trained to fill in the dots. And now I'm around people who are being educated to figure out the dots to figure out the lanes. I didn't have that language back then, but I remember the shift in me when I thought, it was like this, you had peeked under the kimono. And I was like, "Oh my God. This is what's happening."

Daniel Stillman: Sure.

Natalie Nixon:   To make room for creativity in our organizations, it's going to require a bit of an upheaval and overhaul in the way we are educating and the way we're invited to learn. Which by the way Daniel, have you noticed how many companies now are in the business of learning? Everyone from Lincoln, the Fast Company, let alone MasterClass, which now has Outlier and Coursera. And it's about learning on people's own time, on their terms, highly produced, high entertainment value from people of street credit. It's just a very interesting shift about how we're even starting to see how we're delivering learning very differently.

Daniel Stillman: I have to say though, I find that people are crunched hard. And their ability to take time out, to even watch a 10 or 15 minute video between one session and another session two weeks later, is limited. Because there's a culture of, we got to do it all. We got to keep going. And I guess what I'm wondering is, I feel like I've used wonder more in this conversation than I have in the others. So thank you Natalie.

Natalie Nixon:   I guess you're more aware of it probably.

Daniel Stillman: Yeah. It's probably true. Dr. Nixon is good at incepting wonder in people. And going back to my first question of what should we be asking ourselves. Back in 2017, my hypothesis about where companies should be spending their, we want to have a culture of innovation dollars was, if I'd known you, I would've said, "Go hire Natalie Nixon to be a speaker and hire me to train everybody on design thinking tools." And I don't know what would create lasting impact and real needle moving today, in today's culture. I would say still call Natalie and hire them to speak to your people. I wouldn't say train everyone on these tools because it's different for everyone. What would will create in their context an ability to be more creative? How do you feel like you'd like leaders and teams and organizations to be investing in the creativity of their whole company?

Natalie Nixon:   It's so interesting you're asking me this question. Before we started speaking, I just got off of call with a client who's asking me that as a starting place. And the question was, how do we begin to design in more space and time for creativity, so that we could build our creative capacity. And I looked at him and I was like, "We decide to build in more space and time for creativity on that space and continuum." How do you become a better writer? You got to write.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   You got to read a lot. How do you build your capacity of creativity? You have to decide to design in the time and space for creativity, which look like the-

Daniel Stillman: Intentional practice.

Natalie Nixon:   Number one, I love etymology. I love understanding, what's the root meaning of these words and how they come to be. And the word decide is so beautiful to me because embedded in decide is caesa, which is cut, scissor. When one really makes a decision. You are cutting off what was, and you are embracing and going for it with the new. When you make a decision, it is a cut off from what you used to do. First, the organization has to decide, this is what we want to do. And then doing it does not have to be these radical revolutionary changes. In fact, the best revolutions have been through these small cracks and fissures in the system. It's by doing these small tweaks. You start to change the way you begin and start meetings.

             You don't radically change. We're not going to have XYZ meetings anymore because that would be too much change. Because everyone is already going through change fatigue. But the way we're going to begin and end the meeting is going to shift in this way. The way we're going to start to introduce inquiry and questions could be having quarterly meetings that are just focused on questions that we're collecting from the group, or it could be meetings that we're just focused on generating questions. I mean, your mind can just go wild once you're given the permission to think through what's something that we're going to change that's small, that's tiny, that we're going to tweak. Every organization has a culture, which means that every organization has the icons of culture, which are language artifact, ritual, symbol. We can start with just those four things.

             You can start right there and identify, in each of those categories, which are icons of our culture. What are we going to start to tweak? And I'm going back, I now realized it's funny in this conversation too, the way I learned in my educational history. I just shared earlier, I went to a Quaker prep school in Philadelphia for high school. Philly has a lot of Quaker prep schools. It just the history of Philadelphia.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   But you had to go to something called meeting for worship every week.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   Whether you were in kindergarten, first grader or an 11th grader. And what that involved was, going into this very plain simple meeting house, just creaky old wooden benches with saggy cushions along the benches. And you sat in silence for the equivalent periods, like 40 minutes.

             And what's fascinating is that to an alum. When you were in high school, you slept through it. You hate it. You're so bored or you would just be ruminating over a test it was going to be later that afternoon, whatever it was. Everyone misses that into adulthood. You miss that space and time that was dedicated to instigating, instituting that icon of Quaker culture. What does that look in your organization? What is something that can start happening weekly or monthly or quarterly that begins to tweak the way people are showing up? And it's important. Remember that starting to make creativity core to the capacity of an organization will not happen overnight. Culture change starts with shifts in our mental models, which leads to shifts in our behaviors, which finally leads to changes in culture.

Daniel Stillman: What is so beautiful about that—So, many people do not know about Quaker meeting.

Natalie Nixon:   That's true.

Daniel Stillman: And I have been to some Quaker meetings and I talk about Quaker meetings when I talk about turn taking in meetings often with people. The idea that, usually what happens in a meeting is one person tends to speak first. And that sets the terms of the debate for everyone else versus having a round Robin where everyone sort of speaks in turn. Versus in a Quaker meeting, it's not a popcorn meeting where everyone pops and you want all the kernels to pop. A Quaker meeting, for my understanding is you only speak when the spirit of God speaks through you.

Natalie Nixon:   Correct.

Daniel Stillman: Literally inspiration or aspiration in this case. The idea of having more Quaker meetings in a business context has always thrilled me.

Natalie Nixon:   It's thrilling. And it also could be painstaking because Quakers also believe in consensus, which can be mad if you're trying to come to a decision, because they really hold fast to consensus.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   And actively listening to your point of view and then rehashing it and listening again, and then reconsidering. Consensus is serious for Quakers.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   By the way, there are such things in Quakers, it called popcorn meetings, it's a meeting that there's a lot of people.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   That's Quaker humor, I guess. The Quakers believe that the light of God shines in each of us. When you feel stirred or they would say quake, that's where they got the name Quaker, one was moved to stand up and speak what was on one's heart.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   And sometimes what follows is another point related to that. Other times it's a different point. But that idea of making time to pause for silence, to try to commune to hold the space of another person's thought or energy and let it sit with it and maybe you let it go or maybe you don't. It was phenomenal. It was something that I found that I really would crave at different moments of my life thereafter.

Daniel Stillman: Because our time together is growing nigh. We need to talk about Invisible Work. For a culture that values doing and producing over being and existing and non-production. Dreaming, daydreaming wondering can look lazy. In fact, there's an old joke about this. That when you walk by a mathematician's desk and they've got their feet up and their eyes closed, they're hard at work. Because they're still thinking about math.

Natalie Nixon:   I don't know that. I love that. That's good. I like that.

Daniel Stillman: It's not much of a job, but fair enough.

Natalie Nixon:   I like that. I wrote this article for Fast Company about something I call invisible work. And again, all of my work typically starts with this nudge inside of me, which turns into a provocation, an offering of how I'm inviting people to think through something in maybe a new way, maybe a different way. And what I'm really asking is, what if we start to devise, define, dream up new metrics of productivity. I wrote about how in the industrial age, productivity was measured based on output of widgets. In the information age, it's been about time on task. In this Fourth Industrial Revolution where we're going to have robots and AI mastering the task, what I'm observing is that if you followed the Pareto rule, the 80/20 rule, 80% of our most productive work, I don't know about you Daniel, but it's happening when I am letting myself walk away from the laptop, my desk, taking a walk, reframing a question in my head, wondering, sitting with my intuition, it's all those things that help me to, they're creating the scaffolding for the most productive work.

             Which then pushes out and synthesizes in that last 20% time. And I know that's a very scary way to think about productivity when we think about this current way of metrics, metrics, metrics. But what if we shift the metrics? And what if we see a bit more control as manager. This way of thinking about productivity requires a lot more trust.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   I reference a book I used ... When I was a professor and I taught for the first 10 years, I taught the business of fashion and I used to teach a course about apparel sourcing. Apparel sourcing is a lot more interesting to do, than it is to learn and teach. And I was like, "Oh my God, how I'm I going to make this exciting and interesting for these young people." And I found a book, it's a memoir by the founder of Patagonia called Let My People Go Surfing. And it literally is a handbook for sourcing. It's a handbook for sourcing disguised embedded in this memoir. Each chapter is taking you through vendor relationships, through sourcing a fiber and all that thing. And one of the things he shared is that, he had this macro management philosophy that, if members of his team were into surfing and they knew the surf was going to be up between 2:00 and 4:00 later today, they're out of there. They're in the ocean. They're playing in the waves.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   And he was okay with that because he had the trust that they go have dinner with the fam and they would come back and grind out the work that needed to be done later that evening, if that met their fancy. And I've never forgotten that because it was so, in my view, Liberal and liberating.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   And really ahead of its time. That's the type of invisible work. That allowing people to play, to really be embodied in their work is this other dimension of invisible work. When we believe that work is only when we're at the whiteboard, on the Zoom call, we are only showing up to work from the head up. From the heart up, never from the gut up. And the opportunity now is to show up to work from the gut up, which requires different type of management, different type of leadership. And actually, in this hybrid office setup that we have now, there's more opportunity to allow people to go ahead and do that.

Daniel Stillman: Going back to this question of how teams and orgs and leaders should be investing in this, it looks like they should be investing in doing less instead of doing more. I wrote something recently about how we need to have a meeting about meetings. And the first meeting of that meeting should be, what meetings can we not have. Now let's have meeting about which meetings to not have so that we can give people some time to find their unicorn space, speaking of invisible work.

Natalie Nixon:   Yes.

Daniel Stillman: And our mutual friend, Eve Rodsky's lovely book is on your bookshelf.

Natalie Nixon:   That's right.

Daniel Stillman: The idea that we should be encouraging people actively to be just doing joyful things that nourish them, that have nothing to do a direct economic output so that they will be happier people, so that we can get more out of them.

Natalie Nixon:   And yet they do. Listen, when we allow people to show up to work from the gut up, people will feel seen and heard.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   And that fundamentally is the problem. And whether we're talking about a fourth grade class or a multi-billion dollar company, people need to feel seen and heard. And when any of us don't feel seen or heard, I don't know about you, but I start to like, dumb down, pulling back

Daniel Stillman: Yeah. I'll show you only as much of myself is absolutely required.

Natalie Nixon:   You have to absolutely value me. All right. Okay, cool. How authentically productive an organization are you really? You're not really getting the most and the best from people.

Daniel Stillman: No. Listen, our time together ... We don't have too much more time. What have I not asked you that I ought to have asked you? What is really important to make sure that we capture the message you'd everyone listening to grok from your ethos?

Natalie Nixon:   I think you asked a lot of wonderful questions, Daniel.

Daniel Stillman: Thanks.

Natalie Nixon:   And thank you again for inviting me. Just taking the time to dive into my work, I see that you did that and I really appreciate that. I don't know necessarily the question that you haven't asked, but I think that what's always just really important for me that people leave with is, is the opportunities to build their creative capacity and to, what I call oxygenate their ideas. That's how you go from an idea to reality. And oxygenating your idea, I made up that word, it's not really a verb, but to oxygenate your idea-

Daniel Stillman: No, it's totally a word.

Natalie Nixon:   Oh, it is a word?

Daniel Stillman: Yeah.

Natalie Nixon:   Okay, good.

Daniel Stillman: You can oxygenate water. Put more oxygen, take oxygen out.

Natalie Nixon:   I'm going to look out.

Daniel Stillman: It's okay. My first degree is in science.

Natalie Nixon:   You can oxygenate water, interesting.

Daniel Stillman: Oh, you totally can. You can deoxygenate water. And then if you do, a fish will not be able to live in that deoxygenated water.

Natalie Nixon:   Oh, I'm feeling a new metaphor coming up. Nice.

Daniel Stillman: It's a good word and you're allowed to use it. Even if it wasn't a real word, you still could. But anyway, please proceed with the thought that I have disrupted.

Natalie Nixon:   No. Just what I want people to leave with is, they have the agency and the ability to build a creative capacity and it takes some rigor. It takes some work. It's not always sexy. It's often very solitary. That's the rigor part. But I have this corollary expression, that I think it's in the book and I have this postcard about it, which is that, wonder is found in the midst of rigor and rigor cannot be sustained without wonder. So when I say that wonder is found in the midst of rigor, it's in the midst of doing the fundamentals, getting the mastery of skill, the solitary stuff. It's in those moments that an aha moment emerges. That's the wonder. And when I say that rigor cannot be sustained without wonder, we will burn out if we don't integrate moments and time for the awe, for the dreaming to ask new and different questions. Both are true and we have the capacity to do that. And it starts with oxygenating our ideas. Giving them light, giving them air, sharing them out.

Daniel Stillman: Yeah. I remember in grad school people were like, "Oh, I don't want to show people my portfolio without them signing an NDA." And I'm like, "Just show everyone your ideas."

Natalie Nixon:   Yeah. First of all, no one's going to interpret it the same way. There's literally nothing new under the sun. It's all about the remix. What's new is your mashup version of, your juxtaposition of the ideas.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   If you live your life in that way, you're never going to grow. You're never going to take your work to the next level based on, we don't get anywhere alone. It's through sharing-

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   That someone says, "That's interesting. That reminds me of X, Y, Z, or you should talk to someone else about this, or would you to share this at the next [inaudible 00:45:21]." That's how things grow in momentum and energy and capacity.

Daniel Stillman: Yeah. Because you have to recruit other people to be excited about your idea. All right. Very quickly, aside from your book, the Creativity Leap, which everyone should buy and read, what other book do you wish everyone would read? What's your like, God, here's one fiction and one non-fiction book that everyone should just read these two books.

Natalie Nixon:   Well, the non-fiction book that I am crushing on right now it's called The Extended Mind.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   By Annie Murphy Paul. I love this book.

Daniel Stillman: You mentioned it in your Fast Company book.

Natalie Nixon:   Yes. Because she's really uncovered and shares out so much research about new ways we should be thinking about the brain. The brain is embodied.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   The brain is not disembodied from the neck up. I'm learning a lot more myself, teaching myself a lot more about the neuroscience and creativity and that's a lot of what she's getting into in that book. And I was loving this new model of the brain and the mind that she's talking about.

Daniel Stillman: I also want to give a shout out to Tyson Yunkaporta wrote a book called Sand Talk. He's an Aboriginal, I guess philosopher you might say. Sand Talk is writing on the ground as you think and talk and yarn with other people. I think embodied cognition, thinking rooted in land and spaces is ancient.

Natalie Nixon:   It is.

Daniel Stillman: It's very ancient. I think people should read both books. Because I want that new brain, people need to see that rigor. But talking to Tyson, you're like, "Oh my God, this is as old as people."

Natalie Nixon:   Thank you for that. And that's also what she's talking about in Extended Mind, is the role of gesturing, the role of moving.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   While you're trying to remember things. And I think back to the way I used to memorize things and prepare for things in college, I would move. And if eventually you have to synthesize information in the seated position, there is that kinesthetic movement.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   Our brains are taking cues from the body. This idea of embodied work is just thrilling. I'm going to read Sand Talk. Thank you for that. I just it wrote down.

Daniel Stillman: It's super awesome.

Natalie Nixon:   The work of fiction, two, one is an oldie but goodie for me. J. California Cooper, African American writer, my favorite novels of hers is There Is Confusion. I'm going to reread that book this spring because it's just a beautifully well told story. Sometimes from the perspective of this little spider. It's kind of, what is that form of literature from South America? It's a bit of natural-

Daniel Stillman: Magical realism.

Natalie Nixon:   There's a bit of magical realism in it.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   It's also a beautiful love story as well.

Daniel Stillman: I think fiction is so important for that wonder part of our brains to get us back into human stories. I'm putting that on my bookshelf.

Natalie Nixon:   Fiction is important for building curiosity and curiosity is a precursor to empathy. If you actually want to emphasize more better, you need to read more fiction.

Daniel Stillman: Yes.

Natalie Nixon:   And the other work of fiction, again, this is not a new book, but he's a really prolific wonderful writer. A British Pakistani writer named, I think it's Mohsin Hamid, How to Get Filthy Rich in Rising Asia. I love that book.

Daniel Stillman: I remember that.

Natalie Nixon:   Is that he wrote it in the second person. Most books are written in the first person, I, we, or the third person. He wrote it in the second person. You sit there and you wonder, dah, dah, dah. There was something so brilliant about, oh my God, I'm there. I love of that.

Daniel Stillman: Yeah. The only other book I know that does that is Bright Lights, Big City by James McInerney, which is so weird to read a book in second person. And if you haven't read, I mean, to anybody listening, I remember when that came out and it's such a catchy title. I'm going to put that on my list too. With the one minute we have left because Natalie probably has another meeting to go to because that's 2022 you all. If people want to learn more about all things, Dr. Natalie Nixon, PhD, where should they find you?

Natalie Nixon:   They can simply go to figure 8, the number eight, thinking.com. So figure 8, like ice skating, figure8thinking.com. And they'll learn all about my speaking and advisory work and a lot of cool downloads if they want to download some cool stuff too.

Daniel Stillman: There you go. I think we'll leave it right there. We'll call scene.

Natalie Nixon:   Scene. Thank you, Daniel. This was so much fun. I really appreciate your time.

Daniel Stillman: Thank you. I really appreciate it. This was fun. I learned a lot.

Turning a Challenge into an Agenda

How do you turn a question, a problem, or just a list of needs, into an agenda?

At the close of a recent cohort of the facilitation masterclass, the participants were still sitting with some big questions. Which is good, because that's what the closing session is for! But I felt that some of these questions were too big for one conversation. So, I invited four alums of the facilitation masterclass to come together and share some thoughts on a fundamental challenge: turning a question into a conversation, an agenda and an arc. 

I’m joined by 

Erica O’Donnell, a hybrid professional working at the intersection of design thinking, strategy, facilitation, and innovation,

Kyle Pearce, a leader in collaborative change with an extensive background in the health and social services sector.

Frankie Iturbe, a Program Manager at Newsela, a K12 EdTech company

And Kate Farnady, Director, Chief of Staff, Strategic Technologies at Autodesk, and also the community coordinator for the Conversation Factory Insiders’s Group!

We only scratched the surface, but there's lots of goodness in here.

Just a few of the things we discussed:

  • How stated goals may not always have the whole group aligned with them, and what to do about it.

  • Sharing responsibility for the agenda and outcome with stakeholders and session attendees

  • How good insights can sometimes arise even in spite of (or perhaps because of) chaos

  • Different approaches to facilitating agendas around messy goals and questions

If you want to dive deeper, check out my course on the 9Ps of meeting planning. I'd also recommend signing up for the conversation factory insiders group...we ran another deep dive on this question, reflecting on the question "why do I need an agenda?" and sharing our responses together. You can join here and check out that session as a subscriber here.

Links, Quotes, Notes and Resources

Frankie on LinkedIn

Erica on LinkedIn

Good Seed Digital

Think: Act Consulting

Minute 11

Erica O'Donnell:

I think this really leads into one of the things that I wanted to talk about which is, I think a lot of times particularly maybe internally, I don't know. I don't have as much experience but we assume that we know that the clients or the people that we're engaging with know what the problem is, or the goal. They've defined something and we assume everyone's aligned.

I think that's actually before we even start talking about process or designing an arc, we really need to make sure or that we spend time making sure that everyone is aligned. And one of the ways we might do that is actually having some pre sessions to the session where we encourage divergent thinking before we try to align and converge. And so, we can with those key stakeholders who are maybe responsible or for defining a goal, helping them get to what the true goal is.

Minute 14

Kyle Pearce:

Well, I think what happened is exactly what Erica was saying is, the group had never had the courage to walk into that conversation because it's a deep and difficult conversation. These are the conversations that many people avoid. And so, I think what had happened was there is critical mass of people on the board who had assumed that it is like you say, I love the way you framed it which is, "We want to recruit indigenous people to the board." That is true. But the pathway to that is not simply finding people who will come and sit on the board.

My point to them, and the next stage of this work with the group is the pathway to having people on the board successfully who bring diverse perspectives, is creating a sense of belonging among the people who are already there. If you can't create that sense of belonging then those people, the people you want to be on the board are not going to last and it's not going to be successful.

Minute 19:

Daniel Stillman:

But I think that's one of the powerful things a facilitator does is to push back to say, "Well, this is your goal and this is what you say you want. And your current plan will get you there, which is why we need this other way of doing things." I think that to me, that purpose and product were those first two Ps that made so much sense to me. It's like well, this is what we want. And this is what we want to have in hand by whatever. Next week, next month, next year, whatever it is. That is concretizing, not just this lofty purpose but the real changed reality.

Minute 36

Frankie Iturbe:

But I think very simply it was all about once I had these topics, taking time to gather the input from those stakeholders to have them shape the agenda. I think yes, I had a set of topics but digging in with them to understand what they wanted to achieve was really important.

I think the other point I want to make on this portion is we'll often get told, we need this product, we need this deliverable done. Sometimes it has a tendency to overlook the real problem or what they really want. I think that's why that one-on-one either again pre-workshop, or during the workshop to unpack what we're really trying to solve for, what's the real challenge is important.

Minute 38

Frankie Iturbe:

It was my first time in front of this group of VPs and sales directors, so I was a little nervous and I was again, adding a lot of pressure on myself. In working with Daniel, I was thinking through well, how can I change that? How can I not feel so anxious or nervous and excited about this? I realized it was about sharing the responsibility with my workshop attendees, with my meeting attendants.

I realized I was seeking liberation. I didn't want to feel so like a massive weight on my shoulders over needing to crush it for this group. And so, I think I was able to open that workshop with saying, "Hey, I'm really excited what we can accomplish today. I put a lot of work into helping us get here, but I can only do so much."

It's your responsibility as well if something's not working for you to raise your hand and share a suggestion as to "Hey, how might we tweak this agenda so that we achieve the objective that you wanted?" I just, I wanted to share that piece because I've really been taking that into my work lately that, look if not, I don't need to put it all on my shoulders. Shaping this agenda, shaping this workshop is about sharing with others and letting others help shape it as well.

More About the Guests

Kate Farnady

I'm a generalist experienced working with senior executives and leadership as well as management and individual contributors to identify priorities and cross-functional process, provide clear and effective communication, remove obstacles, and make things happen.

I specialize in identifying and bridging communication gaps to help understand the big picture, facilitating prioritization and alignment, getting the best ideas on the table, and driving execution. I identify the audience, articulate the mission, clarify objectives, determine goals and metrics, draw up strategy and process, and oversee implementation. I've worked closely with finance partners and budget analysts to ensure financial alignment towards execution targets.

I've managed a wide variety of projects, working with diverse subject-area experts. I consider myself a strategic problem solver and I thrive in rapidly changing environments. I am resourceful and flexible, comfortable with ambiguity and easily adapt to new challenges.

People are my passion. I'm a thoughtful listener and facilitator with high EQ. I have worked closely with HR and people ops departments on many people-focused initiatives. I am deeply invested in empowering people through effective communication and feedback, collaboration and including diverse perspectives.

Frankie Iturbe is a Program Manager at Newsela, a K12 EdTech company. He considers his role part strategist, part designer, anchored on delivering a world-class sales experience for customers and sellers. This work keeps him entrenched in the exciting worlds of sales and facilitation. Outside of his 9-5, he publishes content on LinkedIn for job-seekers pivoting their career to more purposeful work. Reach out to him on LinkedIn to connect further. https://www.linkedin.com/in/francisco-iturbe

Erica O'Donnell (she/her) is a hybrid professional working at the intersection of design thinking, strategy, facilitation, and innovation. Her practice focuses on guiding collaborative teams to co-create products, services, and experiences that drive business and social impact. This human-centred approach helps to drive alignment across multi-faceted teams, break down silos, and encourages team ownership of the outcomes. Erica is a firm believer in leveraging a team's collective wisdom layered in with real user data to drive design decisions, whether designing employee experiences, customer experiences, or digital products. Her superpower is guiding teams to translate various inputs into actionable insights and strategic roadmaps. Erica created Good Seed Digital and hopes to make a difference in her community, one good seed at a time.

Kyle Pearce (he/him) is a leader in collaborative change with an extensive background in the health and social services sector. Kyle has worked in the field for over twenty-five years, as a program lead, community developer, social entrepreneur, executive director and funder.  He is the principal of think: act consulting.

think: act consulting inc. is an incorporated strategic consulting firm based on the traditional, unceded territories of the Squamish, Musqueam and Tsleil Waututh First Nations. Think: act’s focus is improving services and access to services for vulnerable populations, working with service providers and citizens, managers, leaders and executives to take stock of a situation, assess how to move an ambitious agenda forward, and implement a path of action that will achieve their vision. 

think: act consulting. We bring expertise in community action, health and social services, business planning, project management, funding and organizational systems, as well as skills in facilitation, communication, community engagement, research and analysis, and executive coaching. Our goal is to improve the world for the benefit of future generations.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

What I'm going to do is, I'm going to record on this computer and... Oh, I'm so nervous. I'm excited. I'm going to officially welcome you all to the Conversation Factory. Yay. We are here to potentially unpack deeply this question of how to turn a purpose and goals of a stakeholder into a powerful agenda, and an experience arc? Did I get that? Kyle, what was the question that you... Because we were discussing before we started the different ways of framing this question.

Kyle Pearce:

Well, I can work with that. I think the original question that I was coming with, which isn't too far off from what you said was. How do you turn a question or a purpose, a client's question or problem into an agenda?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Kyle Pearce:

The reason we get involved with clients is because they have problems and questions.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Kyle Pearce:

So I'm not going to answer or whatever else you're throwing at me.

Daniel Stillman:

Another reason why I've gathered you all here today is we said before we started recording, is some of us work internally inside of organizations where the client is a key stakeholder or multiple stakeholders. Some of us do this externally as a consultant. And some of us have done both. And so, I thought it would be interesting to have you all come here.

Daniel Stillman:

This was sort of a big question that even after 12 weeks of the last facilitation master class people were like, "Well, how do you really do it?" How do you really take a big, hairy, messy question and turn it into as Rudyard Kipling said "The unforgiving minute into 60 seconds worth of distance run." I think what my hypothesis was is if we could just say hello and who we are, and then we can all share a story. And then just have a deeper dive on anything that's come up. And so, I will say ladies first. Erica, would you like to say hello and tell a little bit about who you are?

Erica O'Donnell:

Yeah, absolutely. Hi Daniel. Nice to be here with you. I'm Erica O'Donnell. I work as a consultant, one of those external people that you were just talking about. I really work at the intersection of strategy, facilitation, design thinking and innovation. I help organizations, really guiding their cross-function teams to design innovative products and experiences using collaborative methods.

Daniel Stillman:

And so, you have solved this question many times, which is why you-

Erica O'Donnell:

Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. I have.

Daniel Stillman:

Kate, I'm so glad you came. Welcome on board. Tell the folks a little bit about you.

Kate Farnady:

Thank you. I as always, I'm so glad to be here. I am a chief of staff and I have been a chief of staff in various different engineering orgs for much of my career. And that lands me in squarely at the intersection of organizational strategy operations, and complicated diplomatic cat herding.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. And you've done this internally and externally?

Kate Farnady:

Yeah. Mostly I've done it internally. But I have done some pretty hefty consulting projects with engineering, and really different kinds of engineering operations around strategic planning especially. But also executive coaching.

Daniel Stillman:

Frankie. I just noticed that you have a believe sign behind you. Now that I've been watching Ted Lasso, I know what it means.

Frankie Iturbe:

That I do Daniel. I know you just recently became a big Ted Lasso fan. I'm with you there.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, the challenges my wife, God love her, has a hard time with media that has a lot of characters. Somehow Ted Lasso was inspirational enough that even though there are indeed a lot of characters in Ted Lasso, she was able to strap in and get involved. I'm really excited because it's a great show.

Frankie Iturbe:

I'm happy she's able enjoy the beauty of Ted Lasso that it is.

Daniel Stillman:

Hey, thanks for coming. I'm glad you're here too. Tell the people a little bit about you because some of these people are new to you as well.

Frankie Iturbe:

Daniel, let me start by saying it's an honor to be on the Conversation Factory. I thought many years back when I met you, "It'd be cool to be on his podcast one day." And here we are with a great group of facilitators. It really is an honor. I'm super excited for this conversation today. Let's see about me and my background. I spent about seven years in consulting almost, just wrapped that up earlier this year of doing technology and management consulting. While they're, worked a lot with helping clients apply design thinking within their sales organizations. How do you take photo market strategy, make it real across systems process, all that good stuff.

Frankie Iturbe:

Then I recently transitioned to a company named Newsela, where Newsela is a K-12 education technology company. And still within the sales org, similar to the work I was doing before. But again, helping us, how do we take our go to market strategy and really use it to again, design the systems and process that are going to help us achieve our sales targets.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you Frankie. Thanks for being here again. Kyle, what is up? I'm so glad you're here. Tell the people.

Kyle Pearce:

Me too. And glad to see Kate and Erica. Glad to see you too again. Nice to meet you Frankie. Looking forward to this conversation.

Daniel Stillman:

Also, nice winter beard. Can I say? I don't feel like I've seen you with this before.

Kyle Pearce:

You know what? I actually started growing this on the hottest a time of the summer. And I've discovered that the magic of trimmers male hygiene apparently is a thing. And-

Daniel Stillman:

It is. We can have a whole other conversation about that.

Kyle Pearce:

Yeah. Thank you very much for that.

Daniel Stillman:

Well. That means we haven't seen each other in way too long if this is my first introduction to your beard.

Kyle Pearce:

Yeah. Well that's okay. We're getting to know each other all over again today. A really brief introduction Kyle. I use he and him pronouns. I'm in Vancouver, BC or the traditional territory of Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations. I have a consulting firm called Think:Act Consulting. And the focus of my company is on improving services or access to services for marginalized populations.

Kyle Pearce:

I love this conversation because I'm also straddling two other new areas, one of which is environmental sustainability. I've been moving into doing more and more mindful work in the field of anti-racism, specifically with people who have privilege. So this is a great opportunity to share a story that's right at the intersection of almost all those things.

Daniel Stillman:

That is awesome. Well, Kyle, since you're currently holding the mic. Do you want to tell a story about how you had this challenge and maybe succeeded at this challenge, or as Kate set up struggled mightily with this challenge and achieved a lesson?

Kyle Pearce:

Well, I think the challenge that I can talk about or the situation I can talk about is more about how we catalyze something from a problem that a client has. I'm still in the middle of figuring out how do we make a complete agenda, but maybe I'll just situate it. I do a bunch of work, mostly with healthcare organizations but I also work with community agencies. I've been work working with a community center here in Vancouver doing a strategic plan, pretty straightforward.

Kyle Pearce:

I've my bells and whistles and my process for doing this kind of work, a beautiful group. A group who like many community agencies has really been touched and inspired by Black Lives Matter movement. And also by this push that's happening up here in Canada around, this terrible problem of anti indigenous racism.

Kyle Pearce:

And so, as part of the strategic plan from the very first meeting, the group was really clear. Or at least most of them were really clear that they wanted to do anti-racism work and they wanted to do decolonizing work. We call it reconciliation as well. This movement went straight through first, second, third, fourth and we're in our fifth meeting, we're kind of looking at our draft strategic plan.

Kyle Pearce:

When the small groups are breaking out, I overhear that in one group there's one of the board members is really having an adverse reaction to anti-racism, the term anti-racism and decolonizing. And framing it is, this is so negative. This word anti, it sounds like so aggressive and negative. When that group came up to share what they had talked about, in fact they had watered down this very, very significant initiative and presented it to the board. I could feel in the room, there was a great tension and anxiety as this group was talking.

Kyle Pearce:

I guess one of the participants in that group said, "You know there's this term here, decolonizing. What does that even mean?" I paused and I asked the group to pause and just take a deep breath because we were at a pretty crucial spot in the conversation. I asked them to close their eyes and to think about everything that they had ever learned about indigenous people as a child, and to reflect on what they'd been taught.

Kyle Pearce:

Then I asked them if anybody was taught positive things about an indigenous people, please share that now. And there was nothing that could be shared in the room. And so, we talked, we launched into this conversation about what decolonizing means. It's just a word but at the end of the day, it's about touching us at a very deep interior level. And going back to our own history and how we shape the world through the opinions and ideas that we get as children.

Kyle Pearce:

We're at the point now where I'm talking with the board chair about how, if you want to, if this organization wants to recruit indigenous people to the board, they have a toxic board by virtue of the fact that they're not really ready to have these conversations. I don't know how the agenda's going to shape up but it shapes up with a question like that with a challenge, with a big problem that is a challenge that that board is sharing. The only way I can think of doing it is going deep.

Daniel Stillman:

When you think about... Oh sorry, was there some else-

Erica O'Donnell:

Oh, sorry. I was just going to say, I think that's so interesting Kyle. I think this really leads into one of the things that I wanted to talk about which is, I think a lot of times particularly maybe internally, I don't know. I don't have as much experience but we assume that we know that the clients or the people that we're engaging with know what the problem is, or the goal. They've defined something and we assume everyone's aligned.

Erica O'Donnell:

I think that's actually before we even start talking about process or designing an arc, we really need to make sure or that we spend time making sure that everyone is aligned. And one of the ways we might do that is actually having some pre sessions to the session where we encourage divergent thinking before we try to align and converge. And so, we can with those key stakeholders who are maybe responsible or for defining a goal, helping them get to what the true goal is. Because actually what I'm hearing you say is the goal they stated and the actual goal is a little bit different.

Erica O'Donnell:

They wanted to do some work in this area, but in fact one of their goals is to recruit indigenous board members. How do those ladder up? How do we align to those? Then we can start to talk about designing arcs of sessions or multiple sessions, convenings. I think sometimes that's about problem framing, sometimes if it's a larger system like you're talking about maybe there are ways to get to more clear and powerful, shared intent. Where you're really digging deep into what the intention is of the session or of the group, and not just taking that face value goal.

Daniel Stillman:

I think that's a really interesting lesson to take Erica. I'm curious Kyle, clarifying and aligning to purpose it's a really good point. We assume in the founding question is we've got there. Was that the lesson you took from that?

Kyle Pearce:

Well, I think what happened is exactly what Erica was saying is, the group had never had the courage to walk into that conversation because it's a deep and difficult conversation. These are the conversations that many people avoid. And so, I think what had happened was there is critical mass of people on the board who had assumed that it is like you say, I love the way you framed it which is, "We want to recruit indigenous people to the board." That is true. But the pathway to that is not simply finding people who will come and sit on the board.

Kyle Pearce:

My point to them, and the next stage of this work with the group is the pathway to having people on the board successfully who bring diverse perspectives, is creating a sense of belonging among the people who are already there. If you can't create that sense of belonging then those people, the people you want to be on the board are not going to last and it's not going to be successful. Daniel, your mic is on mute.

Daniel Stillman:

It's bound to happen at some point. I was typing and therefore I did not want to click it clack into the microphone. Just to unpack this one more level as Erica was saying, pushing back against somebody's purpose and making sure that the purpose is clarified and saying that they're not going to get there with the current pathway, is actually a really powerful thing to say to a stakeholder. Then I think that's profound.

Kyle Pearce:

It is-

Erica O'Donnell:

Yeah.

Kyle Pearce:

Sorry. Go ahead Erica.

Erica O'Donnell:

Yeah. I was going to say, I think it's really interesting because obviously you're talking about a very highly emotional topic. But actually we see this even if we're just talking about designing products. Because the engineering stakeholder, the head of product has a different desire for what they're looking for to get out of potentially the head of design.

Erica O'Donnell:

My point is it's not even really necessarily always about the topic and being fraught with emotion. It can just be a matter of misalignment and making sure that we understand what those key blockers or barriers that the group might be seeing to feeling accountable to achieving this collective work, and working through those before we ever start designing an agenda.

Daniel Stillman:

I'll [crosstalk 00:16:40]. Oh, sorry. Go ahead Kate. Yeah, jump away.

Kate Farnady:

I'm going to jump in and just make trouble. Which is that one of the things I've experienced is that, sometimes you can't even have visibility into the lack of alignment or the depth or extent of the lack of alignment until you get into conversation. And so, I think there is also a case for the diving in and revealing, and exploring. I think it really depends on what your topic is. And there's like for sure, sensitivity and around topics. Sometimes the diving in is what gives you the real story that you need to be productive, and you might not see it, might not even be able to access it to dive in.

Daniel Stillman:

Frankie, you had your hand up.

Frankie Iturbe:

Yeah. Something I want to jump here and mention, it's gotten mentioned a bit and Kate brought it up here in referencing alignment. And then Erica briefly mentions problem framing. I want to double stitch that here for a sec so. I think you can approach this problem framing either in co-planning, which Erica alluded to leading up to the workshop or your meeting.

Frankie Iturbe:

There's time to go one on one with your stakeholders and start to understand what their view of their problem statement is. Or I think you can work that into your agenda. Where you can use something like the abstraction ladder to look at the why and the how of your problem statement and do it in your workshop. You're driving that alignment in the workshop. I think I've approached it both ways. Both forms where you're doing it ahead of the workshop or meeting with co-planning or during the workshop. But ultimately what you're doing is you're reframing the problem and you're driving that alignment.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I think either way, there's always a risk that as you say Kate, people may not actually know that they disagree until they get into the room and getting into the conversation. When I think about the nine Ps of planning, this purpose, we started with purpose and the pushback which maybe is another P hilariously is, do we in fact, are we truly aligned to purpose? And do we do that in a pre-conversation or not?

Daniel Stillman:

But something else I heard from Kyle, I think is interesting. And then I think we should shift to someone else, sharing another story is. I always find that clarifying the product, and Erica your sense that the product is a product. But in your sense, Kyle the product is a different reality, a different changed experience. And if somebody says, "This is our result, we'd like blank." Then you can say, "Well, we're not going to get that with our current approach. Therefore I have this other approach it's called realizing that anti-racism exists."

Daniel Stillman:

But I think that's one of the powerful things a facilitator does is to push back to say, "Well, this is your goal and this is what you say you want. And your current plan won't get you there, which is why we need this other way of doing things." I think that to me, that purpose and product were those first two Ps that made so much sense to me. It's like well, this is what we want. And this is what we want to have in hand by whatever. Next week, next month, next year, whatever it is. That is concretizing, not just this lofty purpose but the real changed reality.

Daniel Stillman:

We're going to know this is working when our board is blank percent. And if they can align on that like, well, yeah. Okay. That's how we'll know who's successful. Then we can go back and say, "Okay, well, how do we get us there?" Sorry, Kyle, is there one more thing you wanted to say to [crosstalk 00:20:35]-

Kyle Pearce:

No, I just love that. And this is why I like this group. We all come from different... My work is mostly in fuzzy areas, but the bottom line is there is no direct path to the outcome. There's a whole E circuit of conversation, there's external conversation, there's internal dialogue, there's transformative work that has to be done. Sometimes there's simply change on the board of the organization. It surfaces on things that really need to be worked through at a deeper level so.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, it's really funny Kyle because in a way in the implied in the question that the group was asking, is the assumption that there is a perfect arc that will guaranteed get me to the thing I want. And what you're saying again is questioning that it's, if it's in complexity it will be wrong in ways you can't even imagine until you get started.

Kate Farnady:

Well, actually Daniel I would add to that if it involves human beings [inaudible 00:21:34].

Daniel Stillman:

Or technology, which is made by human beings.

Kate Farnady:

Yeah. It is true. I reflect on the notion of a board that wants more diversity, but doesn't believe in the concept of anti-racism or can't talk about it is not a safe board for anyone who-

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Kate Farnady:

So there you go.

Daniel Stillman:

But they're working on it.

Kate Farnady:

Yeah. Totally. And good luck with that. I mean that genuinely.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Kate Farnady:

It's important work. We got to do it even though it's really painful and hard.

Kyle Pearce:

They're clearly not the only board that has this issue.

Daniel Stillman:

No. Who else has a story of an amazing winner or a terrible failure, or as Kyle did the middle, the messy middle? Kate is not only raising her hand, she's wiggling her fingers.

Kate Farnady:

I know. I'm just feeling it. And this conversation is going in such a beautiful direction to fit my messy story. Which is in engineering organizations, it's a perennial challenge as budgets, urban flow, and as people come and go, there's always this question of overworked teams and prioritization. Like how do we build capacity? Or what is the problem we're trying to solve here? How are we getting in our way?

Kate Farnady:

I've had the experience with engineering leadership teams of like okay, let's solve this. And the experience where we like, okay. We have our problem statement, we build a mural, we've got four stages. We're going to do a discovery stage, we're going to surface all the ideas, and then we're going to cluster them and figure out what the big themes are. Then we're going to vote on them, and then we'll come up with our number one big theme. Then we'll go and-

Daniel Stillman:

Very rational design thinking-driven approach.

Kate Farnady:

And it was like, it made so much sense and it became clear to me. We took it, and actually I wasn't even driving the mural, I was kind of co-facilitating. I had someone else who was kind of driving this concept of these stages in the mural, and this is how we'd come to the answer and I let them run their course. But actually it was within the first like 10 minutes of the, we hadn't even gotten to the clustering. We were doing the thinking of all the issues, and coming up with the kind of wild brainstorm.

Kate Farnady:

It just became so clear that we had opened Pandora's box. In a way that even in the time we had, I think we had a 90 minutes. That I could already see as the box was opening, and the things were starting to fly out that the idea of actually like going through this process and voting on one, that was going to be the one we'd focus on was just absurd, completely absurd. And so, we had some chaos and then we had a chaotic experience of clustering.

Kate Farnady:

Then we had this mural that was poorly clustered because there's so many arguments for how you could categorize things. And people were kind of disagreeing and saying like, "Oh, I need to add one more thing. Or actually I think we need a different category." Then our process person, bless their hearts, was pushing to a vote. And so, we were kind of before it. We were in chaos about the ideas, the clustering was off and this person was really pushing a vote.

Kate Farnady:

And so, we did this vote and then we ended the session because we didn't have time. It was just amazing. And I had decided to go ahead with it because I thought, we could just wait, we could try to make it perfect. We could try to think it through more, we could try to get buy-in ahead of time. I just said, "What the heck? Let's just see what happens. What's the worst thing that could happen?"

Kate Farnady:

And so, one of the other things that happens is two people got in a fight. And they got a fight and they couldn't figure it out, they couldn't see each other's perspectives. We ended the meeting and I felt like a facilitation failure. I just sat on that for a while and was like "Oh, this is hard." Then I went back to the mural and I took it and I wrote it into bulleted points and I looked at it and looked at it, and all of a sudden I saw a bunch of themes. It turns out that everybody else went away from the meeting and were thinking and thinking.

Kate Farnady:

The two people who got in a fight came back together and unpacked the fight separately. And was like, "I think I misunderstood you and I want to make sure we under... So that piece happened on the side. That was interesting. Another person came back and said, "You know what? In that conversation I got a new understanding of what was going on with my team, and I wouldn't have had that. I'm coming up with an idea of something I want to tackle because of it."

Kate Farnady:

Then I went back to my boss and I gave my boss the downloaded words of the mural. They started looking at it and we started to identify a really big theme. And so, what happened was this unleashing of the chaos was something that actually allowed us to get visibility into the lay of the land in a way we really didn't have before. And we're like, the next step was really to pull out a few threads. Look at the themes, pull out a few threads and decide as an organization where we could really make some impact. And it came in different places.

Kate Farnady:

It came in this like relationship that evolved because of a fight and coming back and oh, there's a good word for it but my old brain is forgetting it. It was just like this reconciliation process was a big learning experience for them. The one person who came out of it with a pilot project and then coming back at a meta level on the leadership team and having a picture of how our team operates, how they think [crosstalk 00:28:03]-

Daniel Stillman:

So Kate can-

Kate Farnady:

... to do as leaders to get traction.

Daniel Stillman:

Sorry to... Well-

Kate Farnady:

No-

Daniel Stillman:

I'm jumping in because of time. But also I'm wondering, I think this is a really great story of... And also Eric, I see you have your hand up too. I'll loop you in just a second. This sounds to me like a story of creating success out of complexity. But in terms of the question that we're posing, when you think about, I wasn't actually clear from the story, whether you or the process person was the person who designed this flow. And where you feel like if we were going back to the beginning, what you would've done differently in terms of designing the arc. Or if we're just accepting that oh, messiness and complexity is the way that this will always happen. I mean, the way Kyle is sort of proposing.

Kate Farnady:

I would say there's a million other ways to do it, for sure. And in this case I was happy that we dove in. And it was the ownership of the plan was unclear, we didn't really know. I think there was a way in which going into it with chaos really helped us identify what problem we needed to solve. And so, I think that's-

Daniel Stillman:

It's interesting. Because when we look at the question, how do you turn a question into a process and an agenda? It sounds like you loosely did that.

Kate Farnady:

We turned a process into a question I think. Now we're applying a process to it.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It's interesting. Erica, what's this sparking for you?

Erica O'Donnell:

Well, I love it. I love how Kate just embraces that messiness. I so much more, want everything buttoned up and know exactly what I'm going into you as anyone of you that have worked with me know, I do sort of more linear thinking. And so, one of the things that sparked for me was this idea of the maybe unintended consequences, which were about connection between her team members for example.

Erica O'Donnell:

I really like this framework that was developed by a group called CoCreative out of Washington DC. And they have what they call Four Agendas in Collaborative Innovation. And one of them just really spoke to me with what Kate was talking about, which is their connecting agenda. So they use the heart as an example for that. And really, that's focused on developing relationships within a network or a team.

Erica O'Donnell:

It's interesting, a lot of these aligned to some of the meeting OS that we looked at in the last facilitation, or two facilitation Fridays a go with Trisha Conners too with types of meetings. They have a connecting one. They have one called aligning which is really, they use the spirit as the icon for that. That's really about defining intent and best worst case scenarios, that kind of thing.

Erica O'Donnell:

They have a learning agenda, symbolized by the head and they have a making agenda. This is the space that I usually play in is in the making, when we're talking about products and experiences. And so, I'm really comfortable there. And this is prototyping and testing and all of the stuff that any of us who have worked in digital or in product are really familiar with.

Erica O'Donnell:

But some of the other agendas, those frameworks I think are really important to dive into and understand. Even if you're in a making process, there are always the edges of all of those other things that are happening. People are learning, they're connecting, they're aligning.

Erica O'Donnell:

And so, how you create an agenda and include or an arc of a session or multiple sessions needs to have the core primary purpose. But you always need to also be thinking about those edges of the secondary or tertiary ways that people are working together, and what they're producing. Isn't always just a prototype might be a better relationship between two people that need to work together, right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. That's so interesting. I love the idea that there are these multiple agendas. We always know that people have multiple agendas in group work, but the idea that a facilitator needs to be aware of these multiple layers. And that it's not simply about, what are we going to do when during this time we have together? It's these other layers, which is really awesome. How has that changed how you work? Sorry. Frankie. Was there something you wanted to "yes and" on that?

Frankie Iturbe:

All I was going to add there to Erica's point was I'm a huge fan of, after you align on that objective, that outcome, finding those recipes. Those agendas you mentioned from CoCreative that are there. I think I'm a big fan of it's a proven recipe or a combination for a reason, big fan of LUMA Workplace as well obviously. Yes. It's important to take those and break them where it makes sense, but those recipes often are tried and tested. And that very often will start my planning process working around those because I know those work. Those have been used for years and years.

Erica O'Donnell:

Yeah. I would agree Frankie. I go to those and then the double diamond, like divergence convergence is always right at the core. And whether that's to define, the space that we're working in. Are we working in the problem space or the solution space? At a macro level but also in the more micro level in each session, you're probably going through that arc of problem solution, problem solution across either one or multiple sessions. So using those models that we have and those recipes, I like that language like pulling the recipe. We can tweak a recipe but there's a reason, the basic ingredients work and it's been tested so I like that language a lot.

Frankie Iturbe:

I think Daniel encourages us to be... I think you've written about this somewhere Daniel for us to use recipes, but to also be chefs and make our own, correct? Something like that. I've heard you mention.

Daniel Stillman:

Sure. Well, it's funny my friend Patty who's an amazing chef, there's this idea of like you're tasting it as you go. That's where sensing and responding and deciding like oh, this is going horribly wrong but continuing to work with it. And trusting that something interesting can come out of it is I think in a way what... I think Kate, what I'm taking from your story is yeah, things might be messy in the middle but something good might be on the other side.

Daniel Stillman:

And Erica's point that unless we address these three other agendas intelligently or thoughtfully, they're going to manifest themselves regardless. We have like about 15 minutes left, which means I'd like to make sure that we hear a story from Erica and Frankie as well as some unpacking together. Who wants to go next? Who's got a story to share?

Frankie Iturbe:

I can jump in Daniel.

Daniel Stillman:

Sweet.

Frankie Iturbe:

All right. Well, let's see. So I'm take us back to a recent experience in my new job. Well, I've been here about six months and not so new now, facilitating a workshop on the inside internal. Quick bit of context. I think actually going back to the prompt Daniel you said, how do you take a question turn that into a process or an agenda? Something I realized as you said that was well in this scenario that I'm going to walk through, is I wasn't given a question. I was given a set of topics.

Frankie Iturbe:

Hey, Frankie. We need to put together a sales territory map, a org structure, and a set of guidelines for a working relationship between our employees. And so, I think that's where it's a little different. You're not given a question, you're given a set of topics. How did I approach that? I think something I'll see, hopefully you'll you throughout the story is leaning on my stakeholders. What, for example in a workshop, I think Daniel, we call that lazy facilitation. We'll elaborate more on that in a second. But you can also apply that leading up to.

Frankie Iturbe:

I think it's easy, at least for myself in the midst of this workshop. I put a lot of pressure and self-induced stress on myself in getting ready for it. But I think very simply it was all about once I had these topics, taking time to gather the input from those stakeholders to have them shape the agenda. I think yes, I had a set of topics but digging in with them to understand what they wanted to achieve was really important.

Frankie Iturbe:

I think the other point I want to make on this portion is we'll often get told, we need this product, we need this deliverable done. Sometimes it has a tendency to overlook the real problem or what they really want. I think that's why that one-on-one either again pre-workshop, or during the workshop to unpack what we're really trying to solve for, what's the real challenge is important.

Frankie Iturbe:

Then the last part I want to jump through. Two more quick points I'll hit on the story is. So after I spent a lot of time with my stakeholders and whatnot, it was group of five that I was working with to develop these sales assets. I had a ton of notes, a lot of complexity. And I realized actually, through working with you Daniel through one of our sessions together, I had to just simplify it.

Frankie Iturbe:

I had all this information and I really needed to just take it to a clean agenda. I have two days that means I have two halves in each day, the morning and afternoon. And I probably got two segments in each of those halves. From there, I was able to take it down to a really simple agenda where I then started taking that around to my stakeholders, and sharing it with them to gather the feedback on that. So really simplifying it I think, was really key in my process there and just listing out a simple agenda.

Frankie Iturbe:

The last I want to close on with this story is I mentioned earlier, I went into this workshop. It was my first time in front of this group of VPs and sales directors, so I was a little nervous and I was again, adding a lot of pressure on myself. In working with Daniel, I was thinking through well, how can I change that? How can I not feel so anxious or nervous and excited about this? I realized it was about sharing the responsibility with my workshop attendees, with my meeting attendants.

Frankie Iturbe:

I realized I was seeking liberation. I didn't want to feel so like a massive weight on my shoulders over needing to crush it for this group. And so, I think I was able to open that workshop with saying, "Hey, I'm really excited what we can accomplish today. I put a lot of work into helping us get here, but I can only do so much."

Frankie Iturbe:

It's your responsibility as well if something's not working for you to raise your hand and share a suggestion as to "Hey, how might we tweak this agenda so that we achieve the objective that you wanted?" I just, I wanted to share that piece because I've really been taking that into my work lately that, look if not, I don't need to put it all on my shoulders. Shaping this agenda, shaping this workshop is about sharing with others and letting others help shape it as well.

Kyle Pearce:

I love that Frankie. You're speaking to the core piece, which is something that I learned from Daniel, and with Kate, and Erica. Which is that we often as facilitators believe that the problem is ours, question is ours. Our responsible is to answer it and to come up like when we're having these great discussions about when it falls apart. But at the end of the day our job is really to help our participants both identify the problem and the solution.

Erica O'Donnell:

Yeah. I love that. I use Daniel's words a lot, which is to create the conditions for transformative conversation rather than forcing the transformative conversation is very different, or being responsible for the outcome of that conversation. It's about creating those conditions. That's what we're accountable as facilitators. It's a bit of a mind shift and I really think it aligns with what you're talking about Frankie.

Kate Farnady:

That all really resonates for me in thinking about what my experience of the chaos was, was that the path really emerged from the chaos in a really productive of way. But it needed that space for people to be able to contribute and expose the ideas and participate in that way.

Kyle Pearce:

Can I reframe that, Kate? I love it because the question that your group ultimately had was, how can we work through these complex problems? Instead of providing a process for them, you actually engaged them in an experiential learning process of how they did it. Then they use their own resources. This is the other thing is, we often take these responsibilities on because we underestimate the resources of the people in the room. I love the fact that that messy, messy processing ended up helping those people emerge, emerge their own strengths.

Kate Farnady:

I'll add one thing. I think that's a great reframing. It was a group that was really in the forming, in the forming storming norming phases. And so, and it was an internal group. And so, there's a way in which that really was part of the formative storming phase and it helped move the team forward in that respect as well. It's kind of back to Erica's point.

Daniel Stillman:

Speaking of Erica, we need to get to you. There's just one thing I want to make sure I say, so I don't forget it myself is. One thing that Frankie said that I think is really powerful is you just think about the time you have. And I'm working with a company where I didn't realize how many time zones they were across. The only time synchronously they have is totally absurd time slot, it's like eight to 10:00 AM Eastern time, which is crappy for Singapore and awful for the West Coast people but tolerable for everyone.

Daniel Stillman:

It's hard because I don't know if we can get the best work out of everybody synchronously in those two hours, given everybody's condition. Frankie was in person, so he was able to do a different thing. The question of how many questions we can actually address in these more collaborative, complexity minded ways is... This is not a 30 minute standup where you're like, "Okay, here are these five things, bang, bang, bang, how are you doing with that Kate? How are you doing with that Kyle? Okay. Good, great. Next, next, next."

Daniel Stillman:

In 90 minutes Kate, you got to the beginning. I think a lot of times this is where I think the law of subtraction is always a helpful thing with your agendas to say, like take something out. Because while we underestimate people's capacity to deal with complexity, I think we overestimate sometimes our ability to get them through an extraordinary amount of stuff in a very short period of time.

Kate Farnady:

Totally. I will say that meeting was across four GOS.

Erica O'Donnell:

Yeah. I think that's a huge consideration is the amount of time you have and then number of people. And I think this is something I really learned in the masterclass with all of you was, the more attendees the less time each person gets to speak. And so, there's this, we're talking about the arc but also we're talking about how many people, how much time? Those constraints are very real and they really impact what you can do with that middle part of the agenda.

Erica O'Donnell:

Sometimes you have infinite time, if you're talking about large systems thinking, network type level stuff, and other times you really have big constraints and those can make a big difference. I don't have a great anecdote for you guys that's easy to jump into, mine's a little complex. I was just going to get super tactical as is my want and talk about how for me, when I'm designing an agenda, it's really easy to start from the beginning and go to the end. Like what are we going to do first? What are we going to do second? I really try to not do that.

Erica O'Donnell:

I often start at the end, I think about what is it that we're trying to achieve? I ask self questions like, what decisions are we going to make next? How is the product of this going to be used? What questions do we need to answer? Then I can kind of work back. Maybe it's not even the back but it's that messy middle is where I start, and then I layer in a close talking about that. How are we moving this into the next thing? What ever that's another session or something else.

Erica O'Donnell:

Then I think about a warmup or an activator, or an eye opener which a lot of times we might start there. But why I do that is because then I can say, what part of my everyone's brain are we trying to activate? What types of collaborative conversations are we having? If it's a connecting agenda where we're really trying to establish relationships, maybe we start with some appreciative inquiry, where two people are talking to each other about a positive experience and they're creating that dynamic.

Erica O'Donnell:

If it's a creating agenda, maybe it will do a quick draw me a picture just to get people in this idea of like a sketch doesn't have to be perfect, and you have 10 seconds to draw a picture. That's super tactical but just a way to bookend to say, we spent a lot of time talking about that middle, but there's always those really important open that set the stage and the close of moving this conversation forward.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, just to like really, really double stitch for you the close isn't just, what do we want to end? What's the product we want to have in our hand? It's how the close becomes a springboard for the open,-

Erica O'Donnell:

Yes.

Daniel Stillman:

... right?

Erica O'Donnell:

Yes.

Daniel Stillman:

How will that get me momentum on this much bigger arc that I'm holding in my mind? And this is where the big arc, little arc method for me. It's not this open and close, it's like the next open and close and it's part of a much bigger, you're in service of a much bigger vision for them. Also I want acknowledge, it's the limit of the time we said we... I obviously have no place else to go but hang out with you guys. But I will ask people to check out. If you can stay a little longer, we'll wrap up whatever threads. Erica, I appreciate you going super tactical. And-

Kyle Pearce:

Yes.

Daniel Stillman:

... as far as secret sauce, years later when people have come to a facilitation workshop of mine, open exploring close, it's like the only thing they remember. Because it's everything, it's the whole thing. And I love this idea of what the close really means. Like you have a very, very deep understanding of why the close is important. And I love that. That's my checkout.

Erica O'Donnell:

Thank you-

Daniel Stillman:

I will pass them out. Erica, if there's anything extra you wanted to say. Also Kate, I know you had to go on time as well. But thank you. Thank you everyone for this conversation.

Erica O'Donnell:

Yeah. Thank you Daniel. I, I think I definitely took a few things away from the conversation. I love Frankie's idea of leaning on other collaborators to own the outcome and own even in the process. That's a great takeaway. And for me, embracing messiness is always a struggle, a difficult thing for me so Kate's story gave me anxiety. But in a good way to remember that these things are messy. That humans are not linear and perfectly structured. So appreciate the conversation as always.

Daniel Stillman:

Erica, I'll just say humans are the definition of nonlinear. When I try to explain nonlinearity to people in complexity. If you tell someone to calm down and they get more angry, that is the definition of nonlinear.

Erica O'Donnell:

Yeah. Absolutely.

Daniel Stillman:

Like, "Hey, calm down." And they become 20 times more angry. That is a non-linear response to stimulus.

Erica O'Donnell:

Oh yes. I have a six-year-old. I'm very familiar with that reaction.

Daniel Stillman:

Amazing. Who else has something they're checking out with?

Kyle Pearce:

I'll go. There's so much to, to grasp on to here. But one of the things I'm going away with is a little drawing in my notebook where we had talked about these different types of meetings, the different levels of benefit that a meeting can bring. And I was just reflecting on how my meetings, I'm usually bouncing up and down from the spiritual to the learning too et cetera, et cetera. This has made me think in a much more zen-like way about really there's four lines or five lines that are going through. And what we really need to do is touch on all of them, and give an opportunity for all of them to be expressed. So gratitude to all of you for this conversation. Thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you Kyle. Frankie, Kate.

Frankie Iturbe:

Yeah. [crosstalk 00:49:56]. Did you want [crosstalk 00:49:57] to go Kate? Go ahead.

Kate Farnady:

Yeah. I'll just be quick because I do have to go and I'm cheating on my other meeting for you guys [inaudible 00:50:06] fight about. One of the things I love about these sessions with you Daniel is it always, always illustrates the wild diversity of the facilitation program and the different approaches. I loved hearing Erica's approach. I learned from everybody. And it just reminds me about what a challenge it is to do this work and how we bring such different approaches. I don't know. It fills me up to see and hear about other people's approaches. I love it. So thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you Kate. I really appreciate you bringing in the norming, storming performing. It's like I'm these three layers of the four types of agendas, opening, exploring and closing. And then where they are in their evolution as a team are three things that I'm holding in as a really interesting takeaways.

Kate Farnady:

I have to say like one last little a bit is that this actually the chaos approach was really right on. I had a gut instinct about it when I went into it, but it was right on for where this team was in its formation. I think it helped progress that in its open endedness. That was not really by design for the start.

Daniel Stillman:

But it can be next time. Kate, don't cheat on your meeting for too much longer. And Frankie, let's give the mic over to you. Then obviously I know people have other places to be. I'm so grateful for this conversation. Frankie, what are you taking away from this conversation?

Frankie Iturbe:

The item I want to check out with Daniel, Kate, Erica, and Kyle here is an expansion of a mental model I use for my workshop. Often I try to think about my workshops or meetings and outcomes, inputs and outputs. I think Erica helped me build on that as what she was sharing. I think outputs, we typically think, especially in the product world, you think of that as a working prototype or a product.

Frankie Iturbe:

But I like that Erica mentioned you could end at, what questions will we have at the end of this meeting or this workshop, or this sprint, whatever we're doing, right? I think it's just really important, I'm taking that away to be at peace and be okay with hey, my output again doesn't need to be a working prototype. It can be a set of questions that we're then going to go tackle next time we meet, next time we gather.

Daniel Stillman:

That's awesome. The inputs and outputs is like such a powerful question but then the question is like and then what are the outputs for, right? But that is the outcomes. Tell me more about this insight. How does this evolve your model for you?

Frankie Iturbe:

I just feel like one growth that for me was realizing so again, working in a space where it's not within sales org, it's not always so product driven. We're not delivering a specific product. It took me a while to adopt like, okay. An output can be a useful value, output can be this new org structure. It doesn't need to be something tangible in our systems yet. But the way that it evolved for me with Erica's comments was, what did I write down exactly in my notes?

Frankie Iturbe:

I also wrote, what decisions are we going to make next? Like we finished this work and then what decisions will we be able to make with this? It kind of goes back, actually, it's getting very meta here Daniel. It becomes an input to your point. I think that might have been what you were saying when you asked me the questions. Sorry if I misunderstood. But those set of questions, those decisions you can now go make become your inputs for the next iterations that you're going through.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. That's awesome and really powerful. Thanks for that Frankie. And thanks to everyone for being so open and generous with your process and your wisdom. Kate had to hop and it's time for everyone to hop. But I appreciate you making time for this conversation. This is great.

Erica O'Donnell:

Well, thanks so much for including me down and Frankie, Kyle, Kate. It was a real pleasure to chat with you and to meet you Frankie for the first time. So I'll, hopefully will see you again at another Conversation Factory, conversation.

Daniel Stillman:

Frankie doesn't know this, but I want to rope him into a facilitation Friday. He did an amazing session during the last master class where he facilitated something boring and on purpose. It's something that, we're talking about powerful agendas and deep transformation and he was trying to answer the question. How do I motivate a group of people to just get through some boring shit that we got to talk about?

Erica O'Donnell:

To go through a spreadsheet? How do you get through that? How do you power people through that? That was a fun one. [crosstalk 00:55:12]-

Daniel Stillman:

It is. It was a great prompt. I think it was a really fun exercise too. And so, no spoilers. But I think it's an inverse and maybe a more common challenge of like okay, everyone gathering tasks and assigning tasks.

Erica O'Donnell:

Yeah. Like building product backlogs or something collaboratively, it's just painful writing collaboratively writing user stories and everyone just wants to not be there. I hear you. These are challenges that are... I love it. I want to come to that session and Frankie.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, maybe afterwards.

Kyle Pearce:

I'm up for Daniel. I'm up for it.

Daniel Stillman:

Maybe after the session Erica, you and Frankie and I can debrief what wisdom you derived from it. Because I think there's a lot to be said about how to take the everyday stuff we do, and somehow still make it deeply engaging.

Frankie Iturbe:

Indeed, indeed. I just want to echo back Erica's comments back to her as well, and to Kyle and to Kate pleasure, meeting you all as well. Learned so much in an hour probably saw me taking, I'm an avid, taking copious notes and just learned a lot from you all. Definitely look forward to learning more from you all in the future.

Daniel Stillman:

Awesome. Thank you. Kyle, you had one more thing on the tip of your tongue.

Kyle Pearce:

It just all bounces around. Beautiful. Nice to meet you Frank. Daniel, thanks for looping me in on this one. Glad to participate. And Erica, great to see you again.

Daniel Stillman:

Frankie I want your notes. They may make it into my show notes.

Frankie Iturbe:

They're not as cool as like, I'm sure the sketches that you have Daniel but-

Daniel Stillman:

They'll make it into OneNote and then they'll be much, much better. All right, I'm going to call scene and stop recording and release you all from...

Communities are Conversations

I'm thrilled to be able to share this conversation with Carrie Melissa Jones with you! Carrie is the co-author of Building Brand Communities, with Charles Vogl, and she's kind of a big deal in the community-building world. She's also an alum of the facilitation masterclass and a friend. 

In this wide-ranging conversation, we dig deep on the subject of community as a conversation. As Carrie says, every community starts with a conversation, and conversations are what sustain communities and hold them together.

Some of what we cover in this 3-part episode:

  • What community really is, and how organizations get it wrong

  • The power of online relationships and how they can help us

  • How the community-builder affects the community

  • The inner work that goes along with community building, and how that affects brand communities

  • The conversation that launched a book - the story of Building Brand Communities

  • The difference between meaningful engagement and empty engagement

  • Why brand communities? What role do they play in rebuilding our social fabric?

  • How modern community-building efforts are still being shaped by outdated ideas

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

Carrie's Website

Podcast episode: Being a Beginner is Often the Key We Need for Empathy and Creativity

Building Brand Communities, by Carrie Melissa Jones and Charles H. Vogl

The Power of Ritual with Casper ter Kuile

Minute 5

So I know that is possible to create long-lasting lifelong friendships through the internet. And that's basically what my drive to do this all day every day is, I know we can create meaningful relationships that sustain us that actually regenerate much of what's been lost of our social fabric and you know, through disconnection and technology and all that, we can regenerate it, but it's going to take massive culture level change. So right now I do that for organization. I hope to be able to expand that out and really be part of this culture level change over the long term as well.

Minute 9

And this is an evolving answer but I actually think that a lot of the reason for our disconnection and alienation and isolation from one another is economically created and was accelerated during the industrial revolution. So I work with organizations specifically because I see them as one of the root problems in our society causing this disconnection. And so if organizations are continually going out using the word community, which many of them are just using it, willy nilly, and then not backing it up with actions. What that does is it creates, it just wipes out what actually I've heard Casper say, community washing is what a lot of organizations do.

And at the organizational level, it means that they're not actually following up on what they're doing, or what they're saying with actions, because they're not working in integrity.

Minute 17

Organizations to me are one of the top culprits of like doing this wrong and creating some major, major issues. And I've worked with a variety of organizations, some of which are completely humble about this fact. And they say, "we want to do better." And then I've worked with really large organizations who one time a VP at the end of a four hour workshop said to me, "this is really nice and all but we're not going to do anything with this."

So she came to me in my program and said, "Carrie, unfortunately, I lost my job in the pandemic, but this is something I really want to build up my skills around online community building. I don't want you to give it to me for free. I want to be an investment. And what do you think about work study?" And I thought about the times when I used to do yoga in person, and there was always work study opportunities at my yoga studio. Anyone could come in and offer their services for free yoga classes. And so I thought, yeah we'll do that. I'll just make like a little yoga studio

Out of this. And with her, it was an organic process of, figuring out what do you want to do? Like what do you want to do with your life, your work, and how can I give things away for you to take on, to build up your skills? And now I have four different work study students. So I actually made it part of the process. And I think it's really important that I put that work study out there. Just like you put your scholarships out there because it's an issue of equity if we just keep it secret, like oh yeah if you ask me, I might give you a discount.

Minute 26

Daniel Stillman:

I was thinking about the places and spaces and the mechanics, but I really like that you went to the inner move or the inner move of being open. Being present and being aware of reciprocity. Which is, you can go to all the places and spaces, but if you don't have the inner move, then you're not going to be able to take advantage of it.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. I think that's something I realized too, in the last few years. Because, in the past I might have said, "Yeah, well you go to Facebook groups." And then you go and here's all these tactical things. I can tell you, none of that matters. In fact, none of it matters. I think it surprises my clients because they realize that they must change in order to build community. And that's pretty huge.

Minute 36

Daniel Stillman:

but I think what's interesting here is, the question I was sitting with was, well, what's the most important conversation that the brand community isn't having and that you want to invite? And it seems like I'm wondering what the shadow is. And I'm seeing that that is of great interest to you. What aren't we talking about? What aren't we looking at is really important.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

I think that's what people aren't talking about is the inner work that it requires and the fact that it... Whatever issues you have around being in relationship with others, if you plan to build a community that issue is going to come up. So who you are is going to either accelerate or inhibit the community that you're able to build.

More About Carrie Melissa

Online community has helped me through some of the most challenging times in my life.

As a lonely, depressed and awkward teen, I discovered online communities as one of the only places where I could be seen, appreciated, and cared for by total strangers — who then became my friends. It was in virtual spaces that I first found confidence and acceptance. Over time, I was able to bridge the gap and bring that confidence into my “offline world.”

Online community started it all.

I credit these early experiences for laying the foundation for my skills leading communities. Every day, I see online spaces tearing people apart. I know we can do better, and I know the difference between genuine, meaningful community and community with no soul and center.

As the founder of Gather Community Consulting, I consult with brands and community leaders to build successful online communities. I am also a speaker and educator on the topic of online communities, community-based movements, and community leadership.

Prior to founding Gather, I was the Founding Partner and COO for CMX Media (acquired by Bevy Labs), a unique “community of community builders” that provided training, events, and programs for community builders around the world. I got my professional start in community management in roles with Socratic (AI-based education app), Scribd (online library), and Chegg (online book rentals).

In 2016, I was named by Salesforce as one of three experts to follow in community management, and my writing on communities has appeared in Venture Beat, Convince and Convert, The Next Web, First Round Review, and Creator by WeWork.

In addition to being passionate about helping organizations build communities, I’m a passionate advocate for community leaders.

I’m a graduate of UCLA and have done volunteer work for Young Women Empowered, Indivisible Washington, Emerge America, and Feeding America. I am currently an M.A. student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, studying online communities and well-being.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

Well, then I'll officially welcome you to the conversation factory. Oh my God. It's really happening. It's you it's me.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

I'm so excited.

Daniel Stillman:

We're breaking the sixth wall, Carrie. You are. I love that you actually go for walks with a podcast. Where do you walk when you walk?

Carrie Melissa Jones:

I walk in Milwaukee. So I, Milwaukee. Yeah, I had to. Yeah, so I live about two blocks from Lake Michigan and I walk not, the exact same path every day, but close to it. And so I walk along, it's called Lake Park. It's actually where I got married last year. And so I look at that almost every day, like where we got married in the park and walk across the couple bridges, walk by a country club, walk under like, yeah. It's really beautiful and cold right now. Freezing.

Daniel Stillman:

Congratulations. I don't think I knew that you got married last year.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah, yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

I should have, I should have you were asking me about my honeymoon, which apparently I dropped lots of mentions of apparently.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

No, I was just, I knew you did something fun in 2021, which we all needed to do something fun, but yeah, I got married with three different ceremonies last year, so yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

What were the three ceremonies for?

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Well, pandemic related. I never would've. We never would've done that prior. The first one was legally. I didn't realize that getting married, you had to legally sign paperwork sometimes before, sometimes after the ceremony. Yeah. So because the courthouse was shut down in Milwaukee, you couldn't go and just get a judge to sign it. So we said, if we have to get this done, like we have to get someone to officiate for us. Like we might as well just make it a thing and let's just have a ton of fun. So we got married in the park and then went to our favorite restaurant and it was like, we just had a little private area. Then we did our vows and stuff in Colorado on the top of a mountain at sunrise. And then we did.

Daniel Stillman:

I do remember you talking about that. That sounds, so fun.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah, it was amazing with some of our best friends from childhood and his from way back and then had a party with family. So my parents were not, and his parents were not involved in either previous ceremonies, which they brought up many times. Yeah. So we did a giant party at my parents' home in east Tennessee and my dad and my family formed a family band. And they were like the music for the event.

Daniel Stillman:

That is so nice.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. Yeah. It was very cute.

Daniel Stillman:

And you get to, when you go on your walk, there's this touchstone that just brings it all back for you.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Mm-hmm (affirmative). You see it change throughout the year, which I think is one of the most amazing things. If, you go to the same place in nature.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Every day you see it through summer and winter it's just very humbling to see that happen, that change.

Daniel Stillman:

For me. I always, when I go for a hike and I see like a waterfall, I think to myself, this is always here.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Even though I'm in my house, I can't hear or see the waterfall. It's just there.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Absolutely. Absolutely. I backpack a lot and went on a week-long trip in the Sierra's a few years ago with my dad, my brother and my partner. And we went to Thousand lakes in California. I think you can drive up near it, and I've had the exact same thought we saw it and it was just the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen. It took us seven days to get there and I just thought this is available to me at any time. But I stare at computers a lot and this is always here.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Well that's, this is, this is a fine transition. You know, when you say, what do you do to someone and you're like, well, I look at computers all day long and that would be very nonspecific because like, and I write emails. I look at things.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

I, my friend Carl once sent me a mockup of a children's book. I think it's Richard Scarry, there are these little like anthropomorphic animals just going and the title of the book was remade to say "Documents". That's all we do now is "Documents". It just people, "Documents". So the better question, and this was actually the first question I had on my list was I wanted to try this one out, which is why do you do what you do?

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Hmm. Yeah. Why do I spend all that time? Staring at computers versus yeah. Staring at lakes. So why do I do what I do? So I build online communities with organizations and I didn't know that was a job, frankly. It wasn't a job actually for most of history. And I actually grew up being a super awkward, extremely shy kid. I had friends, but I was just very closed off. There was like a pane of glass between us. Right. And I really just didn't feel known or seen by anyone in my life. And when I was about, 14, 15, my dad gave me, I grew up in Silicon Valley, and my dad gave me this hand-me-down computer. That was like third, the one last in line that was like falling apart. And he said you can have this one. And I discovered forums.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

I discovered music forums primarily and found that I could create all kinds of incredible relationships with people. I could explore my identity, explore who I was, explore what mattered to me. And I really finally opened up to people on the internet before I ever did in real life.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

So I know that is possible to create long-lasting lifelong friendships through the internet. And that's basically what my drive to do this all day every day is, I know we can create meaningful relationships that sustain us that actually regenerate much of what's been lost of our social fabric and you know, through disconnection and technology and all that, we can regenerate it, but it's going to take massive culture level change. So right now I do that for organization. I hope to be able to expand that out and really be part of this culture level change over the long term as well.

Daniel Stillman:

And for people who don't know, I think I actually learned this statistic from Casper ter Kuile and his book about ritual. I think it was like, if you ask the average American, how many friends they have, or how many people they can call on when there's something going poorly in their lives, it's like three people and, or, or I think it's like two and it was three in 1980, whatever. And, and our conversation together, I was like, oh my God, everybody in America just like lost a friend in the last decade, like we had very few and now we have like barely any.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. And it's two in five Americans, specifically, don't have anyone to go to in times of need. And I think about that all the time, because that statistic feels like really abstract and far away from me.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Because I now have very close friends and family people who I can go to in my times of need and I have gone to in my times of need. And so it is personally hard for me to imagine, that, but I know it's all around me. And in fact, I did a research study in graduate school last year. And we asked people about their connections during the pandemic and the statistic held true even among, it was a convenient sample, of most of my friends who are community builders. In aggregate about 20% of them had no one to go to in their times of need. And it just, I think about that, I actually know those people.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

It just breaks my heart,

Daniel Stillman:

It's insane. So, but here's the thing. And so the first big chunk I wanted to look at is, so this is why you do what you do.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel Stillman:

In the broadest sense, but you could go do this for a brand. Right. But instead you are. I mean, for people who don't know, who are listening in Carries kind of a big deal, right, in this thing that you do. But you are, and you don't just do it for one company. You do it for lots of companies and that's a choice that you've made. And so I'm really curious because I make that choice too. I'm like, why do I do what I do? So if you take the same question and reframe it as a bewilderment.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

You know, I'm really curious about like why you're a, whatever you'd call it a Paladin, a consultant.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. Yeah. I call myself a strategist or consultant. That's a such a good question. And one that frankly, I have wrestled with my entire career. It's like, why don't I just go and like teach people the skills individually, like how to be a better person on the internet. Cause I definitely can.

Daniel Stillman:

Just one at a time, don't be a troll, but you also teach cohorts of people how to do what you do and not everybody wants to do. So you were driven to have a whole business where you educate people and you work with many different types of companies instead of just, I don't know, going to build community at, fill in the blank, tech company.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. Which, I did I started my career doing it in tech companies actually. And this is what I've kind of landed on for now. And this is an evolving answer but I actually think that a lot of the reason for our disconnection and alienation and isolation from one another is economically created and was accelerated during the industrial revolution. So I work with organizations specifically because I see them as one of the root problems in our society causing this disconnection. And so if organizations are continually going out using the word community, which many of them are just using it, willy nilly, and then not backing it up with actions. What that does is it creates, it just wipes out what actually I've heard Casper say, community washing is what a lot of organizations do.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

And at the organizational level, it means that they're not actually following up on what they're doing, or what they're saying with actions, because they're not working in integrity.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

And then at the individual level, we come to expect community from things that are not community at all. They're just audiences or one conference that a company put on and they're calling that community. And then we don't realize what we're missing, because that's what we think community is.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Organizations to me are one of the top culprits of like doing this wrong and creating some major, major issues. And I've worked with a variety of organizations, some of which are completely humble about this fact. And they say, "we want to do better." And then I've worked with really large organizations who one time a VP at the end of a four hour workshop said to me, "this is really nice and all but we're not going to do anything with this."

Daniel Stillman:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Carrie Melissa Jones:

I had flown across the country to, for her to tell me this. And yeah, it's just some people get it, and some people don't and it's a continual practice.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I'm wondering how you, how you sustain yourself in, emotionally sustain yourself. I think this is one of the challenges of being a consultant is some clients really care and some clients are trying to do what I would call edutainment when they bring me in sometimes. And, I'm guessing the question I have is like, what's the conversation you're having with yourself about your business?

Carrie Melissa Jones:

That's a really good question. I am continually just trying to be aware of my capacity. And I often go over it, even with that awareness because doing this work requires empathy, just such deep levels of empathy that I can lose myself really easily in it. Cause I'm empathetic for the various stakeholders within the organization. Sometimes I'm very intuitive and I can feel sometimes people's trauma. I know that sounds really wild, but I feel them bringing it into the conversation. I'm sure you can sense all kinds of stuff like that.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, people are so traumatized. I mean, let's just, I mean, obviously the last 3 years, but let's just talk about, the last 100 as you said, right. Being totally uprooted from what kind of lifestyle we're perhaps built to do. Right. There's a lot of traumas.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. Yes, absolutely in the last three years, but even prior to that, there's just so much that goes on in organizations that people don't process and it becomes these scar tissue and they build from places of ego and trying to heal things.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

And I only know this because I have my own story of trying to do that right. It takes empathy on that level and then empathy on the customer or whoever we're gathering at that level deep empathy there. So I have to do less than I think I'm capable of. And I'm actually finding that year after year, I'm doing less work every year but I'm doing it better, if that makes sense.

Daniel Stillman:

It does. Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

The word capacity is so fascinating. One of the things I actually was really interested to talk to you about, I was super grateful for the folks you sent over for the scholarships for the master class. And I was like, wait, Carrie's got this whole like work study machine underneath the hood. You talk about capacity, and I was like how does she structure the innards of this business? You seem to be, have a little minion.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Minions?!

Daniel Stillman:

I myself am good at just sort of like emergently, discovering all the things that need to get done and then just kind of doing them and then always remembering that there's something else that I've forgotten to do. I'm only just now learning how to explain what I intend to do and work with other people to help extend my capacity. I, it's a thing, I get it.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

I've never had to do that. You seem to have some of that a little bit more at your fingertips. So tell me about that, Carrie.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

That's so interesting that you would say that because I feel like I'm so bad at it. In fact, I feel that I'm, again, aware that this is an issue and so I bring it up with everyone that I work with. I say I'm really bad at receiving support. I'm not good at it because I'm used to being self-sufficient, I grew up and I solved my own problems. I got A's on my own.

Daniel Stillman:

Damn straight you did. Why was that important to you to be self-sufficient do you think?

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Oh, you want to, are you my therapist?

Daniel Stillman:

Sorry. I was that, I'm always, this is my mode. Whatever's, I'll take that back.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

It's totally challenging me. I mean that with love. It's a very deep question.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

I do that because it was a form of safety for me growing up, and I knew I couldn't depend on anybody else, but I could depend on myself.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

And that makes for a very strong person, right, like extremely resilient.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

And that's something I'm just aware, like whatever comes my way, I can deal with it, I know. My issue is that I then try to help other people on the path, so I'm always giving and often not receiving. And so a lot of community builders are that way. So I see it a lot in my work. And we often feel like we don't have a choice. We're like, I did this to myself. Like I've taken on these responsibilities, I can't ask anyone for help because I said, yes. So now I have to deal with it. I don't think that's true. I think it's a thing where people want to help us.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

They really really want to help us.

Daniel Stillman:

And so this is clearly an edge for you and your working.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Oh Yeah. The people that you spoke to that I referred your way, both brilliant community builders, actually one of them came up with the idea of the work study program. So she came to me in my program and said, "Carrie, unfortunately, I lost my job in the pandemic, but this is something I really want to build up my skills around online community building. I don't want you to give it to me for free. I want to be an investment. And what do you think about work study?" And I thought about the times when I used to do yoga in person, and there was always work study opportunities at my yoga studio. Anyone could come in and offer their services for free yoga classes. And so I thought, yeah we'll do that. I'll just make like a little yoga studio

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Out of this. And with her, it was an organic process of, figuring out what do you want to do? Like what do you want to do with your life, your work, and how can I give things away for you to take on, to build up your skills? And now I have four different work study students. So I actually made it part of the process. And I think it's really important that I put that work study out there. Just like you put your scholarships out there because it's an issue of equity if we just keep it secret, like oh yeah if you ask me, I might give you a discount.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

That's an issue of equity and privilege and it just causes all kinds of problems. So I was public about it. I brought on 4 work study students, and now I have a whole, I just wrote down all the things that I do and thought, what do I not need to be doing myself anymore? Yeah. That would teach someone else. Something I think is really easy to do that for them is an edge. And I meet with them once a week. I make sure that they're getting something out of it. So I mentor them all and we're just in a continual conversation and they all know I'm bad at receiving. So I say that to them, every time I give them something, I'm like, don't let me take this back from you.

Daniel Stillman:

That's wonderful. And that feels so normalizing to me, because I feel like I've expressed to people like, I don't know how to do this. I don't know how to do all the things that I'm doing. I recently just documented my process for the podcast. I brought on a process coach, Srinivas Rao, who's going is, I recorded his podcast. He has a podcast called the Unmistakable Creative.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Oh yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

And so he does knowledge management consulting. And I mapped out the whole podcast process and there was like this little swirl towards the end I knew about. And I was like, I have to do all this. And, Nathan who will listen to this, hi Nathan, who's my podcast producer assistant right hand guy, looked at the diagram I made in braille. Cause I sent it to Nathan before I sent it to Srinivas, and I was like, Hey, did I miss anything? And he was like, no, that looks about right. He's like, but that little swirl there, I can do that if you want. He's like, you just have to probably give me your login for those two, that site and that other site. And I was like, really?

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

I can just, I don't have to do that.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. That's great.

Daniel Stillman:

And it's all also something that he, not that I don't think that's like, that's not his edge. That's not where his joy is. We, it's my job to find other things that are worthwhile and interesting for him to do so that it matters to him and he doesn't go away.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. And then we also have to trust that people will say no, if they yes are at their capacity, we can't decide that for them ahead of time.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

That's not really fair. Yeah. And I get quite emotional about actually, like I brought on an assistant this last year and she's, she's so good. She doesn't even wait till I delegate things. She's like stop doing that thing. She's like, I guess this is exactly what I need. Thank you Jen. Yeah. But it makes me like emotional I'm even like tearing up about because to be supported in that way is so fresh for me. It's so new and it feels very healing, frankly.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. This is the conversation you're having with yourself about your business. Like what is mine to do? What is some, what can someone else help with help me with, do I have to be doing this? And I love that you've bringing in, you're bringing in somebody who can challenge you and say, put that down and walk away.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. She's been doing this for like 20 years. So she's just like, why are you still doing all these things in your business? This will stop from growing. I've seen it over and over again.

Daniel Stillman:

The same thing for myself I've just noticed that talking to someone who's been doing it for 20 years, showing my process to Srinivas, who has a much more successful podcast than I do. I didn't actually feel any shame. Cause I was like, I'm clearly have hacked this together. You tell me, but there can be a lot of shame. I found of just like, I don't know how to do this. And I'm broken because I don't. So I'm, it's actually really, I'm normalizing for me. Thank you for thanks for engaging this conversation.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah, Absolutely. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

I am really curious. The, sort of like bow to, there was two more things about you that I wanted to plug away at. One is how you build your own community and mentorship. Because obviously you mentioned the community, people who have no community. And I feel like that's something you must be working at intently. How do you build that for yourself?

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. For me it started in late high school that I.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

... started in late high school that I left the music forums, where I was a member for a long time and had learned all these social skills that I didn't have. And part of the reason I was able to leave and still feel connected to people was because of my very best friend still to this day, Samantha. And she came to me in her time of need and showed me what it looks like to ask for support when we were quite young.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

And so she's been my best friend through our entire lives at this point. Almost. Knowing that she's there is like this foundation that I then have of like, she's my safety foundation. Like, I don't know what's going to happen in my life, but Sam is there. And that's been really big for me.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

And the other thing is, again, something I'm not super good at, but making sure that I disclose information about myself and what's going on with me when someone else discloses this principle of reciprocity, which is like this human beings just want to be in reciprocal relationship with one another. But oftentimes I would listen to other people's problems, and then I would just not share anything going on with me, which of course you're like, moving along and developing a relationship and that just stops it from progressing.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

So, there's also times you don't have to share your story with anybody. You don't owe it to anybody, but if you feel safe with someone and you want to become better friends with them, you will have to share part of yourself with them. So there's no holding that back if you want to be close with someone in your life.

Daniel Stillman:

So it sounds like there's an inner move that you're focusing on. That some of your work is to make sure that you are actually being vulnerable.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel Stillman:

With the right circle of people.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. The safe place.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Exactly. Because I will say, actually up to my late twenties, I had a lot of messy things going on in my life. And I definitely opened up to the people who retraumatized me. That's what we do, right? When we've experienced personal trauma, we just recreated it until we heal it. And so, you can certainly think someone's safe, who actually ends up not being safe to share things with.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

And so I think again, normalizing the fact that sometimes you're going to open up to people and they're not going to be good about it. And they might hurt you. And you might hurt them. And your relationship might not last forever. All that is just part of it. You cannot go through this life and not be hurt at some point. Like, you're not living. So I think coming to terms with that is deep work to do.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. That's really powerful. I think it's funny. I was thinking about the places and spaces and the mechanics, but I really like that you went to the inner move or the inner move of being open. Being present and being aware of reciprocity. Which is, you can go to all the places and spaces, but if you don't have the inner move, then you're not going to be able to take advantage of it.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. I think that's something I realized too, in the last few years. Because, in the past I might have said, "Yeah, well you go to Facebook groups." And then you go and here's all these tactical things. I can tell you, none of that matters. In fact, none of it matters. I think it surprises my clients because they realize that they must change in order to build community. And that's pretty huge.

Daniel Stillman:

That is pretty huge. And it's very clear to me and we'll transition in a moment to talking about brand communities. It is a spiritual path for you. That it matters deeply because it's part of your core identity.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Mmm.

Daniel Stillman:

But I feel like I would be remise. The last thing we did together, the last time we hung out was this experimental online book swap. And I didn't realize. I think I learned from the interview you did with Charles. Was about, that you've been passionate about books since you were a teen.

Daniel Stillman:

And I'm really curious for you to talk about, because the community, we think like, "Oh, it's people and divulging." But a book is the safest trend.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Oh, I know.

Daniel Stillman:

Right?

Carrie Melissa Jones:

I love books.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. So I'm curious, how do you feed your head and what books have nourished you and are nourishing you? I probably won't do anything with this video, but there on that bookshelf behind-

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. There's behind me-

Daniel Stillman:

[inaudible 00:28:02] Jones. Our books.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

I have a book shelf over there, bookshelf downstairs. I read all the time. I read a lot less fiction than I used to. But growing up, well actually in college I studied English literature and I studied abroad in Stratford-upon-Avon in London. I saw the real Shakespeare group.

Daniel Stillman:

Wow. That's amazing.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

It was so cool. James Franco was in my class. I don't have to talk about that right now, but.

Daniel Stillman:

No. Let's get read of that.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

So, I have been escaping I think through literature for a long time. Growing up, my favorite author was William Faulkner. So I was always very dark and wanted to explore the shadow sides of things and find poetry in the attempts to have language express what our world is and what our identities are. But constant failure.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

I actually have a tattoo on my arm that says, "I'll do what little I can in writing." Which is from a book by James Agee, who's from East Tennessee, where my family is from.

Daniel Stillman:

Wait, can you say that quote one more time? I went by fast.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

I'll do what little I can in writing.

Daniel Stillman:

Tell me what that means to you. That's so interesting.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. So in the 1920s, there's a history. In the 1920s in America during the Great Depression, the south was obviously hit horribly by the Great Depression. The entire system of share cropping, which is what had cropped up after slavery and plantations and all these things in the south, basically turned into a giant exploitation system of share cropping farmers who could not get out of debt.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

So they were in horrible situations, horrible poverty. And James Agee was a journalist. I think he was sent by Fortune magazine in the 1920s to go live with a family in the south. In their decrepit farmhouse. And he was sent with Walker Evans, who was a famous photographer from that period too. He took those New York subway photos that are really famous.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

He went with them. So then a photographer and a reporter were sent to live with this family and write a very short article for a magazine that people on the west and east coast would read, that taught them what's going on in the south. And how bad is it there? This kind of sensationalization.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

And he went and he refused to write the article. Because he was there and he ended up staying longer. And he said, "I can't. You want me to write 400 words on what people are going through here? That's not possible." He goes on for like 10 pages just saying, "If I could, I'd give you their clothing. Pieces of their hair. I'd give you the smell of the dirt. I'd give you the sound of the creaking on their front porches. But I can't give you any of that. So I will do what little I can in writing."

Daniel Stillman:

Wow.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. I wrote my thesis on that book in my undergraduate.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I can feel the import of it.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. So, that's how I read all the time and it's funny. I wrote Building Brand Communities with Charles and I don't know that I would ever read my own books. Because I mostly just try to read things that are much broader about human nature.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. What would be the two books that you wish that everyone in the world would read? If it's now your book obviously.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

That's really hard.

Daniel Stillman:

I know it's hard but you got an answer.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Oh man. I will probably take this back, once I think about it in a while.

Daniel Stillman:

Hot take.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yes. I will say that Macbeth is my favorite Shakespeare play and that is something everyone should either watch one of the movies or remakes of it or read it yourself. I have parts of it memorized because I'm just so obsessed with it. And let's see.

Daniel Stillman:

I don't have Macbeth outreach candle. That's the famous bit from it. What did Shakespeare say? What is your substance? What have you made, that millions of strange shadows on you tend. What is the little substance of Macbeth that you wish everyone would be able to touch?

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Um, well there's the one monologue where he, goes tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow.

Daniel Stillman:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Carrie Melissa Jones:

[inaudible 00:33:11].

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. And he basically wraps up all of life by saying that life is full of sound and fury signifying nothing. It's obviously very depressing.

Daniel Stillman:

I'll do a little like hand in writing. I see the connection.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. All right.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah. I never made that connection myself. Yeah. I think it's just humility in the face of, we are such small creatures, and we're given one life to live, so don't kill the king. [inaudible 00:33:48].

Daniel Stillman:

Okay.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

It's not going to end well for you.

Daniel Stillman:

No, it won't. So Macbeth. Amazing choice. I love it. And what else do you wish that everyone would just pick up and read and spend some time with. Take a bath with.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

The other one is probably one of the books I recommended during the book swap. Which is the Body Keeps the Score. And that's not a book I would read in the bath.

Daniel Stillman:

No? Okay.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

No. It's about how trauma lives in our bodies.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

And I think if everyone read that book or knew about Bessel van der Kolk's work, we would have a deeper understanding of how little, what my friend, Nicole, calls little t and big t trauma. Little t is the trauma that all of us have. The everyday trauma. Just living. And then big t trauma like being in a car accident. In my case, being in a horrible relationship. All kinds of things like that.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

So we would understand how that's actually, until we heal it, it's living in our bodies. And we are recreating it and often recreating it in relationship with others. As my therapist says, that wounds created in relationship must be healed in relationship. We cannot heal our wounds that were created in relationship with people by of going inside and trying to fix it. Even therapy won't really solve it.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

The only way is to work through that in relationship to other people. And that's what communities can be for us, is a place where we can finally heal that if the community is healthy and doesn't recreate the broken structures that rest of the world has.

Daniel Stillman:

So I think there's a perfect time to transition. I'm going to reset the clock. This is what every facilitator goes through. Right? It's like, but this is good stuff.

Carrie Melissa Jones:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

I do want to make a break and we want to talk about brand communities but I think what's interesting here is, the question I was sitting with was, well, what's the most important conversation that the brand community isn't having and that you want to invite? And it seems like I'm wondering what the shadow is. And I'm seeing that that is of great interest to you. What aren't we talking about? What aren't we looking at is really important.

Daniel Stillman:

And so with that, we'll magically transition to chapter two.

Coaching Executive Mindsets

I can’t believe it’s taken me SO long to share this conversation with the Amazing Elise Foster.

Elise is a powerful coach, an accomplished author, and a friend. She’s the co-author of The Multiplier Effect with Liz Wiseman and Beautiful Questions in the Classroom with Warren Berger (who’s written several bestselling books on powerful questions).

She was a thinking partner for me when I was in the early stages of writing my second book, and I was shocked and honored when she decided to come to my Facilitation Masterclass and even more shocked and honored when she actually got something out of it - proving that it really is more about what they practice and the container I create than what I teach!

I’m also honored that she’s been a great member of the Conversation Factory Insiders’ group - we started 2 years ago with alums of the masterclass meeting monthly for experiments and intentional practice, and 2 years and 22 sessions later, we’ve all learned a tremendous amount about leading groups online. Elise was kind enough to lead a session for the community on the QFT, a Question Formulation Technique from the Right Question Institute which has shifted how I think about Powerful Questions and how I coach teams on them, too.

In this conversation, I wanted Elise to unpack not just some of her favorite “Eye Opener” warmup exercises to help get teams to think differently, but also how she thinks about bringing them into sessions with teams, and why they matter.

Lots of folks talk about icebreakers - and they can be helpful to help us connect to each other from afar…but they are such a broad class of activities - they can include games like “Two truths and lie” which are just about connecting people as humans or “three things”, a classic improv game which helps folks just warm up their brains.

Priya Parker asks folks to check into the chat with where they are and what actual substance is beneath their feet, to help ground and connect us.

Eye-openers are both about what we do, as leaders and coaches of people in the moment, in order to create an experience for people…and eye-openers are also about how we help people reflect and unpack that experience and how to connect it to a larger idea about transformation and development.

Elise kicks our conversation off by talking about the “Hand Clasping Game”, a classic exercise that you can try now since we talk about it, but don’t give it enough time to “breathe” in the conversation.

Just clasp your hands together naturally. Of course, this assumes you have two hands. If this doesn’t apply to you, I hope you can imagine the process.

Now, unclasp your hands and “reclasp them” but shift hands - whatever hand was “pinky out” let the other hand be the “pinky out” hand. Elise calls this “reversing the weave” of your hands.

What do you feel?

Discomfort. Oddness. Weirdness.

That is a raw, visceral experience. Now, the magic happens when Elise unpacks this experience, and applies it to the context she works in - Leadership Transformation. 

Having a toolbox or a mental “file” of these exercises can be great…in fact, I have a whole online course about them. But as Elise and I discuss, having the wherewithal to bring one of these out in a session also takes some guts and some faith.

You take some trust the team has in you and burn it…risk it on an edgy experience…and hopefully you earn that trust back, with dividends, at the end of the unpacking.

Also worth noting is that this is the second episode on the theme of “An experience is worth a thousand slides” when it comes to coaching executive mindset shifts. The first conversation was with Jeff Gothelf, most notably the co-author of Lean UX, where we talked about the Vase and Flowers exercise, another powerful eye-opener that I love very much.

This episode is short and sweet, so without further delay, enjoy the conversation as much as I did.

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

Elise Foster

Online Icebreakers Course

Coaching Executive Mindsets Part One

Minute 1

Daniel Stillman:

You said the stock and trade of your work is getting people to lean into discomfort. The clasping hands game is like what I would almost call a micro eye-opener. When and how do you bring that exercise into your work to unlock a shift for people?

Elise Foster:

There are times when I started with it, where it's a new team and they've already talked about their current discomfort and they've said, "I want to make some changes." Then I'll bring it in at the start and have them clasp their hands naturally and then reverse the weave. The look on their face is almost this quizzical look of, "Why am I doing this?" And then I ask for their reflections. "What was that like for you?" And they talk about how unnatural it is and it's easy to go into and that's what you're likely to experience as you try on any new leadership behavior, is you try to engage with people on your team differently. You're going to experience that unnaturalness and you're going to want to back to your natural state. What does that mean for you and your team and your team's effectiveness if you keep reverting back to the natural state?

And I think the other moment of insight, though, that I'm just thinking through is most people know changing leadership behavior is really hard. And I think the biggest aha is even when you walk into something knowing it's really hard and prepared for that level of difficulty, we don't recognize how easy it is to revert back.

Minute 4

Daniel Stillman:

It's a cycle of concrete experience, reflection, and then connection and forward thinking. I think all of those components are required to have a complete cycle of what I would call eye opening or aha-ing.

Elise Foster:

Yeah, and I think what's coming to mind for me when you say that is the slides are the contents and a lot of training experiences and developing experiences tend to sit squarely in the put more information in and you'll get better results out. And they don't focus enough on, "Wait a minute, the shape of the container might just need to change." And that's really what has to happen in leadership change is, "I have to start thinking about it differently. It's not just adding more stuff in, it's about how do I make sense of that stuff in new ways."

Minute 17

Daniel Stillman:

So, I'm wondering what you do that the line from Henry V is, "How do you screw up your courage to the sticking place?" What do you do to make you, yourself, feel like you can get away with whatever thing you're going to pull out of your hat?

Elise Foster:

Some of it's just being bold and trying it but I think some of it's in the set up. As I set up the session and letting people know, setting up the tone that it's going to be experiential. So, part of leadership is a thing you do and a set of instructions, if you will, that you try to implement each time, but it's also how you feel when you're doing it. And so we're going to weave those two together. There's going to be a little bit of an idea that we're going to play with. And notice I used the word play because there's going to be some experience that goes along with that and a lot of leadership, in my mind, is really about experimenting because even if you have a playbook that has worked reasonably well for you, when you add on a new team member or a new challenge that your team is facing, that playbook, exactly as you ran it before, may not work tomorrow.

Elise Foster:

So, as a leader, you have to start to be able to sense into and notice, "Oh, well this thing was working. Why is it no longer working and what's the little experiments I can run to see what's going on and how I might rewrite that play?"

More About Elise

Early in her career, Elise Foster was happy as an engineer, managing high-profile global projects to solve complicated problems. But, it wasn’t long before she realized she wanted to solve different types of problems. Today, Elise is a leadership coach who enables education and business executives to unlock their potential and achieve even greater success. She is well-versed in the field of leadership and collective intelligence within education systems and is the co-author of The Multiplier Effect: Tapping the Genius Inside Our Schools, which hit shelves in March 2013. As a Multipliers Master Practitioner for the Wiseman Group in Silicon Valley, Elise guides leaders on using their intelligence to make everyone around them smarter and more capable. Her clients include leading educational institutions and corporations such as the Chicago Public Schools and Abbott Labs. She is passionate about working with early career and seasoned professionals and she delivers effective workshops and coaching.

Elise wasn’t always this passionate about her work. She took a chance and changed from a life in engineering to one in training and development, becoming a management fellow at Harvard University where she worked with faculty, staff, and students. Later she made her way to Indiana University (Kelley School of Business) where she coached more than 200 MBA students. Her path also includes a stop as an adjunct faculty member, teaching and mentoring local college students.

She holds both a bachelor’s and master’s degree in engineering from Virginia Tech and a master’s degree in education from Harvard University. She is a wife and mother of one school-aged daughter; she and her family enjoy traveling and exploring new cultures together. In her spare time, Elise volunteers with the Lilly Foundation Scholarship and Youth Leadership Bartholomew County where she works to uncover the genius in each high school student she encounters.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

This computer, okay. Elise, thanks for making the time to have this little conversation with me. So, where we just ended is where we're going to start. You said the stock and trade of your work is getting people to lean into discomfort. The clasping hands game is like what I would almost call a micro eye-opener. When and how do you bring that exercise into your work to unlock a shift for people?

Elise Foster:

So, it's a great question and I think it's one of the things I'm trying to lean more into is the emergence of things. And so instead of building it into an agenda, I'm looking for the opportunities to take a pause. There are times when I started with it, where it's a new team and they've already talked about their current discomfort and they've said, "I want to make some changes." Then I'll bring it in at the start and have them clasp their hands naturally and then reverse the weave. The look on their face is almost this quizzical look of, "Why am I doing this?" And then I ask for their reflections. "What was that like for you?" And they talk about how unnatural it is and it's easy to go into and that's what you're likely to experience as you try on any new leadership behavior, is you try to engage with people on your team differently. You're going to experience that unnaturalness and you're going to want to back to your natural state. What does that mean for you and your team and your team's effectiveness if you keep reverting back to the natural state?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. So that gives them a burst of energy from insight, I presume. There's this moment of insight where your skills in peeling the onion, unpacking, and letting them just sit with that experience gets them to an aha moment.

Elise Foster:

Yeah, most people, they reflect and they're like, "Wow, I didn't think something so small could be so hard." And I think the other moment of insight, though, that I'm just thinking through is most people know changing leadership behavior is really hard. And I think the biggest aha is even when you walk into something knowing it's really hard and prepared for that level of difficulty, we don't recognize how easy it is to revert back.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, yeah. So the thing that we were talking about right before that thing was the idea of what I call underselling and over delivering versus overselling and under delivering. Always a better position to be in. There's not a giant lead-in. There's not a huge drum roll into this activity. You're looking for a moment to sort of insert that pause, that opening of thought. It's not like it's specifically in an agenda for you.

Elise Foster:

Exactly. It's one of the things that I'll have... I haven't thought of it in this way, but I'll have a list of things that I could do in a session just to tickle my brain before I go into it. So they can pop into my awareness more readily than if I didn't have this set of things available to me and the clasping of the hands is one that I do have available and when I hear people start talking about their difficulty changing and how easy is it to revert back. To use the overused term these days, the somatic experience of feeling that...

Daniel Stillman:

Is it overused? I feel it could be used more by more people, but...

Elise Foster:

I guess it depends on what circles you run in. In the circles I run in, everything is about the somatic experience.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. Let's use a better word. You're giving them a visceral experience of an idea. This brings in my new favorite watercolor that an experience is worth a thousand slides. Right, because you could give them a whole slide on that and I'm sure there's somebody who's got... No offense to anybody who's listening. It's like, you could explain that in a slide deck but people have to do it and then they have to have you ask them a question and have some silence while they kind of struggle and think about it and then they need you to connect it. It's a cycle of concrete experience, reflection, and then connection and forward thinking. I think all of those components are required to have a complete cycle of what I would call eye opening or aha-ing.

Elise Foster:

Yeah, and I think what's coming to mind for me when you say that is the slides are the contents and a lot of training experiences and developing experiences tend to sit squarely in the put more information in and you'll get better results out. And they don't focus enough on, "Wait a minute, the shape of the container might just need to change." And that's really what has to happen in leadership change is, "I have to start thinking about it differently. It's not just adding more stuff in, it's about how do I make sense of that stuff in new ways."

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, yeah. So, let's connect this back to 1713 because I remember your aha when you went through that game for the first time. You're like, "Wait a minute. I can use this." And I think you're still on your journey of bringing it into... It's not in your tickler file, where you're like, "Oh, I can definitely bring this in." So, I'm wondering if you can talk about your arc of the aha you got trying it out in a low stakes way and then maybe we can go deeper into the mechanics of the thing, potentially.

Elise Foster:

Yeah, the two things that I remember most vividly from that experience was how little I know about the year 1713 and virtually everyone else knew about the year 1713 in that session, but how much that lack of knowledge kind of put us on equal playing ground. Just to set the stage of it, you brought together a group of people who didn't know each other at all. There might have been one or two people who knew each other, but the vast majority of us didn't know each other and it was a nice entry point to come in where we're all on this unstable footing and kind of feeling uncomfortable. So I think it created safety for people not to know and it created an awareness for me that there's a whole host of things we think we know a lot about but we don't.

Daniel Stillman:

In that we can't explain it perfectly to someone who has no knowledge of it.

Elise Foster:

Right.

Daniel Stillman:

So, I'm curious. I mean, so, the way I think of 1713. One of the things I love about it is... For those of you listening, it's an improv game where one person has to explain a thing to someone else who pretends to be from 1713, which is super fun because I think there's this idea that explain it to your mom, explain it to your grandma. And I'm like, "That's kind of sexist and ageist." So, let's be chronoist. There's nothing particularly controversial about just pretending to be from several hundred years ago and not understanding an iPhone. Which, by the way, I think I've seen one of the perfect introductions to it which is like explain an iPhone to someone from 1713. But I'm curious. You found an opportunity to bring it into your work in a low stakes way and you had some learnings and insights from it.

Elise Foster:

Yeah, so from the day we did that session, I'm like, "Where can I use this?" And one of the challenges is and I think part of it is I'm probably making it too big a thing. Like, "Okay, I need to insert this thing." And maybe if I did have it in that tickler file it might be easier. I didn't have, and I still haven't quite found what is the direct connection to this particular team effectiveness program or this particular leadership development program to use it, but I did have an opportunity. I was part of a three-day virtual conference and they were looking for people to host 90-minute sessions and then people to host 30-minute kind of in-between sessions. And I thought, "This is a great opportunity to play with some of these icebreakers." It's a super safe space and it's with other people who do a lot of online facilitation but are still in that transition phase of, "Well, I used to do all this in person, so I'll just take my slides and bring them up onscreen and do it that way." And so I thought it'd be a fun exercise. So, it was super fun. People had a lot of fun playing 1713 and then my all-time favorite game that I changed the name of to make it Seven-Second Animals.

Daniel Stillman:

Hey, just for the record, it was taught to me as Three-Second Animal and I changed it to Five-Second Animal because I thought that was too cruel. I think you're being way soft on your participants by making it Seven Second Animal. If I can go on record.

Elise Foster:

I am fully aware of that and I have a feeling the people that I shared it with will make it Nine- or Fifteen-Second Animal because-

Daniel Stillman:

Slippery slope.

Elise Foster:

But the couple things that I learned. One, people experienced this experience of not knowing in two ways. One, I have no idea what happens in the year 1713. And two, I don't know how to explain something that I do every day. And some people really leaned into it an got super creative and had a lot of fun with that piece of, "How do I get really creative about talking about these Zoom screen windows?" And the learning that I had, though, is... I had people and we did two rounds and it was as much an eye opener as it was a way to get to know and have a familiar face on the screen. So in between the two rounds, somebody said, "Oh, are we going in with the same topic?" And I thought, "Well, here's an opportunity and if they wait, it'd be emergent. And oh, well I had planned the same topic but what if we try a new topic? What topic would you like?" And the topic that they went with had to do more with the pandemic and this global reach of the pandemic.

Elise Foster:

When people came back, you noticed a different tenor in the conversation because people could relate back to understanding plagues and different things like that in the year 1713. And so the content area, the topical thing that you have people explain, I think, is really important. If there's any way to connect it back to a time when we didn't have the kinds of technology we have now. I think you'll have an experience, it won't, maybe, be the eye opening experience you want it to be.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, so there's so many things that that lights up for me and one is my own preference for... There's what I would call a pure icebreaker. Which is like, "Hey, name, rank, and serial number." Classic and it's barely even an icebreaker or like two truths and a lie. No offense, but it just doesn't do anything for me, as you know. I've said this before. To me, something like 1713 does warm people up. It does break ice but it is doing it about, potentially, content. And it's especially valuable. When I think about the finger clasping exercise, it's about discomfort and leaning into transformation. 1713, for me, is about connecting people to universal human needs and experiences, which in the product innovation and product design world, the idea of jobs to be done or user goals or personas.

Daniel Stillman:

Actually, the first time I used this, and this is super relevant to what you're going do for a facilitation Friday. It was at a hybrid meeting. An unintentionally hybrid gathering where there were like four or five people in person and maybe five or six people remotely because they didn't realize they were supposed to come in for this meeting. It was part of a 5G innovation lab that I was helping Verizon run and 1713 is the perfect game for a startup founder who's trying to design some internet of things sensor array for them to try to explain that in the most basic fundamental human components. It is grounding. And it worked fairly well for them to share their own insights after they're paired up experiences. I can pair up the remote people and the physical people and the remote and the physical people can still tell the story of their insights to each other.

Daniel Stillman:

That, to me, is the function of leaning into discomfort. You have that connected to a group need and from an innovation transformation perspective. That's what I connect 1713 to. It's like, "Oh, these people need to understand jobs to be done because their ideas are way out here and they need to get them right back down on the ground level of a person with a goal." And those things, the whole idea of jobs to be done is that it is durable. Like you said, with the pandemic, people have had that need, "How do I manage myself and my family when I can't go out and when I can't talk to people?" Like, that's something that happened and has happened and will, unfortunately, keep happening.

Daniel Stillman:

So I think it's like, when people say, "Oh, I need an icebreaker or a warmup for our gathering," I'm like, "Well, what do you want to do? What is your goal? What is the transformation you want to unlock for that group of people?" And I think that's what's interesting to me because I can hear you do that for your groups. You're thinking to yourself, "What do I need to unlock for them?"

Elise Foster:

Yeah. Well, what you're raising for me is two things. On the leadership transformation side, so much of the change is more elusive. It's not a durable good. It's not a thing I can see, touch, or feel. And so it has me puzzling through, what is that connection that 1713 could make within the context of their business and when you pitched the idea of having this conversation it had me thinking about an IT leadership team that I'm likely to be working with soon. When I think about the IT systems that exist today and what they're trying to do today to connect their global business, that could be a really good grounding piece, to start with 1713 to ground them in the work that they do and why it's so important for them to be effective as a leadership team.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. So, the thing that was bouncing around my head is I think sometimes people feel like, "I can't do this with a group of senior folks because they just want some slides. They want me to tell them what's what and they're going to think I'm bullshit or something and I'm going to have to sell it to them." So, I'm wondering what you do that the line from Henry V is, "How do you screw up your courage to the sticking place?" What do you do to make you, yourself, feel like you can get away with whatever thing you're going to pull out of your hat?

Elise Foster:

Some of it's just being bold and trying it but I think some of it's in the set up. As I set up the session and letting people know, setting up the tone that it's going to be experiential. So, part of leadership is a thing you do and a set of instructions, if you will, that you try to implement each time, but it's also how you feel when you're doing it. And so we're going to weave those two together. There's going to be a little bit of an idea that we're going to play with. And notice I used the word play because there's going to be some experience that goes along with that and a lot of leadership, in my mind, is really about experimenting because even if you have a playbook that has worked reasonably well for you, when you add on a new team member or a new challenge that your team is facing, that playbook, exactly as you ran it before, may not work tomorrow.

Elise Foster:

So, as a leader, you have to start to be able to sense into and notice, "Oh, well this thing was working. Why is it no longer working and what's the little experiments I can run to see what's going on and how I might rewrite that play?"

Daniel Stillman:

So, what I'm hearing you say, and I think is very true is you have to set up that they're coming into a space that is going to be different. You can't sandbag them entirely but there is also a little big of sandbagging where you... I'm hearing in your tee up, it's like, "Hey, everyone. Leadership is about experimentation and so we're going to run an experiment together, right? So bear with me, this might feel uncomfortable. Everyone stand up and dot, dot, dot."

Elise Foster:

Yeah, exactly. And then inviting them in that to experience their discomfort and notice what was uncomfortable for them. What was the voice in their head saying? Was it, "I'm going to look like a fool in front of my companions?" Is it that, "I just don't think there's anything we can learn from this." What's their self talk? "I have better things to be doing. I have a problem to be solving."

Daniel Stillman:

But this is profound, Elise, because I think we often feel like as folks who are coming in as change agents to coach a group of folks... I'll just say for myself, I know people are like, "Daniel, tell us what to do." Right? And the whole, "Fill us up with more knowledge so that our knowledge cup is full so that we can just pour it out on everyone else." The idea that it's my job to make them sit with some discomfort, that's something that I strongly identify with. It is my job to get them to sit with this uncomfortable moment of, "What was that like? How would you connect this to your work?" Because I have a little bit of faith that they will have an insight. But I think there is a feeling of abject terror in myself and everyone else when you pull one of these things out that maybe it won't land. Maybe it won't connect. Right? Maybe they won't have an insight.

Elise Foster:

Yes, and what you're raising for me is sometimes they won't, but they will still try to convince you they have because they play along really, really well.

Daniel Stillman:

Right, right. Yeah. Confabulation. People have had an experience and if all they say was, "That was uncomfortable and I hated that," then we can still work with that, presumably.

Elise Foster:

Presumably, but there's also, I think, the other element to this is I think, in my experience anyway, is you can get a room full of people who all had an experience together and there's one person for whom it was really profound and then everyone else is like, "Oh, it was really profound for them. Maybe it should have been more profound for me, so I'll add something in that makes it sound like it was profound for me." And there's not a lot you can do with that and you probably won't know for whom it was really profound. I think, though, creating the space for people to have the reflective moment there and some sharing gives people something to take away and hopefully further reflect on.

Daniel Stillman:

Right. So, when we think about how to do the workshop math to include these things, I think there has to be some popcorning of people's experiences in. And depending on how large your group is, that can be a lot or a little. And if we want to add on your experience I doing this, I think you always need a warmup to your warmup. So, I think what you did in the group was great, where you said, "Okay, let's do it with something straightforward that we all know and then let's do it with something stranger that's harder for us." I mean, these things take time. I think this is actually the biggest challenge that I'm having with this executive leadership team session that we're doing. It's like the max we can get is two hours with... these are very, very senior people from a major global brand and me and my internal [inaudible 00:22:51] are having this little battle over... She's like, "Can you do it in 30 minutes?" And I'm like, "No. I can't. It takes 45 because they have to think and we have to talk and we have to hear from everyone and that means she only has another hour and 15 to do all the slides."

Elise Foster:

It's probably been three or five times in the last week and a half where I have heard a colleague say, "You know, I have just decided, I mean, in this online world, you can't do anything more than two hours." I mean, you just can't do anything more than two hours because people check out. It's the max people can offer you and when I think about the experiences that we had in the Master Facilitation course and some really well held online facilitation, I don't think it's the length of time that matters. I think it's how you choose to use that length of time. So when you think about planning this, it drives me want to ask the question of the leaders you're working with, "Okay, what is driving your time window?"

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you for the pushback. You're not wrong, but I think part of the reality is people... It's about their commitment to anything. Like, nothing's that important because everything is important. To literally get four hours from them. Like, of course I could design a four hour session that would be deeply engaging and would be incredibly valuable, right? But the question is would they be willing to see it as an organizational imperative to give up a "full day." It was hard enough to get a full day back in the day. Now a full day is... I mean, people just have kids around their house and even the CEO of a major brand can have a baby or a pet walk across the screen. But the pushback is well taken and well provided.

Elise Foster:

Yeah, and I think it's also pushback, though, for my own thinking, to go, "Okay, why am I pushing for more time? What is it?" And so it just means you do really have to do the math. What is the way that I quickly bring them in and knowing... It was funny, I did a session for a big Latin American brand and I came on and I started talking and I'm immediately getting Zoom messages going, "There are no slides showing. There are no slides showing." I'm like, "I know there are no slides showing. Trust me, the slides will come but there aren't any slides right now." And so it was a great learning to set expectations for what is it that we're going to be up to here today and this may look and feel like some of what you've experienced in the online world and it may look and feel quite different.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. So this goes to setting expectations and what my counterpart and I were talking about was when you're designing that arc of the conversation, I was like, "Let's just have a hot start." And we just let them know that we're not going to do introductions. They all probably know each other. They don't need to do that thing. As much as I love check-ins, this is not the time for it. Okay, we've got two hours with these folks. You're like, "Everyone, grab your pen and a piece of paper and we're going to draw a vase." And it's like, "Okay, that's where we're going." And I think the way I think about it is, "I'm going to burn some trust and hopefully I will earn it on the back end as quickly as possible.

Daniel Stillman:

You know, this is a very short burn and a very short cycle of the clasping hands if you're listening to this while you're folding laundry. The clasping of hands is a short burn and a strong payoff because you've done it a million times. 1713, because it's an improv game and requires either a fishbowl conversation and two very, very brave volunteers and then potentially a breakout session and then a popcorn coming back. It's a 30 minute set piece and so you have to really want to help people understand jobs to be done is the way I would put it or that we don't understand who our product is for or we can't explain it to ourselves or to each other in our organization. You talk about the IT silos that you're talking about. Like, "Can we actually explain all of our silos to each other? Right? And if we can't, then that's aha, we can't. But that means that we don't understand them."

Elise Foster:

Yeah. I think the word aha is kind of ringing true to me in this conversation. The work to be done is to create a container so that everybody can have an aha no matter where they are in the process. For some people the aha is going to be a big huge thing and for other people, it's just going to be, "Oh, I realize how uncomfortable that is and maybe I need to get more comfortable with discomfort." And other people are going to go, "Oh, I totally see why I have abandoned that thing I have been so committed to doing."

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. There's one thing that I'm really taking away from this, because I know our time is growing nigh. This idea of the bell curve of people's experience and that it's okay that somebody's going to be like, "Wow, Elise you changed my life. I never thought about leaning into discomfort." And somebody will be like, "I don't really get it, but I can see other people are..." And then this person in the middle is like, "I see other people are getting it and so that's kind of interesting." And that that's okay because what you've done is you've given them an experience together and they get to talk about it, unpack it, and potentially own it and it can sometimes just become a metaphor. Luckily it can become a new piece of languaging for people. So like, "How are we leaning to this exercise or can we explain this to somebody from 1713 or are we building a vase or a way of experiencing flowers?" Which is another exercise I may be sharing in this workshop. I think it's profound to give people a shared experience.

Elise Foster:

Yeah, thank you for that and I think it's profound and we can't know how much it nudges the system. That experience is something that might not take hold for 18 months. And 18 months later, something major happens because of that experience and we'll never, ever know that.

Daniel Stillman:

Boy, that is heartbreaking, though, because this work is hard enough, right? And transformation doesn't happen with the snap of a finger. It takes time. So yeah, it sounds like one thing you remind yourself is, "This is a seed I have planted," and to trust that it will find and take root.

Elise Foster:

Yeah, and if you have more than one opportunity with them, what do you notice in the soil consistency and what new nutrients do you need to bring in to help it grow just a little bit faster if that's what you're going for?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, yeah. You know, we can accelerate it by providing some heat and some focus, but it's a balance. I'm growing seeds right now, so this is very much a take-home for me. It's like, you can build a greenhouse but you can get too much moisture and then you have mold. Right? You can overcook it, right?

Elise Foster:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

So I think holding these experiences lightly and just being like, as my mother would say, "Everyone is here to contend with themselves." Right? We're providing them an opportunity to have an experience. We can't force them to have an experience.

Elise Foster:

Right, and the more you try to force it, the more mold you grow.

Daniel Stillman:

Right. Elise, anything we haven't talked about? Anything I haven't asked you that I should have asked you about this idea? We've covered a lot of really interesting ground on this.

Elise Foster:

No, I think I just want to say thanks. It was a really fun conversation and something new always is sparked when we have a conversation. So thank you for that.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you. Yeah, I'm leaving with this, like, "You can't force someone to have an experience. It's an opportunity." And to remind myself and everyone else, it is a risk and the payoff can be there or not and that it's okay.

Elise Foster:

I mean, just with that, when I coach clients, there's something they're up to in between sessions and I always remind them, "Don't beat yourself up if you don't do the thing. Just pay attention to what got in the way of you doing the thing because we learn as much from you doing the thing as we learn from you not doing the thing."

Daniel Stillman:

Right. I agree, and they feel so bad. Negativity keeps them from trying again.

Elise Foster:

And we learn from that and so I think that's what your comment brought up for me. So, thanks again.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you, Elise. I will call scene. I'll stop recording.

The Conversation Factory Book Club: The Creative Empathy Field Guide with Brian Pagán

I'm so excited to share this book club experiment with you. I've been inviting alums of my facilitation masterclass and subscribers to the conversation factory insiders group into intimate conversations with authors of transformative books. In this conversation, my friend Brian Pagán, Author of "The Creative Empathy Field Guide," is our guest.

Brian points out early on that empathy is lauded by many thought leaders and no lack of articles - with the simple, inspirational message that empathy is good for you! And while that is absolutely true, what is missing is the how of empathy - not the why. Brain sought to fill this gap with his book, "the creative empathy field guide" which is a very short and very helpful book....and if you follow the links to Brian's website at the Greatness Studio, he's got a "greatest hits" selection from the book that you can access, free of charge.

So: Just to clarify our definitions: Creative Empathy is the use of empathy in the creative process. That is, we are making things and those things are not for us. So, we must learn to both connect with those people we are creating for and to detach from them - we have to tap into our skills of emotional agility to lean in and out of creative empathy.

One thing that you'll find most surprising (or at least I did!) is that creative empathy benefits from some of the tools of method acting - the ability to connect to your own experience and bring that experience into the present moment.

One thing that is missing from this conversation is my friend and guest from early in 2021, Dr. Lesely Ann Noel, who really helped me understand that there are limits to us-them dichotomies in design thinking and that designing for others can reinforce existing power dynamics, stereotypes and "othering" of people. Brian does address this in his book, but I recommend my conversation with Dr. Noel, DeColonizing Design Thinking. Dr. Noel has a complementary array of tools to help decolonize our thinking, like her Positionality Wheel which we turned into a Mural template to help you facilitate that conversation with your teams.

In this conversation, Brian and the Conversation Factory Insiders Community dives deep into The Empathic Design Process that Brian adapted: 

1. Discovery, 2. Immersion, 3. Connection, 4. Detachment

Discovery: As creators, we approach the other person’s world, which provokes our interest, curiosity, and willingness to empathize.

Immersion: We enter the other person’s world, look around, and absorb what we see without judgment.

Connection: Here, we resonate with the other person’s experience by recalling our own relevant experiences and memories.

Detachment: Finally, we leave their world to focus on creative action, before starting the cycle afresh.

Also check out Brian’s site for Free Creative Empathy Tools like an Ethical Design Checklist, his Journey Map Canvas and a Character Map Canvas (as an alternative to personas).

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

Brian Pagán 

The Greatness Studio - What’s your superpower? 

Creative Empathy - The Greatness Studio

Brian Pagán on Twitter

Double Diamond: What is the framework for innovation? Design Council's evolved Double Diamond

Personas: "The word derives from Latin, where it originally referred to a theatrical mask"

Method Acting: "The method" is a range of training and rehearsal techniques, as formulated by a number of different theatre practitioners, that seeks to encourage sincere and expressive performances through identifying with, understanding, and experiencing a character's inner motivation and emotions

For-With-Am-For: Shifting Perspectives as a key to the creative process: Discovery "I work for you", Immersion shifts to the 2nd person "I feel you", Connection shifts to the 1st person "I am you" and Detachment shifts to the 3rd person again "I work for you."

 

Minute 18

Daniel Stillman:

If you were to choose one tool, what is your favorite tool for getting people to connect? When you talk about it as a field book and you talk about tools and techniques when you're teaching teams about how to be more creative in the way they connect for creative projects, what do you feel is the tool that people really find the greatest leverage or connection or ease in? And maybe also which one's the hardest and the most struggling, but that they should get better at?

Brian Pagán:

I think the biggest... I hesitate to call it a connection technique because I think it's something that serves the entire inner loop, so it's for immersion and connection in that sense, but trigger cards and sensitizers as something that's in the book. These are... So if we look at the idea of sensitizers, any sensitizer is some sort of bit of information or some kind of story or some kind of personal thing that we share about someone in the targeted audience or in our group of people we're designing for, that allows us to emotionally connect with it. Somehow invites our resonance, our emotional resonance with that thing.

And one of the ways that we can create sensitizers are trigger cards. And in the book, I show trigger cards from Melina Lopez Reyes who is a graduated master's student. And she did her project, her graduation project in Mexico around victims of domestic abuse. And what she found was that whenever she was working together with government officials or people who run associations or sort of volunteer organizations that help victims of domestic violence, they... In ideation sessions, it was helpful for her to sort of prime people with stories from her interviews. So she talked with a lot of different victims and made their stories really easily digestible with these little cards that people can use.

So before an ideation session, she can distribute these cards to the participants of the ideation session, and either as part of the session itself or as part of the pre-read that before you actually join the session, you can go through and look at these trigger cards. And because they tell such intimate stories and real stories based on actual research, they allow us to emotionally resonate with what's going on and the experience of those people that we're actually going to be ideating for in the session itself.

Minute 21:

Daniel Stillman:

My last question before I unleash the other brains in this room is what is not in the book but should be? Because I know that happened to me.

Brian Pagán:

Oh yeah, for sure. There's so many things. What's not in the book and should be? What is going to be in the expanded version is something about the hierarchy of spiritual intelligence from Cindy Wigglesworth. And going back to our earlier talking about humanity and recognizing shared humanity, Cindy Wigglesworth came up with this thing called this hierarchy of spiritual intelligence, which is basically four stages of connection between people going from apathy to compassion.

So first it starts with apathy, like you don't care. It doesn't matter. Whatever. And then there's sympathy, which is not quite empathy, or you feel sorry for someone, but you're still not really opening yourself and being vulnerable to putting yourself on their shoes or even trying to relate to them on that level. Then after that is empathy, where we actually recognize each other's humanity, we actually try to connect our own experiences with the other person's experience. And then we have compassion, which is where we take our empathy and our feelings of wanting to help this person and actually put them into action and do something about it. This is where we build a house or help the person out or give a hug or these, whatever compassionate action it happens to be. Or design an app for them, or whatever kind of thing. These are the four stages, let's say, of from how you get to compassion.

And just bringing those together and putting empathy in that context helps to understand that, one, if you can feel empathy for someone else, it basically forces you to recognize them as a human being and recognize their humanity because you're connecting your own experiences with their own too. So I think that's quite important and also shows that empathy can lead to compassion. It's hard to have compassion for someone if we don't have empathy for them first, if that makes sense. So those are the two key things that I'd like to bring in in the next version, let's say.

Minute 24

Erin Warner:

Could you explain the purpose and the value of detachment?

Brian Pagán:

Absolutely. So as far as I understand it, the difference between immersion and detachment is just the fact that it's hard for us to look objectively almost at something if we're still immersed in another person's world. Another way to say it could be that empathy exists out of two different components. There's the effective emotional component, and then there's the cognitive more rational component. And if we have too much of one without the other, then it can either be dangerous if we have just emotional empathy without rational empathy. But it can also just go too shallowly. If we don't connect emotionally, then we're not going to... We're not really having true empathy in that sense.

So I think by virtue of the fact that we go, we immerse ourselves in another person's world and then connect our own experiences with that, that's the inner loop. And then once we detach from that, then it gives us the psychological space and distance to be able to more effectively weigh the needs of the person in whom's world we just were immersed in, and everybody else, if that makes sense.

More About Brian

Hats I wear include speaker, actor, podcaster, writer, and UX consultant. Over the last 19 years, I’ve worked with around 40 clients, coached 16 startups, and traveled to 11 countries to give talks and teach classes.

I founded The Greatness Studio in 2016, Computer Drama in 2018, and MindFolk in 2020.

My home is with Hester Bruikman-Pagán in Zeeland (Netherlands), and I’ve loved avocados since before it was cool.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

I'm going to start recording in progress. Brian Pagán, thanks for being here for the Conversation Factory Book Club. And Chantel, Erin, and Jim, thanks for being here from the community to make the conversation so much more interesting than it would be if it was just me or just me and Brian. If it was just me by myself talking for the whole time, I don't think that would be that interesting at all. So thanks for making the time you all.

Daniel Stillman:

Brian, people can Google you, but what's important for us to know about you that we cannot find on the Google? What's important for us to know about you so we can get to know you before we get started?

Brian Pagán:

It's funny. I was just having a conversation with some students at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, and a lot of students are doing projects around gender and gender identity. And we just went off on a tangent talking about how more common it is these days to be defined by what you're not in the sense that anyone who might be different from the mainstream or different from what we would consider a default in Western society, that we're just starting to define ourselves as like non-monogamous or non-binary or non this, non that. And it's, yeah, I think in some kind of way, I think that applies to me a lot as well. I remember having a T-shirt back in the day in Germany that said "Not quite normal." And I feel like if there's a sort of nutshell description of myself, I think that would be it.

Daniel Stillman:

Not quite normal.

Brian Pagán:

Maybe that's how I want, I pretend that I am. Maybe I'm just super normal and very boring, but then I think, oh yeah, if I pretend I'm not... But people think I'm more interesting. Maybe it's that. I don't know, but I definitely, yeah, don't feel like I fit into a lot of the default things of our society, if that makes sense.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, that does make sense, and I identify with that, which is maybe why we hit it off. So Chantel, Erin, Jim, what you don't know is Jim and Brian and I met drinking I think in New Orleans as is common at an interaction, Information Architecture Conference like 2012. That was a really, really long time ago. And we reconnected recently and sort of found that the arcs of our careers from sort of user experience design to thinking about humans. And UX designers at one point sort of woke up to this idea of like, "We're the only people who talk about our customers in the same way that drug dealers do." That's one of the classic quips of like...

Brian Pagán:

Oh yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

They're people, and then also in sort of the coaching and transformation space. So Brian and I have a lot of overlap. We've had some really wonderful deep conversations. And he shared this book with me and I thought it would be a really interesting opportunity to share this book with you all.

Jim Burke:

Drinking happens in New Orleans?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It does.

Brian Pagán:

What? Shocking. Clutch the pearls.

Jim Burke:

And that's where the best conversations come from. The deepest thoughts come out of doing that.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, let's just say from heightened states of consciousness, Jim. There's lots of ways to get there.

Brian Pagán:

For sure. Yeah. I will say there were also musical instruments there. There was a lot of music, music playing, piano playing, and singing, and guitar playing, and stuff at the party we were.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, that was a good party. A rare party. It was one of those... Somebody had rented a room that had one of those balconies. There's something... By the way, if you're listening to this and you haven't been to New Orleans... Show of hands, who's been to... Chantel, have you been there?

Jim Burke:

Who's been there? Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

You've been to New Orleans? Chantel, that's amazing. All the way from South Africa.

Chantel Botha:

Five years. Daniel, five years in a row. If you say "New Orleans," I say-

Daniel Stillman:

"When."

Chantel Botha:

... "Beads, beignets, and hurricanes."

Daniel Stillman:

The drink, not the atmospheric-

Chantel Botha:

Yes. No. The refillable cups with-

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Also jazz.

Brian Pagán:

Like this tall made out of plastic with a huge straw. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

And crawfish. That's what's really important to me about them.

Chantel Botha:

And then some black magic if you're into that.

Daniel Stillman:

And some black magic. All right. So now we really know Brian. Excuse me. So I'm really curious as somebody who's written a book, how is the book, how did writing the book change you? What was like, this is maybe my meta question was like, what was it like for you to write a book about this and what has it done to you? Maybe not for you.

Brian Pagán:

That's a great question. I think the first thing would be that it made it lot less scary for me to write a book, if that makes sense. Just I guess the first time... Because I always knew that I wanted to write a book or write books. I've always been very interested in writing. And so I, for a long time, I had the fantasy of just writing a book. But doing it the way that I did with the publisher Bookboon, they had a specific process, and it's almost like they coach you through the whole thing, and that really helped me to just write the first one, if that makes sense. And most of the time, the first one's the hardest one, right? So I think after that, I guess just the internal change or internal shift for me is I feel much more confident as a writer. I feel much more confident in the idea of, could I write a book? Yeah. I know I can. I have proof. And also just articulating the ideas in such a way that other people can hopefully understand them.

Brian Pagán:

I'm really curious to hear you all's thoughts about this too. Because did I succeed or not? We'll see. But yeah, I think that was the biggest change was the internal change of having confidence and also more the content wise change of understanding the things that I wanted to write about better because I had to formulate them for other people.

Daniel Stillman:

And why empathy and why creative empathy? Why a field book?

Brian Pagán:

So empathy is something that I feel like we need more of in the world. I know there are people who don't necessarily agree with that with folks like Paul Bloom, for example, talk more about compassion than empathy. But in my mind, empathy is something that we need if we want to be able to have compassion for each other and treat each other more kindly.

Brian Pagán:

And if there's... I don't know. I feel like there's a general overwhelming understanding that we seem to be farther from each other as human beings than ever. And they're all kind of factors and stuff, but one way to get back through that is just to recognize each other's humanity, treat each other like people. And I feel like if we were trained in emotional intelligence, if we learned very practical things, techniques about how to regulate your own emotions, how to empathize with another human being, how to listen to each other, then the world would be a much better place with or without technology, if that makes sense.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, it does.

Brian Pagán:

You still hear me. I'm getting a message that my internet connection is unstable, so...

Daniel Stillman:

Oh no. I hear you loud and clear.

Brian Pagán:

I hope I'm not breaking up.

Daniel Stillman:

That's fine for me.

Brian Pagán:

Oh.

Daniel Stillman:

So I think it's really important to contextualize this because I think there's at least two layers here. Obviously, there's the human and day to day, but specifically you're coming from the context of product design and product innovation. And so that's where I think the empathy process and the sort of like the first question I have for you is a visual question. Well, it's because this diagram was new for me. And this... I mean, I love visuals. I love models. I love loops, especially when there's two of them, and this empathic design process, and for people who are listening, maybe you can describe it, how you found it, and why... I mean, because it's sort of like, to me it feels like the backbone, the beating heart of the book, if that's correct.

Brian Pagán:

It definitely is. For sure. For sure.

Daniel Stillman:

Also interestingly in the book, I don't think this is red, this little number three is red, but on Bookboon, it is, which is interesting. So maybe you can tell us about...

Brian Pagán:

So of course there are two versions of it. There's a color one for the digital, for the ebook, and for the just paper book I wanted to keep costs down and try to make sure that things are, for the environment they aren't too damaging. So I did everything here in monochrome black and white. So basically, it's all in just black ink, whatever.

Brian Pagán:

But yeah, to answer your question. So I definitely see this for me as the big theoretical backbone of everything. And for folks listening, basically it's two loops. There's a loop inside another loop. So it's a four-step process and the two steps in the middle, so steps two and three, form their own sort of loop, if that makes sense. So you go through the first stage is part of the outer loop. And then in the second step, you go into the inner loop, to the third step, and this is immersion and connection. And then you leave that inner loop and go outside again to the outer loop with the fourth step. And just to really quickly talk through that, the four stages are discovery, immersion, connection, and detachment. Yes, exactly like you've drawn it with the thing on the screen.

Daniel Stillman:

Terribly.

Brian Pagán:

But it does make sense in that way because it's sort of almost like a railroad track in the sense that you go into one and go onto the other one. And if you look at-

Daniel Stillman:

So discovery, immersion, connection, and detachment.

Brian Pagán:

And detachment, yes. Yeah. So if we look at like a traditional design process, we already have discovery, immersion, and detachment. Discovery would be something like when we do market research and we notice that there are, I don't know, there are millennials who would like to have some kind of product and they're not getting it yet, and their needs aren't being met for some reason. And then people would start doing UX research. This is where we do immersion, where we do ethnographic studies, or they gather information about people.

Brian Pagán:

And then we skipped already to detachment. This is where we start designing stuff. And what empathy does, and the reason why, and just to go back to your earlier question, why creative empathy? Creative empathy for me is empathy applied to a creative process. And that's why it's a field guide as well. Because I wanted to make it very practical. Most of the stuff around empathy these days... I don't want to talk trash about anybody, but a lot of it is about how great empathy is and how it can help our lives, but there's not really much around how do I get started? Steps one, step two, step three in order to do empathy.

Daniel Stillman:

Just by, just super meta, that's very empathic of you to not talk trash about the other empathic thought views.

Brian Pagán:

Thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

I can really see their point.

Brian Pagán:

Exactly. Yes. I try to... But so this connection part, basically the thing about empathy is, it's twofold. One is that as designers, everyone's always talking about, "Yes, I'm customer obsessed and I want people to... I want to make things that people love. And I want people to really fall in love with my business and my brand," but we are not allowing ourselves in the creation process to be vulnerable towards the people for whom we're creating. Right? So we don't fall in love with them, but we expect them to fall in love with us. Right? And so this connection phase is when we actually, after immersion, after we've immersed ourselves in the world of another person through our research or through simulators or whatever, the connection phase is where we create space to reflect in our own experiences to understand that thinking about the last time that I felt the way that this person I'm observing is feeling.

Brian Pagán:

And then I can ask myself, what do I need when I feel like that? And if I can recall that in myself, this is another reason why I use a lot of acting techniques in the book, because acting is a lot about emotional recall and stuff, like bringing an emotional state into your mind so that you can use it. Once I get that into my head... Let's say I'm looking at someone and I can see that they're sad while they're interacting with a certain system. What do I need when I'm sad? I can recall that for myself. And then when I detach myself and start working on the actual solution, then I have an extra layer of insight and understanding into the sadness and the needs of the sadness around it. Does that make sense?

Daniel Stillman:

It makes a ton of sense. And I really want to highlight a phrase you said that was devastating, which is that we expect our customers to fall in love with us and our products, but we don't fall in love with them. And that's really profound because I think there's something fundamental about empathy that relies on humanity and equity. And I love the idea of truly bilateral relationships, of relationships among equals, and the idea that there should be for every action an equal and opposite reaction from my physics heritage. It's like, why-

Brian Pagán:

It's like Newtonian design.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, Newtonian design. It's like, and so now I get why it's in red, that the connection is so deeply important. And there's all these techniques that you have around it, like free writing and method acting, which I want to make sure we talk about. And that's why it's underlined in red, is that that's the step that you feel is missing in a traditional double diamond UX. Find a problem and then find a hole and then fill the hole process.

Brian Pagán:

And I will say another... If you don't mind, we'll just one more thing about the empathic design process. I don't necessarily see it as on a project level where you have a project that's discovery, immersion, connection, and detachment. I see the empathic design process very much as sort of a fractal kind of thing that can also apply within other stages of design processes. So for example, you just mentioned the double diamond. And the double diamond has four stages where you diverge and then converge and then diverge again and converge again. And within those stages, I feel like you can repeatedly do an empathic design process. It can be at every phase of a project. It can be every sprint. It can be every day. It can be that as a designer, you might be going through this process a few times a day as you're making decisions going forward through moving pixels.

Daniel Stillman:

It's fractal.

Brian Pagán:

It's very fractal in that sense. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

So two things I want to say. By the way, if Chantel, Erin, Jim, if you need to or want to break in at any point and say, if there's something unclear, you want to go deeper in something, you don't have to save your questions to the question. We're all equal humans here.

Daniel Stillman:

And I guess the second thing that's coming up for me, because maybe this is the thing that we wouldn't know about you if we Googled you, or maybe it is, is your acting experience. I mean, it's in the book, but I think the reason I'm interested in this is the idea that all of us can and maybe should, not to should anybody, can and should bring all of the parts of ourselves to the things that we're doing. And it's really interesting that because you have this acting heritage, you're like, "You know what this is like? This is like method acting," thought no one else ever. Right? And so I don't know if that's a question or a comment or just like a tell me more about that. And also just to anybody, for everyone, I think it's just, it's so valuable to be able to bring all the parts of yourself to a challenge. So kudos for doing that. And also tell us more about method acting for people who don't know about the method.

Brian Pagán:

The method. I love that. Yeah. So your question, I mean, answering your question is going to touch on so many things because in creating the book, it was exactly bringing different parts of myself and different interests that I had together into one space because I'm an actor, but I'm also, I practice mindfulness and I noticed a lot of things there that could be useful for design practice that aren't necessarily taught as part of a design practice, which I think is like a missed chance. And we talk a lot about empathy and we talk about empathizing with personas and with fictitious characters or characters in a product development cycle, but actors have been doing this for 3,000 years, three-and-a-half thousand, 4,000 years, or however long people have existed, they've pretended to be other people, and-

Daniel Stillman:

For fun.

Brian Pagán:

For fun. Yeah. Or for money or whatever. To precipitate social change. But there's already a really wide existence of techniques and almost a science that we can lean on and inform ourselves with that we're just not even paying attention to, which I think is a shame. So this is my attempt at a first, let's say, interconnection between those different disciplines, mindfulness, acting, and design.

Daniel Stillman:

Right, because this is... I was just in Greece for my honeymoon. And so I stood in one of these amphitheaters on the goddamn Acropolis.

Brian Pagán:

I'm jealous. Wow.

Daniel Stillman:

And you're like, "This is a place." Right? And it's been occupied on and off since prehistoric times, right? So it's like this little divot in the hillside just was used as a divot in the hillside, and then somebody put rocks in it so people could sit down and not give muddy, which was very nice. But this was the thing about personas. The word persona comes from persona, to speak through, because when they did these... When they acted, they used these masks that also helped them project their voices to the hundreds and hundreds of people. And I think personas are these things that are thrown around in the design field, and finding out the origin of this word persona, to speak through, was mind-blowing. So tell me what that sparks in you, Brian, because I heard you, just like your yes.

Brian Pagán:

Oh yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's by creating a persona or a character, we let our target audience speak to us. So yeah, I mean it... Wow. That's amazing. Yeah. Cool.

Daniel Stillman:

And maybe in terms of connection, if you were to choose, and this is a terrible question, one tool. If you were to choose one tool, what is your favorite tool for getting people to connect? When you talk about it as a field book and you talk about tools and techniques when you're teaching teams about how to be more creative in the way they connect for creative projects, what do you feel is the tool that people really find the greatest leverage or connection or ease in? And maybe also which one's the hardest and the most struggling, but that they should get better at?

Brian Pagán:

I think on the team level especially-

Daniel Stillman:

We can walk on two, both sides of that.

Brian Pagán:

For sure. I think the biggest... I hesitate to call it a connection technique because I think it's something that serves the entire inner loop, so it's for immersion and connection in that sense, but trigger cards and sensitizers as something that's in the book. These are... So if we look at the idea of sensitizers, any sensitizer is some sort of bit of information or some kind of story or some kind of personal thing that we share about someone in the targeted audience or in our group of people we're designing for, that allows us to emotionally connect with it. Somehow invites our resonance, our emotional resonance with that thing.

Brian Pagán:

And one of the ways that we can create sensitizers are trigger cards. And in the book, I show trigger cards from Melina Lopez Reyes who is a graduated master's student. And she did her project, her graduation project in Mexico around victims of domestic abuse. And what she found was that whenever she was working together with government officials or people who run associations or sort of volunteer organizations that help victims of domestic violence, they... In ideation sessions, it was helpful for her to sort of prime people with stories from her interviews. So she talked with a lot of different victims and made their stories really easily digestible with these little cards that people can use.

Brian Pagán:

So before an ideation session, she can distribute these cards to the participants of the ideation session, and either as part of the session itself or as part of the pre-read that before you actually join the session, you can go through and look at these trigger cards. And because they tell such intimate stories and real stories based on actual research, they allow us to emotionally resonate with what's going on and the experience of those people that we're actually going to be ideating for in the session itself.

Brian Pagán:

So for me, that's, I think, one of those measures or one of these techniques that takes very little effort and is quite easy to do, but it gives... The ROI is huge for this kind of thing. Does that answer your question?

Daniel Stillman:

Oh, it really does. My last question before I unleash the other brains in this room is what is not in the book but should be? Because I know that happened to me.

Brian Pagán:

Oh yeah, for sure. There's so many things. What's not in the book and should be? What is going to be in the expanded version is something about the hierarchy of spiritual intelligence from Cindy Wigglesworth. And going back to our earlier talking about humanity and recognizing shared humanity, Cindy Wigglesworth came up with this thing called this hierarchy of spiritual intelligence, which is basically four stages of connection between people going from apathy to compassion.

Brian Pagán:

So first it starts with apathy, like you don't care. It doesn't matter. Whatever. And then there's sympathy, which is not quite empathy, or you feel sorry for someone, but you're still not really opening yourself and being vulnerable to putting yourself on their shoes or even trying to relate to them on that level. Then after that is empathy, where we actually recognize each other's humanity, we actually try to connect our own experiences with the other person's experience. And then we have compassion, which is where we take our empathy and our feelings of wanting to help this person and actually put them into action and do something about it. This is where we build a house or help the person out or give a hug or these, whatever compassionate action it happens to be. Or design an app for them, or whatever kind of thing. These are the four stages, let's say, of from how you get to compassion.

Brian Pagán:

And just bringing those together and putting empathy in that context helps to understand that, one, if you can feel empathy for someone else, it basically forces you to recognize them as a human being and recognize their humanity because you're connecting your own experiences with their own too. So I think that's quite important and also shows that empathy can lead to compassion. It's hard to have compassion for someone if we don't have empathy for them first, if that makes sense. So those are the two key things that I'd like to bring in in the next version, let's say.

Daniel Stillman:

I think that's absolutely wonderful. Well, you answered all of my questions, so I'm going to pass the mic over to Erin first because she took the most copious notes in the Google slide stock that I shared. So Erin, what-

Brian Pagán:

Super cool. Thank you for that too, by the way.

Daniel Stillman:

Ditto, Erin, what is left in your mind that you want to unpack since we've got Brian here?

Erin Warner:

I know. That's great. Thank you. Thank you for this book, Brian. Yeah, I do have some questions, and maybe I'm sure they reflect where I'm coming from in my experience, but could you talk a little bit more about detachment? And you said that's in the standard repertoire of design, but I'm not really coming from that world, and so the word rings a little almost negative to me. Could you explain the purpose and the value of detachment?

Brian Pagán:

Absolutely. So as far as I understand it, the difference between immersion and detachment is just the fact that it's hard for us to look objectively almost at something if we're still immersed in another person's world. Another way to say it could be that empathy exists out of two different components. There's the affective emotional component, and then there's the cognitive more rational component. And if we have too much of one without the other, then it can either be dangerous if we have just emotional empathy without rational empathy. But it can also just go too shallowly. If we don't connect emotionally, then we're not going to... We're not really having true empathy in that sense.

Brian Pagán:

So I think by virtue of the fact that we go, we immerse ourselves in another person's world and then connect our own experiences with that, that's the inner loop. And then once we detach from that, then it gives us the psychological space and distance to be able to more effectively weigh the needs of the person in whom's world we just were immersed in, and everybody else, if that makes sense.

Brian Pagán:

So if I go into your world and I want to create something for you, if I'm still immersed in your world in my head while I'm trying to create something for you, then I'm going to forget everyone else, and I'm going to make something that works for you, even if it maybe exploits someone else. But if I can detach first, then it gives me that bird's eye view again where I can do something that helps you, but then I can also balance the needs of other people, the people around you, maybe people, other passive stakeholders of whatever I'm designing, in such a way that you are helped without trying to hurt someone else, if that makes sense. Does that answer your question?

Erin Warner:

Yeah, definitely. And actually, now that I hear you saying it, that was in the book. I read it. But then hearing you say it, connecting it directly to the detachment phase really clarifies. Thank you.

Brian Pagán:

Thanks. That's a good note. Maybe I should make that more explicit.

Daniel Stillman:

I'll give you the transcript, Brian. Chantel, Jim, just in terms of following that thread, is there anything more that you wanted to probe at on that topic or a different topic? But first, I want to see if there's anything deeper on that that's worth following. Because I'll just say one thing that's coming. Oh, wait, Jim, was that... I couldn't... Was that your mouth moving? I can't tell.

Jim Burke:

No, no, no. Go ahead. I have a completely different thread to go and disrupt everything with.

Daniel Stillman:

No, that's great. I was just designing the conversation. I was like, should we go deeper before we go other, elsewhere? It's-

Brian Pagán:

You've got the conversation canvas in front of your face, don't you Daniel? I know you're like looking at it. Which one am I-

Daniel Stillman:

It's on my brain.

Brian Pagán:

It's burned.

Daniel Stillman:

It's burned on my brain. One of the things that's coming up for me is the classic example of somebody coming to you and being like, "I'm sad" or "I'm upset." Just on the one-to-one conversation basis, on the human basis of like, "I'm sad. I'm having a hard time," and somebody goes, "You know what you should do is blank." Right? And that's going straight from the cognitive without any of the emotional resonance. It's like, "Oh, I'm so sorry you're going through that. That sounds hard."

Brian Pagán:

Yeah. I would even go as far as-

Daniel Stillman:

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Count to 10.

Brian Pagán:

I would even take it farther and say that a response like that is sympathy rather than empathy. Because it's easy to just come with solutions. I don't have to be vulnerable with that. I don't have to sit with you in your pain or in your trauma or in your experience in order to give you solutions. I just say, "Oh, you know what you should do? Just do that and that." It's real easy.

Daniel Stillman:

I read an article about that. You should read it.

Brian Pagán:

Here. I'll send you a podcast.

Daniel Stillman:

And I think the other thing that's important about detachment is that there are choices that have to be made in a creative project sometimes. Right?

Brian Pagán:

Yeah. Always.

Daniel Stillman:

And trade-offs. And I think that's sort of the classic trope of the designer, because that's where... He's like just fighting for the user and the customer, and you don't understand what they need. It's like, well... And then there's the trade-off of like, well, how will this be profitable? How will this be paid for? It's capitalism.

Brian Pagán:

When I teach-

Daniel Stillman:

Sorry, Erin.

Brian Pagán:

... beginning... When I teach basic UX, I have a slide on it with a... It's like a spider web with a little spider in the middle. And I like to talk about UX being in the middle of the web. We have to balance the needs of... On the outside edges of the web, there's developers and business and the user, and then there's people around the user, and then there's maybe legal team, and then there's maybe some experts or whatever. And we're like, we have to balance all that stuff. It's not just user advocate. We have to think of all these other things and like you say, make trade-offs and everything like that.

Daniel Stillman:

Right. And I'll just say, sorry for... But when I talk about that, that is that cloud three-way Venn diagram of user focus, business focus, and engineering focus. I'm like, those are people. Money people matter too. They have concerns and they need to be listened to, and sometimes their feelings need to be assuaged, and we have to empathize with them. And so the tech people, they're like, "I can't do that."

Brian Pagán:

Those poor money people.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, those poor money people. But there's people behind it where it's not just about... It is about finding appropriate balance between those three fundamental forces.

Brian Pagán:

Of course.

Daniel Stillman:

All right. I'll stop tirading.

Brian Pagán:

No, thanks for pointing that out. It's a good one.

Daniel Stillman:

Ladies first. Chantel, what's on your mind? What's important for you to bring into the conversation?

Chantel Botha:

So Brian, thank you for the book. I loved it. I skim read it. And Daniel said to me, "It's a light read. You're going to love it." And I really did. And I'm looking at the book more in the context of almost if someone said to me, "I've got a magic wand. What would I change in the world?" I would probably want to put just a whack load of kindness and empathy in the world. I really think we need a lot more of this. I mean, your book should be a prescribed book for every human on the planet, I think.

Brian Pagán:

Thank you.

Chantel Botha:

And it, I think it should be, I think empathy should be taught at school. So I've got two questions for you. So the first one is the emotional interest, how to escalate someone's emotional interest. Because what I see, and I operate a lot in the service environment teaching call center people and service professionals how to survive their jobs, and how to start thriving, and how to find passion, and how to unleash the human potential. And really what I see in that environment, there's a lot of people that have gone on autopilot. It takes a lot less energy. They don't really want to connect. They don't really want to feel if someone says to them, "You need to fill in this form." And the client replies, "You know what, I can't fill in the form. My son's sick and they need to go to the doctor." They pick, "We really need the form be because before we can do anything," rather than taking the bait and saying, "I'm so sorry to hear about your son." So I mean, a lot of what we see is energy conservation. So how can I create motivation for someone to want to connect and want to feel, because my value proposition is not very compelling. Yeah. Hey, feel some empathy. You're going to feel like shit. You're going to be sad. You're going to feel someone else's pain. And then what? Like...

Daniel Stillman:

We need to work on your sales pitch, Chantel. That's for sure.

Brian Pagán:

Absolutely.

Chantel Botha:

Daniel, do you have time for me? We can brainstorm it together.

Daniel Stillman:

We have Brian here. I think he's... Hopefully, he's going to help you find another entry point into the conversation.

Brian Pagán:

Nope. Empathy sucks. I'm leaving. No. I think it's a... I love that you gave me some context around it as well, because I think... So I have two, let's say, responses to the question or to the scenario. I would say the first response, if it's about creating that motivation, I feel like for most of us, obviously not for everyone, but for most of the human beings on the planet, we have this already inside us. We are born with the desire to be social, to understand people, to be kind to each other. And I would even go as far as to say that that's one of the reasons why we've survived while Neanderthals and other forms of humanity have died out is because we work together with each other. We help each other out. We take care of little babies and stuff. We don't just run around and hunting all day.

Brian Pagán:

So I think it's inside, and one way to I think help that happen for call center employees, for example, would be to create more space for them to allow them the time and the energy and the breaks and the recovery time to be able to actually do that kind of stuff, and listen, and be curious.

Brian Pagán:

Because of course I'm coming from a bunch of assumptions here. So if I say something that isn't true or isn't accurate, just please jump in and correct me. But I have the feeling that most of the customer service professions these days, a lot of times the companies look at customer service almost as bandaid or like a hygiene factor. It's like something they have to have, and they're not really passionate about it, and they're not interested in innovating around customer service. So the budgets for these kind of departments tend to be really low. And they say, "Okay, we need to hire a bunch of people, and they have a script, and they have the stuff that they need to do, and they just need to deal with it and stop bothering us with your problems."

Brian Pagán:

But if we give people, if we empower people to actually do things for people to help people out, and we give them the space to be able to recover from if they decide to immerse themselves in a person's world that they're talking to on the phone and listen to the fact that their son is sick and how is that affecting that person and how is it affecting their life and filling in the form and all that stuff. And like, "I get it. It's okay. Let's talk about it for a minute." If we can give them that space afterwards to be able to recover, then I think it makes it easier for them to actually do it. And especially if we model these behaviors, if we create a culture around listening and around non-judgmental observation, I think that could be helpful. But that is one. So that's one aspect of it is sort of taking away obstacles and letting it happen on its own.

Brian Pagán:

But if we're also trying to promote it a little bit, I think what we don't talk about enough might be this feeling of connection that we do get once the, let's say the climax happens and the sadness cloud sort of resolves, and the other person comes back and says, "You know what, thank you so much for this conversation. That really means a lot." Or "I feel much better having talked to you. Thank you for listening. This really, really just helped me feel better." And the feeling that you get when someone gives you that feedback is just amazing. And it costs time, it costs energy, it costs sadness, emotional, this journey, but it can be extremely rewarding. And think about if you do this 4, 5, 6 times a day, it's like a drug maybe. You'd feel really good. It's just this drug of helping people out and making people feel good and happy. That's amazing. Human connection. Yeah, we don't talk about that enough.

Chantel Botha:

And it's legal. It's a legal drug.

Brian Pagán:

It's legal even.

Chantel Botha:

I like that angle. I really do like that angle. I'm not sure how I would sell that up the hierarchy, because I think as the seniority and the pay grade gets more, I'm not sure that they're going to necessarily buy the legal drug. But thank you. Thank you for that perspective.

Chantel Botha:

I've got one more question for you. So if you had 60 minutes with a person that's very unempathetic, you've got a bundle of tricks and some magic sprinkle dust in your book, how would you... And I know you said earlier, we all have this inner, so we've kind of lost it a little bit. So let's just think about kind of the gem or the diamond that we've lost. But how would you in 60 minutes just reignite that empathy, flick on that switch? What would you do with a person?

Brian Pagán:

I hope you're not going to hate my answer. It's a typical coach answer, but I would listen first. Through going through a process of just listening and validating, listening and helping this person feel comfortable about what they're saying, helping them feel comfortable about what they're explaining about why they don't feel empathy or what holds them back, and accepting that for them, it's true. Even if I don't agree, it's for them, that's the reality that they're living with, and just observing that nonjudgmentally and creating space for them to sort of air out maybe some of the things that might be weighing on them that stands in their way.

Brian Pagán:

Sometimes it's enough for people to just get certain things off their chest or have articulated certain things maybe from their childhood. Maybe people don't understand that they went through this thing where, I don't know, their dad gave them a spanking because they were crying for some kind of thing. And boys don't cry. That's weak, or some kind of thing. That can have a huge impact on a kid in that moment. But then as they become an adult, that teaches them what's the worth of emotions and emotional intelligence. And if people are taught that empathy is bad, and emotions are bad, and crying is bad, and we shouldn't do this stuff, and you should be strong and don't show emotions or whatever, then there's a lot of baggage that they're working through. And just talking about it sometimes can help people open their own eyes, if that makes sense. Like just listening and letting them go through their own journey and sort of being there asking questions. I think that's the strategy that I would try to follow. Does that help? Does that make sense?

Daniel Stillman:

That's so insidious, Brian. I like that. Empathize with them until they crack.

Brian Pagán:

Yes. Kill them with kindness.

Daniel Stillman:

Kill them with... Well, yeah. Yeah. Jim?

Jim Burke:

Yes, sir.

Daniel Stillman:

What's on your mind? What's important for you to [crosstalk 00:39:15]?

Jim Burke:

So I want first, Daniel, I want to thank you for allowing us to come into your space and be part of this. This is awesome. As I read through Brian's book, there's a lot of things that I absolutely loved about the way that it was set up, because it was... It started with that diagram that you put up Daniel, the circle diagram. And the thing that I loved about that was it was more than, had me thinking that it's more than the hexagons for design thinking. By doing connection, when you look through, and I say the hexagons because when you go through empathize design, ideate, prototype, test, what you're talking about with empathy is really about a glue that binds those together. Because if you actually go through and if you're in academia and you're going through what's a part of ideate? What's a part of prototype? What's a part of test? Underneath everything is the connection that you're talking about, trying to connect with that user that you're designing to. So I love the fact that that, that circular diagram allowed us to be more than.

Jim Burke:

The other, the part that led then to the, I think it was an earlier chapter that you had which resonated with me, which was the product market fit side. I'm one of the denizens of Strategyzer and their Value Prop Canvas, and the Business Model Canvas. And the thing as a facilitator that I always... Not that I struggle with. I struggle with being in sessions where it's poorly facilitated, where it goes, "Oh, here's the Value Prop Canvas and we have the product, and we have the pains that people are doing. And here's your pain reliever, and the jobs that people do. And connect the dots and the skies will part and you'll have this thing because you filled out the rubric, therefore it must be so." When I start seeing that, and I loved your line in there. I loved creative empathy helps us achieve this by surfacing latent people's needs. Are there any suggestions that you would make on how to help surface those product market fit needs as you're designing, whether it's prompts or more probing questions?

Brian Pagán:

Both prompts and probing questions, I think... Yeah. So basically, everything in the proximity section, all the techniques in there and some of the ones in the team section as well, of course, but as a designer, working on something like myself, if I would be working like that, then I would try to use those techniques from the proximity session to be able to move myself into that head space or that emotional space while I'm actually designing something.

Brian Pagán:

So in the book I tell a story about when I was designing the interface, the UI for a breastfeeding tracker, for example. And I never breastfed. I never will breastfeed. It's not an experience that I have a lot of proximity with. But by doing this, it's a very simple exercise, but a free writing and character thing. Basically, I wrote... My acting coach gave me this exercise to pretend that I'm a new mom and I should write a letter to my newborn child. And that helped me really get into the head space of what it's like to be a new mom, a new parent who might be having some kind of anxieties around like, "Am I doing this right? Am I going to... I don't want to make you sick. You're such a fragile thing. I don't want you... I want to take care of you and I really love you, but I'm also scared. Like you're such a, you know, kind of thing."

Brian Pagán:

And just understanding that as part of my design process really helped me connect with the already existing research material that was there, but then on a much deeper, much more emotional level, so that it gave me not only the insight that things needed to be a lot simpler than I thought with the UI itself. But it also gave me a lot more confidence to fight for that simplicity within the team.

Brian Pagán:

And to give a very concrete example of this, at the bottom of those tracking screens in the app, there was a push to have content there, like articles that people could read. The assumption was that a mom while she's breastfeeding, wants to look at articles on her phone because she's bored or whatever. I thought, no, there's nothing boring about breastfeeding. It can be a very stressful thing. There's so much going on. We need to take this content out. We need to put the content in another place, serve it in a different way. And that one technique gave me sort of the ammunition and the ability to actually get that stuff taken out and placed in a more appropriate place. Does that answer your question?

Jim Burke:

Oh yeah. Yeah, it does. Thank you so much.

Brian Pagán:

Cool. Thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

Just to turn the crank on that a little bit, two things. One, I think that speaks to Chantel's question a little bit that one of the most powerful ways to create change is to have people get more proximity where the challenge is happening. And I've definitely done situations like this Chantel, where you bring people into the call center and they actually watch and listen while they go through it. And it's you increase the proximity. It's much harder to ignore what's going on.

Daniel Stillman:

But there's another thing which I really wanted to make sure we talked about, which is the first, second, and third person shifts that happen through the process. And when it comes to facilitating this process for others, Jim, which is what you're talking about specifically, like how do I help create a space where this can happen? The writing, the free writing is going back into the first person. It's not, she does this. She does that. She does this. It's trying to internalize it from the I do this. I do that. And even though I think there's some risks of stereotyping and not being, oversimplifying, it seems like making that intentional shift to the first person is a really important part of the connection step in creative empathy, like going back into the, like, to really inhabit.

Brian Pagán:

Absolutely. And that's exactly what that connection phase is all about, is really stepping into that world, becoming that person on some level. And whether it's in your head or whether it's as part of a simulator or something, it really personalizes it for yourself so that you really feel that connection. Indeed. Wow, you put it really wonderfully. Crap. I should put that in the book.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, Erin's moved locations, which means it's almost time for us to part. We only have a couple of minutes left, and I didn't design the close, which is kind of hilarious. Brian, is there anything else that we haven't asked you that we should ask you or anything else you want the people here or at home to know? That's the best I got right now.

Brian Pagán:

I'll say one last thing. It's a little bit more general than just from the book, but it's something that underpins everything in my entire life. So I'm convinced that every single choice that we make as people can be reduced to love versus fear. And the more we choose fear, the more easy it becomes to keep choosing fear. And the more we choose love, the easier it turns into keeping choosing love, or to keep choosing love. And the choice to listen, the choice to empathize with another person, the choice to be vulnerable and resonate and connect with another human being, it's that's a choice of love. And I want to help everyone that I possibly can to facilitate them in choosing love a lot more. Yes. Oh yes. It's all... That's the best. Yeah. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Chantel has put on her heart sunglasses for those at home.

Brian Pagán:

Heart sunglasses.

Daniel Stillman:

And more Baby Yoda.

Brian Pagán:

Do love, you should.

Daniel Stillman:

So Brian, isn't this true that you do... So other things that people should know about you, which we didn't talk about. You do workshops on this stuff for teams and organizations, helping people get better at this.

Brian Pagán:

Absolutely.

Daniel Stillman:

Can people get a paperback version of the book? I know you sent me one, which was very sweet of you. Can they buy it from someplace else if they want to get it?

Brian Pagán:

I have a very strict pay what you want if you want policy for the paper book. So if you want a paper copy, just email me your address. I'll send it to you. And inside will be a little piece of paper with the QR code that if you want to make a donation or pay something... Those are another heart glasses. Oh man. That if you feel like giving something, you can, but it's totally optional. I really want this to be like a pay what you want if you want sort of give me what you think this is worth kind of scenario. And yes, I do give workshops on this for larger teams, smaller teams, at events, in-house like for companies, lots of trainings and stuff. Yeah. I definitely. It's a lot of fun too.

Daniel Stillman:

And people can find you at the URL that you're going to specify now.

Brian Pagán:

Thegreatness.studio, at The Greatness Studio, or especially for creative empathy, it's just creativeempathy.eu.

Daniel Stillman:

There you go. Easy. Well, with two minutes to spare, Chantel, Erin, Jim, what's one word you're checking out with?

Jim Burke:

Excited.

Chantel Botha:

Bold with joy. Thank you, Brian. I loved this conversation.

Daniel Stillman:

That's five words, but we'll allow it. Erin, what are you checking out with?

Erin Warner:

Oh, the positive residence of detachment for the holistic picture.

Daniel Stillman:

That's a good tattoo. I'm in for it. Brian, thank you so much for making time to have this conversation. Erin, Chantel, Jim, thanks for lending your brains to this delicious soup. This is really delightful. What a nice way to start my day. So thank you very much, everyone.

Brian Pagán:

Thank you all. This was amazing. I appreciate it.

Jim Burke:

Thank you all for having us. Thank you so much.

Chantel Botha:

Thank you.

Jim Burke:

Thank you, Brian.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you, Brian.

Jim Burke:

Fantastic to meet you and be part of this.

Brian Pagán:

Absolutely. Thank you very much. Let's stay in touch.

Jim Burke:

Will do.

Daniel Stillman:

I'll call scene. And scene.

Brian Pagán:

And scene. Thank you all. Amazing. I appreciate it. So cool.

Daniel Stillman:

Thanks, Brian. All right. Have a good day, everyone.

Jim Burke:

Take care.

Erin Warner:

So cool to get to talk to the author, so thank you very much for this opportunity.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you.

Brian Pagán:

And if you want a paper copy, let me know. Really. I'll send it. It's all good.

Erin Warner:

I think I do. I think I need to read it again, but thank you.

Brian Pagán:

Thanks.

Erin Warner:

Thanks, Daniel.

Daniel Stillman:

Thanks Brian. Talk to you soon. Hey, man. Thanks for doing that.

Brian Pagán:

Thanks for all-

The Perfect Conversation

What is a "perfect conversation"?

What about the "perfect" conversationalist?

I'm thrilled to share this discussion that Michael Bervell and I had around those questions and more. Michael is a Ghanaian-American angel-investor, entrepreneur, philanthropist, and philosopher. He currently serves as the youngest President of the Harvard Club of Seattle and works as a Portfolio Development Manager at M12, Microsoft’s Venture Capital Fund.

He's also the author of Unlocking Unicorns and the host of the blog "billion dollar startup ideas" 

He's also a conversation design nerd, like me… and his insights into conversation design are not to be missed. We unpack some essential questions, like:

  • Understanding the types of Conversations with the “Concentric Circle” model of Conversations

  • The Importance of Self-Talk in Conversations

  • The Art of Noticing: What to “read” when you're reading a conversation.

  • Being an “authentic chameleon”: Balancing being adaptable in conversation with being authentic 

  • The Power of non-questions and Questions with a period.

I hope you enjoy the conversation as much as I did!

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

Unlocking Unicorns, by Michael Bervell

Michael's website

Billion Dollar Startup Ideas

Michael on TikTok

The TikTok Michael told Daniel to make

Minute 5:

Michael Bervell:

I was raised by my grandmother for a long time in my elementary school years, and my grandmother used to always tiptoe into my bedroom at nighttime. And she would tiptoe into my bedroom and take my teddy bears, because she would go to Ghana once a year and take these teddy bears and give them to kids in the hospitals, and the orphanages, and the schools. So, it was so sweet.

Daniel Stillman:

She stole your teddy bears.

Michael Bervell:

She stole my teddy bears but for a good cause. Obviously, I didn't see that good cause as a young child. But eventually when she passed away, we went to her funeral and saw all these kids at her funeral, kids under 10-years-old. And we're like, "Why is everyone here?" And they said, "Oh, well, this is our mom, too," in the sense that she had given them all teddy bears and helped them, and so they felt this kind of sense of loss when she died.

And so, in the communal kind of conversation aspect, what we wanted to do is to make her legacy live on. And the conversation that we started here in the States is asking people at local high schools and middle schools to donate their teddy bears so that on our next trip to Ghana, we could hand deliver them to these hospitals, orphanages and schools.

And so that was in 2007. Now about 14 years later, it's an annual thing that we do. We actually have a Hugs for Ghana Day. That's the name of the nonprofit in our local town, and we do this once a year and kind of have this almost kind of cross-cultural conversation where students from the U.S. will fly to Ghana and hand deliver these supplies to these Ghanaian schools, and hospitals and orphanages.

So, I think that was the first kind of conversation of meaning that I really had.

Minute 10:

So that's what self-talk, I think the core of that is to think, "If you have those 60,000 thoughts, try to grasp one and hold on to it." Right?

I think the metaphor can apply to a two-person conversation or a dyadic conversation as well, in the same sense that in a two-person conversation, there are about a hundred things that you could be saying at any one time. And, of course, people say active listening is the idea of not listening to figure out what you're going to say next, but instead listening to understand and respond to that, which I think is very similar to trying to latch on to one thought in self-talk.

Minute 12:

Daniel Stillman:

Which goes to the question of, what do you read when you're reading the conversation? What are you noticing? And I think the idea of being a chameleon is such an interesting one, so there's two layers I want to pull, because I've been playing with this idea, as well, of can I show up on purpose to serve the conversation? I think it's worth doing if you want it to become something more, more of itself, or to be able to bend it into another direction, but that requires you to show up in specific ways, intentionally, which means you have to notice what's going on in the conversation, like what are the signs and signals.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah, and it's not just in the conversation. It's also in the context of the conversation. Right? If we're having this conversation not as a podcast, it would probably be different than if it was a podcast.

And so the context outside of conversation also affects the conversation, and profoundly.

Minute 18:

Daniel Stillman:

So, this kind of goes towards... I have a stick note here around asking questions with a period, as in not interrogating people, and I'm wondering. This is where I think about the art of invitation, the ability to invite people into a modality or a process or a set of questions without it seeming abrupt, forceful or strange. And I think it seems like that's a challenge here.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah. I mean even what you just did now. You asked a perfect question without putting a question mark on it. The question that you're asking is, how do you overcome that challenge, and yet all you said was, "There is a challenge here." Right? And that opens up the next step of wanting to say, "How would one solve that challenge?"

And I think, obviously, if you go to every conversation and you always are asking, "So, how was I in that last conversation? Was it good?" I mean, you can probably think of all the funny jokes that similar to, that no one wants to really ask. And so I think one strategy that I have, even as, one, you could do it asynchronously, meaning you send out an email to all your friends. This is the extreme self-improvement method. And you say, "Hey, once a year, I send this out to all my friends. Give me feedback on how I converse." Right? And it's not really a question. It's more like an invitation to contribute to the bettering of Michael, the bettering of Daniel.

More About Michael

MICHAEL BERVELL is a Ghanaian-American angel-investor, entrepreneur, philanthropist, and philosopher. He currently serves as the youngest President of the Harvard Club of Seattle and works as a Portfolio Development Manager at M12, Microsoft’s Venture Capital Fund.

Bervell's blog BillionDollarStartupIdeas.com has been viewed by more than 750,000 people around the world. In 2007, he co-founded “Hugs for” an international, student-run non-profit organization with operations in 6 countries that has impacted over 300,000 youth. Because of this work, Bervell was awarded the National Caring Award in 2015, alongside Pope Francis and Dikembe Mutombo.

He received a Bachelor’s in philosophy from Harvard College and a Master’s in communication from the University of Washington. Find him at MichaelBervell.com.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

Michael, I am so glad that you made the time for this conversation. Honestly and truly, I'm so excited to have you on The Conversation Factory. You are a unique conversation designer in your own right, so thanks for making the time.

Michael Bervell:

Well, I really appreciate being on here. It's almost like you're finally on the podcast that you listen to, and that you've touched the moon. You know? That's kind of what it feels like a little bit.

Daniel Stillman:

You're very kind. Well, so, I mean how... I've been thinking about how to contextualize you and honestly, our relationship, because the way I think of it is like you're a younger person than I am. You're at sort of the beginning middle of your career. But I also feel like I've learned so much from you every time we've spoken. So even though you don't have an official reverse mentoring relationship, that's the way I think of it. After our last conversation, you were like, "You know what, Daniel? You should make a TikTok video." And I did, and it was really-

Michael Bervell:

Oh, amazing. I love that.

Daniel Stillman:

... So I was like, "I should take Michael's advice, because he's-"

Michael Bervell:

That's so cool.

Daniel Stillman:

"... smarter than me in so many ways." How do you describe yourself? What do you say it is? What would, the classic quote, what would you say you do around here? How do you describe yourself?

Michael Bervell:

And you know what's so funny is, I made my first website when I was in 9th grade, because I had an older brother. He was junior in high school, and so he was two years older than me. So, he made a website, and I was like, "Well, I should make a website, too." And on my website, my first iteration of it, it said, "Michael Bervell is an enigma." Which that first sentence has changed a couple times. Now it says, "Michael Bervell is a Ghanaian-American, angel-investor, entrepreneur and author." Which is a little different from an enigma.

Michael Bervell:

But when I think of myself, I think of all the people who came before me and how that shaped who I am. And so, I'm the child of two Ghanaian immigrants. I grew up living in the United States. I've been extremely fortunate and been able to go to amazing schools and meet amazing people and been able to give back in amazing ways. But I'm also someone who wants to try to take the success that I've had and to spread it around to people who don't have it. And so, I guess I'm an enigma but also trying to give back in some ways.

Daniel Stillman:

I think it was the short version, and I like the longer version, too. I feel like we originally connected around facilitation, right?

Michael Bervell:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

And designing conversations. And maybe you can just contextualize a little bit of your heritage, your story in that world.

Michael Bervell:

Well, when we first met, I was doing research on how to have the perfect conversation. As I framed it, there were kind of these three parts to it. Every conversation starts with the self-talk that you have, almost the philosophy you talking to yourself. Then there's the two-person conversation, which is you talking to someone else. And then kind of what I call the N-person conversation, community conversations, conversations around a table, maybe even a conversation of a speaker to an audience. I guess we're doing that two-person conversation but with an audience listening in.

Michael Bervell:

But I lived in almost every single day growing up from birth until now always having family dinner with my family. And so, that was just a regular occurrence, is that at the end of the day, we would all sit down; we would pray, eat dinner together as a family at least for 30 minutes to an hour. Sometimes the TV was on, sometimes it wasn't. And from a young age, conversation, for me, was just normal. It was regular, and it was frequent.

Michael Bervell:

And I think whether intentionally or not, that frequency permeated into me, especially during COVID, when there wasn't as frequent of conversations. I couldn't get dinner every single night with my family. Or in college, I joined a dinner group where every single week, I would get dinner with 12 of my closest friends, and we'd invite a different professor to come in. I couldn't do that during COVID.

Michael Bervell:

And so, the fact that I had lacked that conversation, I think, is what spurred me to be interested in it. But I think that upbringing, kind of being around a fireplace, a very communal, it's very much a Ghanaian type of mentality that has definitely inspired me all the while.

Daniel Stillman:

I think that's something that I... So, I've noticed a couple things I want to loop around. One is, the end conversation. I feel like you had had some experience in your university years convening and facilitating gathering people for a purpose. Right?

Michael Bervell:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

And facilitating and moderating that conversation.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah, and I was still being... And I think the first time I really facilitated the conversation that had meaning was in 6th grade, even before college, and I'll give you the quick story about that.

Michael Bervell:

I was raised by my grandmother for a long time in my elementary school years, and my grandmother used to always tiptoe into my bedroom at nighttime. And she would tiptoe into my bedroom and take my teddy bears, because she would go to Ghana once a year and take these teddy bears and give them to kids in the hospitals, and the orphanages, and the schools. So, it was so sweet.

Daniel Stillman:

She stole your teddy bears.

Michael Bervell:

She stole my teddy bears but for a good cause. Obviously, I didn't see that good cause as a young child. But eventually when she passed away, we went to her funeral and saw all these kids at her funeral, kids under 10-years-old. And we're like, "Why is everyone here?" And they said, "Oh, well, this is our mom, too," in the sense that she had given them all teddy bears and helped them, and so they felt this kind of sense of loss when she died.

Michael Bervell:

And so, in the communal kind of conversation aspect, what we wanted to do is to make her legacy live on. And the conversation that we started here in the States is asking people at local high schools and middle schools to donate their teddy bears so that on our next trip to Ghana, we could hand deliver them to these hospitals, orphanages and schools.

Michael Bervell:

And so that was in 2007. Now about 14 years later, it's an annual thing that we do. We actually have a Hugs for Ghana Day. That's the name of the nonprofit in our local town, and we do this once a year and kind of have this almost kind of cross-cultural conversation where students from the U.S. will fly to Ghana and hand deliver these supplies to these Ghanaian schools, and hospitals and orphanages.

Michael Bervell:

So, I think that was the first kind of conversation of meaning that I really had. But to your question, in college, I continued on having conversations, not just for meaning in the broader sense of giving back and impacting the world, but also in the more small sense of how to actually reflect on who you're becoming and who you want to be, almost the self-talk aspect, and that conversation was...

Michael Bervell:

I studied philosophy in college, so I'd have conversations all that time about philosophy, but we'd bring in these small dinner groups and bring in one professor to this group every single week. And that really helped me to spur really fascinating conversations. I talked with Ellen Langer, who was the first tenured female faculty member in the psychology department at Harvard. She's kind of called the mother of mindfulness. And that was one of the most memorable conversations I ever had.

Michael Bervell:

There are other conversations I had with someone named Gevvie Stone. She was an Olympic silver medalist. She came to our dinner group and told us, "How do you actually have the grit and perseverance to win a medal at the Olympics?" And she was a rower on the heavyweight women's row team. And so it was just super fascinating to meet these amazing people through conversation. But, whether conversation for meaning or conversation for self-enlightenment, I kind of [inaudible 00:07:39] it in a bunch of different ways.

Daniel Stillman:

I love the metaphor the visual of these concentric circles of conversation. I think very similarly with self-talk as this really important core that drives all of the other ones. And I'm wondering, the reflection has to do with sort of managing your self-talk.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

And I guess I'm wondering, what do you feel like are the principles that are the most similar across those spheres, from N to the one? What do you feel like is the same, and what's very, very different about those three conversation spheres, those concentric circles?

Michael Bervell:

I think the most similar thing that I would say is, with self-talk. Right? Let's start with the most central circle. It's the idea that in any given day, you're probably going to have I think 60,000 thoughts is the study for that thought. Right? I mean, you're not going to say 60,000 things.

Daniel Stillman:

No.

Michael Bervell:

And I wonder if people can say 60,000 words, but you have all these thoughts. And half of self-talk is even just deciding what will surface. Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Michael Bervell:

It's almost like the very Buddhist kind of philosophy of self-enlightenment of thinking, reflecting and trying to empty your mind, and that in and of itself is one of the hardest things to do. Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. That to me is, there's a dot. There's a dot in the middle of the concentric circle that is the cessation.

Michael Bervell:

Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

And that's really hard and rare.

Michael Bervell:

Super hard to get down to that. Right? So, the thinking about nothingness, or being very mindful about thinking about one thing.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

And the way that I personally practice that is, I think I was listening to a Thích Nhất Hạnh audiobook. And he said, "Think about breathing." Right? "If I were to tell you think about your breath going in and your breath going out, you literally can't think about anything else other than your breathing."

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

Right? You can't multitask breathing and XYZ.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Michael Bervell:

And yet, it's always happening. Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Michael Bervell:

Under this. So that's what self-talk, I think the core of that is to think, "If you have those 60,000 thoughts, try to grasp one and hold on to it." Right?

Michael Bervell:

I think the metaphor can apply to a two-person conversation or a dyadic conversation as well, in the same sense that in a two-person conversation, there are about a hundred things that you could be saying at any one time. And, of course, people say active listening is the idea of not listening to figure out what you're going to say next, but instead listening to understand and respond to that, which I think is very similar to trying to latch on to one thought in self-talk.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

Right? And it gives you, in effect, higher and higher and higher the number of possible conversations, you know, combinatorics is infinitely higher. 50,000 thoughts for one, there's maybe 120,000 thoughts for two, and then once you get to three, it's in the millions already, of potential things that people could say, do, whatever. And so I think that's the one core that kind of strings through is the level of possibility.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Michael Bervell:

And so, in my research of having the perfect conversation, part of the question is, which possibility do you take-

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Michael Bervell:

... to make the conversation the best.

Daniel Stillman:

Of infinite possibilities.

Michael Bervell:

Of infinite possibilities, right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

And with self-talk in my experiment, there's only 60,000 possibilities. In theory, you could try all of them out. With two people, even when you talk to your friend every single day for 10 years, you'll probably go through every possible possibility of your conversation. But as soon as you bring the third person, it becomes almost incomprehensible.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It's the three-body problem in physics is-

Michael Bervell:

Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

... very, very complex. Do you feel like you have a sketch or a view of what that perfect conversation is now?

Michael Bervell:

Yeah. My argument in how to have a perfect conversation is that I think the perfect conversationalist is a chameleon in the sense that they're the type of person who can mold to their environment. And so the hypothesis that I built is, okay, everyone has their own self-talk, everyone will probably talk to themselves differently. It seems like it's not too hard to kind of buy into the idea.

Michael Bervell:

If everyone talks to themselves differently, everyone's probably going to talk to other people differently. That's something that's also pretty basic. And if everyone talks to other people differently, then you should be able to tag and say, "This is your conversation type, or the habit of conversation that you tend to have."

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Michael Bervell:

And so my question that I tried to answer, and the eventual answer I came to is, so how do you as a conversationalist talk with someone once you know what their conversation type is? Or at least knowing that everyone has a different conversation type, how do you adapt your style of conversation to that person? Right? And my initial research was like, okay, well if you're talking with a chatty Cindy, then you should try to be a stoic Sam, because opposites are the best way to go about things.

Michael Bervell:

But then if a stoic Sam is talking to another stoic Sam, then that won't be a great conversation. It's be fairly hard. And so it almost seems like one of them would have to change, which is how I got to the lever of the perfect conversationalist is always adapting and always changing based on how they're reading the situation and the other person that they're talking to.

Daniel Stillman:

Right. Which goes to the question of, what do you read when you're reading the conversation? What are you noticing? And I think the idea of being a chameleon is such an interesting one, so there's two layers I want to pull, because I've been playing with this idea, as well, of can I show up on purpose to serve the conversation? I think it's worth doing if you want it to become something more, more of itself, or to be able to bend it into another direction, but that requires you to show up in specific ways, intentionally, which means you have to notice what's going on in the conversation, like what are the signs and signals.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah, and it's not just in the conversation. It's also in the context of the conversation. Right? If we're having this conversation not as a podcast, it would probably be different than if it was a podcast.

Daniel Stillman:

Totally.

Michael Bervell:

And so the context outside of conversation also affects the conversation, and profoundly.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, this makes it, this is slightly more. I mean, our conversations are similar to this, but they're a little more. This makes it a little bit more theatrical, and if there was people watching us, it's also yet even more different-

Michael Bervell:

Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

... because that raises the stakes.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

I think the idea of being a chameleon, I'm wondering if you ever put that intention with the idea of being authentic, like how do you be an authentic chameleon?

Michael Bervell:

It's so funny. I was on a hike in Lake Tahoe in July, and I was sharing with someone my research. And so I shared this whole hypothesis, and he said, "But that's inauthentic. If you're a chameleon, then are you ever truly yourself?"

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Michael Bervell:

And my response was, "Well, what if yourself is a chameleon?" Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

What if your most natural state, supposing that I were able to design these tests perfectly so that you could do all these questions and understand what type of person you are, and across all dynamics, you were pretty much a circle, or you're equal or whatever it might be. Then in that sense, your natural state is to be a chameleon. Right? And in that sense then yeah, the perfect conversation comes quote unquote, "naturally" to you, whatever that might mean.

Daniel Stillman:

I guess the way I sometimes think about it is just having range. Just like a soprano or an alto has a different range, and there's some people who are double threats, or triple threats in that they sing, dance and act. They've got range. They can do a high part and a low part. And I don't think there's anything wrong with not having range if you're getting what you want out of life. But-

Michael Bervell:

Yeah, and it's interesting. It's almost like getting an EGOT, right? The Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, Tony.

Daniel Stillman:

... Oscar, Tony, yeah.

Michael Bervell:

The EGOT of conversation, is that what one should strive for, or should we just strive to be an egg instead?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, right. And if you're getting what you need out of life, that's fine.

Michael Bervell:

Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

But I think, generally, people look towards... Well, this is what's interesting is, I think often people look for additional techniques to try and get more of what they want. And I feel like you're saying something that I think sometimes, which is, you just have to notice what the need is and potentially be able to serve the need of the conversation.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah. And the way I phrase that in my research is, every conversation has a goal, and as a conversationalist, you should understand what the goal is in order to know how to adapt to the conversation, and whether the goal is specific to the type of person that it is. Maybe the goal is, "I want to be liked after this conversation," so you must adapt to who they are in order to be liked by them.

Michael Bervell:

But if the goal is, we need to make our next quarter's earnings and develop a strategy to do that, maybe a chameleon strategy where you're just trying to be liked isn't necessarily the right strategy. But maybe a chameleon, I think, is calmness in understanding the goal and adapting your methodology to achieve that goal.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. Where do you feel, I mean in the research that you've done, where do you feel like are the biggest opportunity spaces for people to mold conversations to serve them better?

Michael Bervell:

I think there's this interesting phenomenon with what I call delivered conversation and received conversation, meaning the 15 words that I say to you, I have a perceived meaning of it, and you have a very different perceived meaning of it.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

I think the best example would be Gertrude Stein. She's a Cubist writer. People say she lived at the same time as Picasso, so on and so forth. She has this great piece called A Portrait of Picasso, where she essentially writes this Cubist poetry about if she were to paint Picasso in words, and there's a lot of repetition in this poetry, but as you read one sentence, and you put it into juxtaposition with another sentence, the sentence changes meaning, even if it's same exact sentence.

Michael Bervell:

So one of the phrases that she has is, "A rose is a rose, is a rose, is a rose, is a rose." Right? By the fifth or sixth, "Is a rose," it's kind of gibberish, but the first time-

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

... it affects. So, I'm using that as a metaphor and kind of a simile to this whole delivered and received conversation aspect. I could think I'm saying one thing, but it could be perceived as gibberish, and I think that's one area that people could try a bit more intentionally to understand. Whether it's at the end of your conversation with your partner, they'll be like, "Well, what did you hear me say?" And have them repeat it to you, because it'll be colored by their, "Rose is a rose, is a rose," tinted glasses.

Daniel Stillman:

Reverse-active listening.

Michael Bervell:

Exactly, yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

I think sometimes what comes up, and I always quote my mom on this, where she's like, "I don't want to be designing my conversations all the time, Daniel." And I say, "That's a choice."

Michael Bervell:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

So, for some people, that, "Tell me what you heard," could seem like a lack of trust, or overwrought. Right?

Michael Bervell:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel Stillman:

So, this kind of goes towards... I have a sticky note here around asking questions with a period, as in not interrogating people, and I'm wondering. This is where I think about the art of invitation, the ability to invite people into a modality or a process or a set of questions without it seeming abrupt, forceful or strange. And I think it seems like that's a challenge here.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah. I mean even what you just did now. You asked a perfect question without putting a question mark on it. The question that you're asking is, how do you overcome that challenge, and yet all you said was, "There is a challenge here." Right? And that opens up the next step of wanting to say, "How would one solve that challenge?"

Michael Bervell:

And I think, obviously, if you go to every conversation and you always are asking, "So, how was I in that last conversation? Was it good?" I mean, you can probably think of all the funny jokes that similar to, that no one wants to really ask. And so I think one strategy that I have, even as, one, you could do it asynchronously, meaning you send out an email to all your friends. This is the extreme self-improvement method. And you say, "Hey, once a year, I send this out to all my friends. Give me feedback on how I converse." Right? And it's not really a question. It's more like an invitation to contribute to the bettering of Michael, the bettering of Daniel.

Michael Bervell:

But the second method, which is in conversation, would be something almost like self-critical. And I've done this a couple times where I'll be like, "Oh you know, when we were at this last party, I said, this, that thing to the other person. I hope they didn't think it was weird."

Daniel Stillman:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Michael Bervell:

And my partner would be like, "Oh yeah, that was weird, and here's why I wouldn't say it again," or like, "Oh no, I didn't think it was weird, for X, Y, Z reasons." Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

And so, almost that self-doubt, I guess, is a way of asking a question with a period.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Is there more to say about asking a question with a period?

Michael Bervell:

Yeah. I think when people ask questions, they obviously do it with a question mark. Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Michael Bervell:

"How are you doing today? How was your Thanksgiving? What did you do last week?"

Daniel Stillman:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Michael Bervell:

Versus, asking a question with a period could be something like, "Oh, I saw you carve a turkey on..." Oh, I guess that's a question mark.

Daniel Stillman:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Michael Bervell:

"Your turkey on Instagram looks so tasty." Right? That invites you to tell a story about the turkey that they had carved.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

Right? Or even like, "It's been so long since I've seen you, your hair grew longer." I don't know. That would be a bad one. You can imagine how you can get people to tell stories or to share things about themselves by not asking them directly, but in almost leading breadcrumbs that incentivizes them to tell a story-

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Michael Bervell:

... or to tell more about themselves.

Daniel Stillman:

So, there's an example that comes to mind, which kind of maybe leads into another sticky note I have for around Zoom networking. One of the things that I do often, and if anybody gets on a call with me, you'll probably see me do this, which is notice something about somebody's background. Right?

Michael Bervell:

Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

I'll be like, "Hey, I love your sweater," or, "That's an awesome painting," or, "Hey, it looks sunny there today." Those are... And then it's just instead of saying, "How's the weather?" it's an opening for someone to go through-

Michael Bervell:

Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

... but they don't have to.

Michael Bervell:

I think that's an even better example of the asking questions with a period. And I think Zoom makes it a lot easier to do this.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

To the Zoom networking point, I almost always... Maybe this is genuine; maybe it's not genuine, so secrets for The Conversation Factory audience only. I almost always have research about the other person open on my laptop when I'm talking to them, whether it's a LinkedIn profile; or if they had a recent media article published about them, I'll have that open, because I actually do think it helps to develop a bit deeper of a friendship and a relationship if you are not asking super basic questions that they've told 100 people about, but you're asking them questions that they've never heard before.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Michael Bervell:

Or at the very least, you are looking at something that they've posted and taken the time to create already and are showing that you've seen it. And I think that's a big-

Daniel Stillman:

Is the three screen technique that you were talking about?

Michael Bervell:

... Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

So, wait, what are the three screens? One is definitely having something else where you're looking at their LinkedIn bio just so you can hold their story.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah. One is definitely the LinkedIn bio. One is, of course, the screen with the person on it, and I think the third is even the screen of, "What's the goal of the conversation? What do you want to get out of this?" Right? Which is, whenever you see my Calendly, or if I send you a calendar invite or anything, I have a super simple question that says, In 10 or 20 words, describe what you want to get out of this meeting."

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Michael Bervell:

And even that is quote unquote "an agenda" or a goal that then with the other screens, you can adapt. So, maybe it's an anticlimactic third screen, but it really is just the goal of what you hope to actually achieve in the time you have.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I feel like you are really good at, and I think it's worth exploring, especially in the age of COVID. I feel like the conversational density of our lives has decreased in some ways in that, in other ways it's just completely transformed. It's totally different. But I think about the sort of events and conferences, the sidebar conversations that we used to have, and I get the sense that you have a really methodical approach to designing your conversations around networking. Do you have a sketch of your perfect design for your networking approach? Because I noticed, for example, your Calendly link. I don't think many people... There's some people who might not go to that step of, "Here's my 30-minute Calendly link." You have a lot of availability in all sorts of strange hours to make it possible for you to connect with people.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I have... I guess I have two virtual tactics and one non virtual tactic. The first virtual tactic is that once a quarter, I'll do what I call a social week. I think Bill Gates does a think week where he disconnects and like reads a bunch of books and whatever. I do a social week, where for one week, all I'm doing is chatting with people and socializing. And so, I'll have calendar blocks from maybe 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM with like a one hour break for lunch, and I'll just have 30 minute conversations. I think I shortened it to 20 minutes so I can do more conversations for five days.

Daniel Stillman:

Wow.

Michael Bervell:

I'm pretty sure there was a time that you caught me at the end of one of my social weeks.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

I was absolutely exhausted, almost because I realized in doing social week, how many of our conversations are redundant, and so it almost became a practice to be like, "How can I summarize my life in the last three months in two minutes or less-"

Daniel Stillman:

Right, and get to something else.

Michael Bervell:

"... so we can get into the more meat of the conversation?"

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

Because I've just said it, by Thursday, I've said it over 60 times to 60 different people.

Daniel Stillman:

That's very interesting.

Michael Bervell:

So, social week is one of the virtual networking tips that I think has been really, really helpful in helping me to develop relationships that are new, but also cement existing relationships. When was the last time you called your best friend out of the blue? Maybe not that frequently, at least social week makes me do it once every three months.

Daniel Stillman:

Wow.

Michael Bervell:

The second virtual tactic on the whole Calendly link aspect is, I like to give people fodder for what they can ask me about or talk to me about. So, on my calendar link when they schedule time with me I have, these are the places I've traveled to, these are the board games that I've played, these are the books I've read. And, I like investing, so these are the companies or cryptocurrencies or whatever that I've invested in, in the last three months; and people can talk to me about that.

Michael Bervell:

The funny thing, and, of course, this is all anecdotal so maybe there's some type of study that could back this up, but the funny thing is, I feel like out of every 25 or 30 people I talk to, only two or three actually reference this 200-word thing that I've sent to them, essentially, about this is all the stuff that I'm thinking about lately. And so it's interesting, given all this information, why are people not using it to have quote unquote "better conversations"?

Daniel Stillman:

That is interesting, because I remember reading that and I was like, "Oh, that is so interesting and thorough and helpful, to put it in context, to put the conversation in context." It is interesting that very few people actually take use of the affordance that you are affording them.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah. Because I know actually, when we chatted last, you actually brought up one of the things. You were like, "Oh, I saw that you went here. How was it? I was there this many months ago."

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

I think that's very rare. Right? And so, a quick takeaway for your audience is, before you meet an old friends, look at their Facebook, look at the last three posts and choose one to bring up.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

Right? Seems so easy, and yet I'm almost guaranteed 95% of people don't do it.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'm glad game recognized game in this context, Michael. I definitely appreciate, and I was like, "Yeah, this is..." And this is one of the reasons why I thought it would be so interesting to talk to you about some of this stuff.

Daniel Stillman:

I want to maybe dissect, if I may transition, to some of the other conversations in your work and how you designed some of those, because I know you work in VC. It's a world not everyone is really familiar with. I was just reading some articles about an old high school buddy of mine who works in the VC world. He was talking about transparency and allowing people to shop deals around. And I was just really interested in the different ways in which the venture conversation is designed, and ways in which you feel like it could be more optimally designed.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah, definitely. I'll answer that question, but quickly to roadmap one step back. I think I promised your listeners three tips, two virtual and one physical.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh yeah, okay, good.

Michael Bervell:

And I think it's a [crosstalk 00:28:40].

Daniel Stillman:

Oh, good man. Yeah, yeah, let's loop back around and we'll-

Michael Bervell:

And the one physical tip, which, and then I'll come back to that question. But the one physical tip is, I learned when I was a sophomore in college going through Harvard's punch process, which as you know, they have these things called final clubs. They're kind of like fraternities much harder. I guess, harder to get into. I'm not really sure if it's more hard or less hard, but you go to these events, and it's 200 punches, young sophomores and 10 members. And you have to somehow impress these 10 members to get them to move you to the next round, and you do this for four or five rounds before finally getting in.

Michael Bervell:

And my tip that I had for the punch process, or the lesson that I learned was, if you go meet someone, they're really going to remember two or maybe three things about you, and so, go into theses conversations having your two or three things close to your heart and knowing what you want to share, like, "What is the goal of who Michael is?" by the end of this conversation. And having those top-of-mind is, I think, super helpful, whether you're at a conference or going through a punch process or anything else.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I mean, that's sort of like knowing the purpose, but knowing what you want people to come out of it with.

Michael Bervell:

Exactly. So then anyways to your question on VC, venture capital conversations, I think VC is just a fascinating industry. For the people who don't know about venture capital, essentially, people come to you. They ask rudely, and then you say yes or no, and that's your job. If you've watched Shark Tank, doing that every day is the job of quite a few people in the world.

Michael Bervell:

It's interesting, because there's kind of two parts to venture capital. One is everything that's deal flow, inbound. And, of course, the second is investing, outbound. And in the inbound, you have to be able to get a lot of inbound, and have a lot of conversations to vet. And in the outbound, you have to be able to convince people that they should take your money verus someone else's money, that your dollar is more valuable for some whole host of reasons.

Michael Bervell:

And so on the inbound conversations, obviously, you're talking with founders, you're talking with other investors. You're talking with people who have built companies and failed, and try to understand why, doing diligence, talking to customers. But what I find most interesting is the investor-to-investor relationship maintenance, because if you have really good relationships with other investors, then even if they pass on a really good deal, they'll send it to you to look at. And so have of venture capital, I mean maybe more than half, maybe less than half, a portion of venture capital is relationship maintenance for the purpose of deal flow. I think that's a super interesting part to venture capital that is often overlooked-

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, because I would think that maybe people would-

Michael Bervell:

... what you don't hear of.

Daniel Stillman:

... think that competitors are keeping competitors at an arm's length versus having an authentic relationship with them.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah, and I think in the longterm, too, when you eventually go outbound with your money and invent in a company and join the board, they're going to raise more money in the future. Ideally, you're not the last time they raise money. Eventually, they'll raise a Series B, C, D, maybe they'll IPO. All of those processes take even more relationships, and so you can't burn a bridge on one deal, because then it burns the bridge for the next 50 deals that you want to do. And so it's almost like relationship maintenance in the long term has a higher effect. Even if you think, "Oh, this deal, this person might take the deal from me."

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. I would almost put it in, some people think about a conversation beginning and ending. Like one phone call, it starts and it ends. But in the way that you are keeping the conversation going that your grandmother started, it's a potentially infinite conversation, where you just don't know who's going to be funding in the third round, and maintaining that relationship is part of taking a longer view to that dialogue.

Michael Bervell:

I almost call it, and this goes back to the conversational layers. Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

If you add up all these layers, eventually it becomes like kind of a conversation onion. And that's another term from my research, is a conversation onion. The fun part about the conversation onion metaphor is, let's say on layer three you have a rocky part of the relationship that you never discuss, and you go out to layer 10 or 11 or 13, that rock is still going to affect the layers way far out. And to cut into the onion might require a couple tears, but eventually will lead to a good dish at the end, or a better relationship at the end. And so, every relationship is always additive, honestly, maybe even multiplicative in this nature, rather than just isolated events.

Daniel Stillman:

I mean, I think only if you have that mindset.

Michael Bervell:

Correct, yeah. Well, I think even if you don't, almost unintentionally you'll have that, you'll be thinking that, whether you know it or not. I guess my hunch is that's human nature. When I see you now I think, "What happened the last time I saw him and the five or six times after?"

Michael Bervell:

And I think Maya Angelou has this great quote that, "You may forget what someone did for you, but you'll never forget how they made you feel." And I think that's, the feeling of conversation is almost more important than the content itself, especially in venture when you're sharing the high-stake deals and it could make or lose someone millions of dollars. It's all about reputation at that point, which reputation is just a nice word for, "How does this person make me feel?"

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Is there anything else you think about when you're designing those conversations in the context of the work that you do?

Michael Bervell:

I think we've in this discussion so far, I've assumed that we've gotten the conversation. But there's also a bunch of work beforehand of deciding who to converse with, and also whether or not to take an inbound conversation. And I think as a venture capitalist, probably my hardest job so far has been when I tell people that our conversation is ending, which we refer to as passing on the deal.

Michael Bervell:

You talk with them to or three times and you're like, "The team doesn't find it interesting. We're going to pass." How do you do that in a graceful way? And how do you end a conversation?

Daniel Stillman:

How do you?

Michael Bervell:

I wish I had better tips here. I haven't done much thinking or research on it yet, so I don't have any silver bullets. I'm still in the learning phase myself.

Daniel Stillman:

We don't have the perfect conversation yet for that one.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah. Or how to end the conversation perfectly.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

It's so interesting, what's coming to mind, I've been obsessing over it. Have you watched the movie Moneyball?

Michael Bervell:

Yeah, I have, yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

So, there's a whole series of clips I was watching on YouTube, and it's an amazing microcosm of conversations about how decisions get made. And there's a scene where Billy Beane, i.e. Brad Pitt, is teaching Jonah Hill, i.e. Pete Brand, I guess, how to fire people, and it was so... He was like, "Just tell him."

Daniel Stillman:

So there's some research on the order in which people like to receive news. Generally speaking, most people would say they would like to receive the bad news first, but most people try to give people good news to try and soften the blow. And I'm going to screw it up, and I'll have to put this in the show notes. Basically, if you want people to change, or grow, or evolve, you want to give them the bad news. You don't want to soften it, right?

Michael Bervell:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

You just want to tell them. You have to be straight with them, which was Billy Bragg's advice. He's like, "They're professionals." But I think we feel that we're being... This is the self-taught talk piece versus the self-talk that keeps us from saying the thing that might be the most helpful to them.

Michael Bervell:

In that Moneyball clip, I know exactly what you're talking about because I watched Moneyball three weeks ago.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh yeah?

Michael Bervell:

I think he says, "This is their job." Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

This conversation, if you go to them and say, "You're fired," that's their job. It actually works if you say, "Hey, you did so well over the last two months. We're really sorry to tell you this, but you're going to have to go." Versus just saying, "Hey, times changed. You have to leave."

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. We're trading you to the Mets. There it is. Here's your paperwork.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah, that's it. And it's no discussion, no debate. It's just, "That's the fact." But I don't know if Moneyball is based on a real phenomenon. I don't know if that is a clip from a real incident.

Daniel Stillman:

No, they're not. Totally fair, totally.

Michael Bervell:

In that same sense, yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, and I think this is maybe... And this is me just brainstorming, so take this with seven grains of salt. But it sounds like, going back to having the relationships with other VCs, I mean, that's extra work, which you don't necessarily want to be able to take on. But it is always so great for me to be able to say to somebody, "I can't help you at that price point, but I do know some coaches that are a little more junior who might be willing to take you on."

Michael Bervell:

Yeah, exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

And they're like, "That would be great." And that does soften the blow, is being able to send them someplace else.

Michael Bervell:

The biggest worry that I have though sometimes is softening the blow versus opening a new conversation. There was a time that I passed on a deal, and I was like, "Hey, the team isn't interested at this time." And the response that they had was, "Okay. At which time would they be interested?" Like, "Can I pitch again in six months?"

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, this is like, "This is what it would take."

Michael Bervell:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

And it seems like that's a very helpful position to say, "Here's why we're passing, and here's what it would take to get us interested again," which is very generous.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah, and then suddenly they come back at eight months and they say, "Hey, I fixed the things that you said I have to fix."

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Michael Bervell:

I'm like, "Well, the market dynamics have changed. The industry is no longer hot, or our fund ran out of money this year. There's no more money." There's a whole host of other factors, and so it's almost like sometimes if you give too much of an explanation when you end the conversation, it leaves the door open for the conversation to be reopened, even if it's not.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. These are the finer points that will go into the tinkering of the creation of the perfect letdown-

Michael Bervell:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

... at the end of the conversation.

Michael Bervell:

That's the next research project: How to end the conversation. I guess it'll be like how to end a relationship almost.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, I'm sure there's some parallels. It's not you, it's me. Ugh, it's the worst. Nobody likes that.

Michael Bervell:

Yeah, it's the worst.

Daniel Stillman:

But, and then some cases, and you can't tell people the real reason because that's... Usually people aren't looking for feedback on that stuff.

Michael Bervell:

Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

"Tell me more," never a good.

Michael Bervell:

Maybe, giving feedback with a period.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, totally. So, I feel like, speaking on the conversation, I want to make sure we talk about your book, because I think books are conversations, and they, just like any other good infinite and conversation of infinite onion size, I'm curious, for you, how the conversation about the book started for you in your self-talk, how you hosted and facilitated the conversations that helped you write the book, and what kind of growing concentric circles of the book has the book created? What ripples of conversation has it started for you? That's a lot. They're still questions.

Michael Bervell:

No, it's great. It's great, and it'll lead to a great story hopefully.

Michael Bervell:

The self-talk that started the book was when I first started working at Microsoft straight out of college, I just felt like I wasn't being as creative. I just felt like I went from college where I was studying philosophy, writing papers all the time, learning about a new subject all the time to working in this corporate job where I was being told what to do; I wasn't creating my own.

Daniel Stillman:

Sure.

Michael Bervell:

So I actually made this blog called billiondollartartupideas.com.

Daniel Stillman:

Which I love.

Michael Bervell:

That's so funny. I still do it to this day. It's been almost 800 days, and I've been posting every single day for the last two-and-some years, but I just post a new startup idea every single day on this website. And after about a year-and-a-half, I realized that 70% of my readers were from outside of the U.S. They were from India, Africa, Asia, Southeast Asia, pretty much everywhere that's not the global West. And it got me thinking, "I don't know anything about startups in these regions, in these ecosystems."

Michael Bervell:

And more than that, when I look at other investors in the U.S. market, I mean, there aren't very many investors that look like me. There aren't very many Ghanaian-American investors, or even female investors, or Latinx investors, and so, where are all of them?

Michael Bervell:

And then I realized, "Well, let me at least go to these regions and try to learn those stories." So, Unlocking Unicorns is a book all about startup founders in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. And it ties down the stories of super successful billion-dollar companies, unicorn companies in those regions, and some of the key lessons that these founders had to overcome in order to kind of, what I would say is, beat the odds to create a billion-dollar company in their region.

Michael Bervell:

So, in Africa, in the whole continent, for instance, I think there's about eight or nine unicorn companies, so, billion-dollar companies with a private market capitalization. And in my book I wrote about two of them. One of them was called Andela, and a second one was called Interswitch, two really fascinating companies. But even in the style of the book, it's written as a conversation. It's written as if you, the reader, are talking to the startup founder and asking them questions about their life. "Where did you grow up? Hod did you find this idea? Why did this idea trump the other five or six that you tried? And what were the key lessons in growing the startup that you knew of?"

Michael Bervell:

So, I try to almost have it almost like a Socratic dialogue, like if you were to read any of Plato's or Socrates type of work. It's kind of how it reads, more so than a monologue of me, the author, telling you about their story. So, it was really a fun book to read, and that's kind of how it's been going so far in terms of the creation aspect.

Michael Bervell:

Some of these chapters are written through conversations, meaning I actually met the founder and the executive, talked to them, and put their story back in the book. So, I was able to meet Jack Ma back in 2018 before I even started writing this book, and was able to go to a talk with him with about 25 or 30 other people, learn about his whole life story, take notes and secretly recorded a bit of it, too. And it was super fascinating. And that, I use some of those bits to add to the Jack Ma chapter.

Michael Bervell:

Same with Robin Li from Baidu, and the introduction and conclusion chapters, which feature American founders, are from a podcast I used to run, where I'd interview different Black and Latinx founders. So, all that has kind of gone together to make the Unlocking Unicorns story.

Daniel Stillman:

And what do you feel like the conversational ripples have? Because you published it, was it the middle of this year? Is that right?

Michael Bervell:

Yeah, I published it in August, so it came out just, what is it, three months ago, or I guess depending on when you release this, X months ago.

Daniel Stillman:

X months ago, yeah.

Michael Bervell:

But the ripples have been really, really fascinating actually. The books have been sold into seven different countries, which is kind of crazy to think that I wrote this text and within 100 days, people in seven different countries have purchased it, and read it, and learned from it. And I think what's fascinating is it's, I think it's brought to light the idea that the next 50 years of innovation will look different from the last 50 years. Where the internet is growing, it is in these kind of emerging economies, places like Nigeria, which has more internet users than some European countries.

Michael Bervell:

I mean, the whole continent of Africa has more internet users than the whole population of America; the same is true of India and China. And so I think for anyone who wants to be an entrepreneur, for anyone who wants to understand the world half a century from now, you have to have an intimate and deep understanding of these emerging economies, primarily because there's just so many people there, but also the cost of technology coming down, which means the barrier to entry for people in these regions are also coming down.

Michael Bervell:

So, any company like a TikTok, or an Uber or a Lyft, needs to be accessible to all people, especially the people, the six or five billion people who don't live in the global West.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I think it's really, really, you talk about changing the conversation, expanding the horizon to the next 50 years, really does shift the... That's a question with a period actually, or an exclamation point. You're like, "The next 50 years of innovation-"

Michael Bervell:

[inaudible 00:45:48].

Daniel Stillman:

"... couldn't possibly look like the first 50 years," because the cost of building a network is completely different now than it was 50 years ago. When my dad was an account executive at AT&T building a 2G network is totally different than building a network today, and the no-code revolution, it's a completely different ball game.

Michael Bervell:

And, of course, some things will replicate or mimic the last 50 years.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Michael Bervell:

Right? Quantum computing, which takes a lot of money to build, probably won't start in an emerging economy where they just don't have those resources.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Michael Bervell:

But if you're thinking, "Where is the next social media app going to come from?" since the resources to build that has dropped almost to zero, I mean it's really as long as you can teach yourself and have connection to an internet that you can get education from MIT OpenCourseWare, from all the same courses that me and my friends might have taken, and learn exactly what we learned and able to do it yourself.

Daniel Stillman:

It's sobering. Well, unfortunately, our time together for this conversation, and I feel like I should just have you on as a weekly guest, frankly, but what haven't I asked you? What's important to share, from your wealth of knowledge, research and experience about designing, if not perfect, better conversations? What have I not asked you that I should have asked you? What's important, yet, to share?

Michael Bervell:

I think it's a question I'll leave your audience with rather than answering it myself. And it's something I've been noodling on in my brain recently, and it's, "What are your three most common thoughts every day?"

Daniel Stillman:

Wow.

Michael Bervell:

And I think it would be a fun exercise for people in your audience for the next month to at the end of the day, reflect on what were the three things that they thought about most and try to see what the similarities are. So, I'm getting super fascinated by the idea of meta cognition, which of course goes back into self-talk. And so that, to me, I think is super fascinating. So, I don't know where it'll lead me, but that's the question I'll leave your audience with.

Daniel Stillman:

I would love to have a deeper conversation about that another time, because I am... this question of being a chameleon with a purpose, this question of being authentic and noticing what we're living with and can we change it, is a really... Can we change how we think, is a really interesting and important question.

Michael Bervell:

It's very ontological, and it's very, almost Heideggerian. He wrote this book called Being and Time, and he talks about Da-sein is the thing. And he's a controversial figure in and of himself, but at least his philosophy is somewhat interesting, so...

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, I would say so. Michael, it's a great pleasure. If people want to find you on the internets, a simple google will do. We talked about Unlocking Unicorns, which is available wherever fine books are sold. And what's the, your offer, the billion-dollar startup? What the... I'll just let you say it instead of me mangling it.

Michael Bervell:

It's just billiondollarstartupideas.com; that's the website, and then also, unlockingunicorns.com redirects to that website as well.

Daniel Stillman:

Okay.

Michael Bervell:

And if you want to learn more about me, it's michaelbervell.com at Michael spelled the regular way, A-E-L and Bervell is B-E-R-V-E-L-L.com. All my projects are there, and you can contact me there as well.

Daniel Stillman:

There you have it. Michael, I feel so lucky to be in conversation with you, just in general, in my life, and specifically now in this conversation here. So, thanks for making the time.

Michael Bervell:

Of course. And I really hope you drop your TikTok in the show notes.

Daniel Stillman:

Fair enough. I guess I should make a second one first, right?

Michael Bervell:

Well, thank you so much for having me, Daniel. I really appreciate it.

Daniel Stillman:

All right, and scene.

The Conversation Factory Book Club: Facilitating Breakthrough with Adam Kahane

The Conversation Factory book club is an experiment I’ve been running for a few months now. I’m experimenting with deeper conversations and collaborations with the subscribers of the Conversation Factory Insiders group as well as working to go deeper with some of the ideas that have been shared on the Podcast.

This is a round-table conversation with Adam Kahane, author of Facilitating Breakthrough, with a few special guests from the Conversation Factory Insiders group. If you haven’t listened to the interview I did with Adam last season OR read the book, I think you can still enjoy the conversation.

Adam does show some slides during the conversation, so head over to YouTube if you want to follow along. 

A note on process: In this session, you’ll hear the panel share what parts of the book were most impactful to them, and then Adam responds to their comments with some deeper thoughts. The wisdom Adam drops here is absolutely worth the price of admission!

Check out the show notes on theconversationfactory.com for links to Adam’s book, our podcast conversation last year, and his work as a Director at Reos Partners.

If you’re unfamiliar with Adam and Reos, Reos is an international social enterprise that helps people move forward together on their most important and intractable issues. Adam has over 30 years of experience facilitating breakthroughs at the highest levels in government and society. His own breakthrough facilitation moment came with an invitation to host the Mont Fleur Scenario Planning Exercises he facilitated in 1990s South Africa at the dawn of that country’s transition towards democracy and the twilight of apartheid. 

He’s gone on to facilitate conversations about ending civil wars, transforming the food system, and pretty much everything else in between.

Adam is amazingly honest and open about how he looks back at his past books and sees them as not just incomplete, but sometimes dangerously incomplete. So, read Power and Love, Collaborating with the Enemy, Transformative Scenario Planning, and Solving Tough Problems (all amazing books) with a grain of salt...or just get Facilitating Breakthrough!

It’s all about 5 key pairs of polarities in transformational, collaborative work and it’s an eye-opener. As you’ll hear, many of the panel members had an eye-opening moment, as I did, around the idea of Vertical and Horizontal facilitation.

Vertical and Horizontal Facilitation

In the opening quote, Adam points out that Vertical and Horizontal facilitation are two poles of a polarity. And like all good polarities, the key is to hold them lightly and dance between them mindfully.

Vertical Facilitation is focused on singularity: We have the right answer, and a right answer can be found and advocated for.

Horizontal Facilitation is focused on multiplicity: We each have our own answer, our own view, and there is no right path.

A sketch I made to help me think though the key ideas of Vertical and Horizontal Facilitation and the moves that shift the conversation from one pole to the other.

As Adam says...the “bad guy” isn’t one or the other pole of the polarity...it’s choosing one over the other.

I also deeply loved that Adam makes clear that the work of the Facilitator mirrors the work of the group.

Adam points out (on p.70 of his book) that:

A facilitator can only help participants if they, like participants, move back and forth between bringing their experience and also listening and adjusting to the needs of the situation

Again: it’s not about choosing verticality (finding a single answer) or horizontality (exploring multiplicity)...it’s about the opening and emergence created when we shift from one side of the polarity to the other. Can we move between Inquiring (the move to the horizontal) and Advocating (which shifts to the vertical)?

Complex situations rarely have solutions that can readily and easily be identified and advocated for. So, finding a path through truly complex challenges requires careful and artful shifting between these two modes of Vertical and Horizontal.

I hope you enjoy the conversation as much as I did, and that you check out Adam’s recent book, Facilitating Breakthrough.

If you want to take a deep dive into mastering facilitation and leading conversations through complexity, check out my Facilitation Masterclass. The next 12-week cohort starts in February. Learn more here.

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

Facilitating Breakthrough, by Adam Kahane

Reos Partners

Adam Kahane on The Conversation Factory

Minute 21

So the one phrase that I've come up with that's not in the book, about which I think explains the book, is that I think the world needs more and better collaboration. And if you define a facilitator simply as somebody who helps people to collaborate to effect change then the world needs more and better facilitation. So that is a summary of what the book is about that isn't in the book.

Minute 25

But early on a very generous person, who I actually don't know, who was one of the readers, one of the 207 readers of the manuscript, a guy named Marco Vallenti, said to me no, he thinks I'm wrong. This is a polarity, the bad guy is choosing one or the other, which I think most facilitators do, or at least they tend to one or the other. And the recommended approach is to use them both. Which you'll recognize is the central organizing idea in the book. And so a very important piece of feedback.

Now this thing about similarity and difference is interesting to me and I, years ago somebody said to me it's both. It's like Paris fashion week. Every year it's the same, every year it's different. So to me they are equally important. It's an ordinary polarity, it's related to power and love. But that they are both true. And that you need to focus both on what's common and what's different, and to focus only on what's common is the vertical and to focus only on what's different is the horizontal.

Minute 27

you don't need to decide if transformative facilitation is the right approach. I'm asserting that it is, that this is a general theory and practice of facilitation and that transformative facilitation equals good facilitation. So I know that is an audacious statement. So there is a discernment about fit for purpose, but its not about transformative facilitation, yes or no. It's about which move to make. That's where the discernment comes in.

Minute 32

The last thing, one of you mentioned this being a part of and apart from. I think it was Maggie. This is really interested me a lot. That is why I, even though logically the last story doesn't really, it doesn't have to be the last chapter, but I really wanted that to be the last chapter, because I think it's a very fundamental thing about whether you consider outside or inside a situation. And somebody said to me today it's the difference between controlling a situation and entering a situation. And when you think about it that way, of course we can't control and of course we are entering, but to recognize that, and again to recognize it's not that inside good, outside bad, but choosing one or the other rigidly is bad, and so like the other four polarities, its a matter of doing them both.

Minute 40

So Daniel is referring to an idea that I think I allude to in this book, but which is this central point in my previous book Collaborating with the Enemy. And it makes the point that there are, there is more than one way to deal with a situation. There are these four ways. And collaborating for some people is their favorite thing, for some people it is their least favorite thing. But anyhow you can't collaborate with everybody on everything, so collaboration is a choice. And not only is it a choice, but it is an unstable choice. So people can say we want to collaborate and then after five minute or five months say this isn't working I'm going to exit, or adapt, or force. But the subject of this book is if and only if the actors want to collaborate, then you need, then some person or people have to facilitate and this is how to do it. But this book says nothing about what to do if people or if key people don't want to collaborate.

More About Adam

Adam organizes, designs, and facilitates processes that help move people forward together on their most important and intractable issues.

Adam Kahane is a Director of Reos Partners, an international social enterprise that helps people move forward together on their most important and intractable issues.

Adam is a leading organizer, designer, and facilitator of processes through which business, government, and civil society leaders can work together to address challenges. He has worked in more than fifty countries and in every part of the world, with executives, politicians, generals, guerrillas, civil servants, trade unionists, community activists, United Nations officials, clergy and artists.

Adam is the author of Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities, about which Nelson Mandela said, “This breakthrough book addresses the central challenge of our time: finding a way to work together to solve the problems we have created.” He is also the author of Power and Love: A Theory and Practice of Social Change, Transformative Scenario Planning: Working Together to Change the Future, and Collaborating with the Enemy: How to Work with People You Don’t Agree with or Like or Trust.

During the early 1990s, Adam was the head of Social, Political, Economic, and Technological Scenarios for Royal Dutch Shell in London. He has held strategy and research positions with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (San Francisco), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (Paris), the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Vienna), the Institute for Energy Economics (Tokyo), and the Universities of Oxford, Toronto, British Columbia, California, and the Western Cape.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

So, we are going to do a round robin, and just take a couple of minutes each. I'll let you know if you've gone past like three or four minutes, because that would add up to a lot of time. Just to share one, one thing from the book that you feel was impactful. And one thing, one question that might still be standing out for you that the group and Adam could help clarify.

Daniel Stillman:

Hey welcome aboard Maggie. We're just getting started with the round robin.

Daniel Stillman:

I will, I'll lead the way. I feel like the quote that I really loved was the idea that a facilitator, and this is from page 70, a facilitator can only help participants if they like participants move back and forth between bringing their experience and also listening and adjusting to the needs of the situation. The idea that we have to do exactly what we ask our participants to do, that there's this connection between what we do as a self and what we do as a group, I think is really profound. And to that point I think there isn't enough conversation around the inner moves of facilitation. That facilitation is an inner game as much as a set of outer moves. And that's the thing I am most grateful to have spoken about in the book.

Daniel Stillman:

And I think you mention I'm becoming more masterful as a facilitator, or in my facilitation, in as much as you can recenter yourself more quickly than you used to. And I think it's worth having the conversation at some point about how we, how you develop that skill. Because I know that is something that is not clear to everyone, how you develop that skill of the inner capacity for presence and stillness with yourself. I am going to pass the mike over to Osama. Osama.

Osama:

Hi Daniel. Hi Adam. Daniel, you look slimmer from last time I saw you. I just want to say that.

Daniel Stillman:

Just to be clear we are here to compliment Adam, not me, but thank you.

Osama:

Yes. Okay, okay. And Adam you have more hair than last time I saw you.

Osama:

So for me the thing that stuck with me the most, almost the physicist rigor. Studying these concepts. So, I know you, Daniel, your background is in physics and Adam your background is in physics. And my background is in computer science in a technical field, but when I was reading about vertical and horizontal facilitation, for me I didn't recognize them as separate things. Because I don't see them existing by them, like I haven't seen vertical facilitator or a horizontal facilitator. So for me they were kind of messy, and so I was irritated to see them split. But as I read more I valued what I learned by splitting them and studying them and then reintegrating them in transformative facilitation.

Osama:

I hope I made sense. And I pass it to, do I pass it to the next person?

Daniel Stillman:

Yes please.

Osama:

I pass it to Mark Melbourne.

Mark:

Thanks Osama. So great to meet you all. And Adam I guess what struck me, there was a lot of resonances for me I guess. I'm part of, I'm kind of a fan of the art of hosting community that does talk about many of the concepts that you've alluded to there in your book. I guess the thing that was impactful for me was just to, kind of in a way bearing witness to it being applied in such significant, kind of high gravity, kind of circumstances. Which I can't even conceive of being, kind of involved, being a witness physically to that.

Mark:

I think the curiosity for me is trying to understand how the experience of being in that holy environment of where the magic happens, how does that continue on past, once the event is finished? How does that sort of transformation continue to bleed out into what happens next and next and next? And if that is sort of an intentional part of the process?

Mark:

Hand balling to Kara.

Kara:

Okay. Hi. Thank you Adam for writing this wonderful book. It was a real joy to read. Your stories are amazing and similar I think to Mark is, oh my gosh, I can't imagine actually having been in these incredibly complex situations, like very high stakes and it sounds intimidating. But you are clearly an expert in navigating these complicated relationships.

Kara:

I had a lot of similar thoughts to what Osama and Mark had said. But something I'll add on top of that is I love the bookend, no pun intended, the concepts that sort of framed the very beginning and the very end of the book. Which is removing obstacles to contribution connection and equity as the goal of the facilitation. I love just how simple, but how impactful that way of thinking about it is. And then by closing the book where you talk about employing love, power and justice, and that that is kind of similarly things you want to remove obstacles to but also empower to kind of bring clarity to the situation. Those were two things that I really loved.

Kara:

The thing that I am left with is, it seems as though transformative facilitation is applicable to very specific scenarios and you have the very last page, which I didn't see for a little while, well maybe not the very last page. But is the guide for facilitating breakthrough and how to recognize when it's an appropriate tool. I guess I am still wrestling with that. How do I know that this is the right tool for the scenario that I am faced with and how do I recognize that in the situation? So, yeah, that is what I am left with. Thank you very much.

Kara:

And I will pass it to, I am going to pick my neighbor down the road in Tampa, Wayne. Two Floridians on this call. That's kind of fun.

Wayne:

Awesome. Thank you. All right, again thanks Mark. I don't know if anybody else listened to the book, but I did listen to it. And it was a very good listen. I definitely appreciate it. I know it wasn't you right, right? No.

Adam Kahane:

No.

Wayne:

Had somebody else. Okay. Definitely appreciated the way the book came in very into story telling. Again those high stakes situations were quite riveting. I liked overall how the book, there was not a lot of dips in it really. I definitely liked how the conclusion was almost like a fireworks show, where the end had a lot of stuff going on as well. That really tied things in, like Kara was saying, the power, love and justice. It was just like wow. You just sprinkled a lot of chocolate syrup on top of the sundae that we were already enjoying. So I loved that.

Wayne:

I loved how you put the power and love, I can almost picture it as a matrix, where without power or without love you really don't have anything, or just having one, just having another, but you need both of them which was great. Then you put the justice part on there, and it had me thinking and more curious about how different systemic inequities that exist look through that lens.

Wayne:

It almost makes me crave for a book focused on those things. Maybe someone else in the Reos group, who focus on that. What has been their experiences dealing with some of those rather sticky situations. And then lastly, this is something I've been going through personally, in terms of being a continuous improvement professional, very process methodology focused, and your book pretty much says, okay don't rely on that. You have to be able to, again maneuver and shift your balance and it's not just step one, step two, step three. It could be one, two, back to one, one, five, back to four. Just all of that. And the fit for purpose aspect is what I got from it and was really a mind set shift for me. Thank you.

Wayne:

And I will pass it to my neighbor up top, right next to me is Lynne Carruthers.

Lynne:

Thank you Wayne. On the opposite side of the country.

Lynne:

I loved this one line Adam. "It is a way to remove the obstacles to advancing on their own." A really nice [inaudible 00:10:32]. I also love the definition of the role of a facilitator. I often find that where I work, I struggle with what does a facilitator actually do. No you don't have all the answers and tell them what to do. So that lovely definition is very helpful.

Lynne:

Daniel will Adam see the things that we wrote up?

Daniel Stillman:

Oh I'm happy to share that slide stack with him. We've been capturing our nuggets in a place.

Lynne:

Excellent. Thank you.

Lynne:

I have all kinds of things, but I am a long time aware of your amazing skills and talents and I just want to say that Napier would be very proud of you.

Adam Kahane:

Thank you.

Lynne:

You're welcome.

Lynne:

That's it for me Daniel. Oh, excuse me. Mark where are you?

Mark N:

Hey. Thanks. I am actually in San Jose, California. So quite close to, regionally in a similar location. Yeah, thank you. Nice to meet everyone. People that I don't know and do know, but also very much nice to meet you Adam.

Mark N:

I can only kind of piggy back on what other people have said because they have said it so much better than I. I think really what struck me was the really simple part of the things that make us different. There's things that make us different, but focusing on the things that bring us together is kind of really the basis of facilitation. And the way that you work with the group dynamic to really focus on, I never really thought of being to bring it back to the human elements, you know the power, love and justice. But really having those goals and the reasons why, they have a reason to come to the table, even at these high stakes is just kind of how magical, how you were able to condense into something so simple. Because I think condensing it down is one of the most difficult things to do. So I very much appreciate you having gone through those experiences and being able to share it in that manner.

Mark N:

I think what, kind of the question that I have, that was kind of off book, was similar to Daniel's. When facilitating in tense situations with such high stakes, how do you as a facilitator recenter yourself, kind of avoid burn out and recoup from it so that you can continue to provide this type of facilitation again and again over time? I think that is kind of like the question that is probably going to be going for a long period of time beyond this conversations. But would very much appreciate to learn more about that as well. Thank you so much.

Mark N:

And to that I will popcorn to Maggie.

Maggie:

Thanks Mark. Adam it's a privilege to meet you and spend this time with you. I'm a fan of Solving Tough Problems, which I bought many years ago because I do a lot of scenario work.

Maggie:

The part that really resonated with me was that notion that a part of the group and apart from the group. That is always one of my mantras as I go in, especially when it's what you call the high wire situations, is this not about me, but I'm there too. So that notion of toggling back and forth between being apart and also a part of the group. It was enjoyable to see the foreword by Ed Schein. He was one of my professors at the Pepperdine MSOD Program many years ago. And I also really appreciate just the book, all the citations and notes, because I followed up on a lot of those as well. So it is a wonderful resource. So, thank you.

Maggie:

I'll pass it to Carrie.

Carrie:

Thanks Maggie. And thank you Adam for being here and for this book. I'm a fellow Berrett-Koehler author, so hello.

Carrie:

This was, I learned so much. And really over the last year and a half I never considered myself to be a facilitator, and over working with Daniel and his masterclass I have realized that everything I do is actually facilitation. This was deeply clarifying for me. Especially the ideas of vertical and horizontal facilitation. I didn't, like Osama, I didn't realize that those were two separate things. And that I often am working in environments where vertical facilitation is the only acceptable kind of facilitation, in these corporate environments. But, where from the top, but then horizontally there are just so many voices that are not being heard and are frustrated, and that are, things are falling apart. So that really clarified that for me.

Carrie:

The concept that I am taking away from it more than anything else is this concept of unconditional positive regard for the people that you are facilitating. And perhaps for yourself as well as you are facilitating. That will stick with me for a long time. Especially when facilitating difficult groups.

Carrie:

The question that I am still wondering about is, I think Carrie you mentioned this, how to know if this facilitation is right, and then how to get consent to facilitate this or if that is even a concept that makes sense in your framework? And then also what to do when working in this context and then groups have a sort of false consensus and are being too nice to each other? So that you are not really able to make any progress. So that is my big question after reading this. Thank you.

Carrie:

And I will pass it to Kelly.

Kelly:

Hi everyone. Thank you Carrie. I'm Kelly Evans from San Francisco. I apologize my late, and this is also my first one, so what an impression. Hopefully none of you will forget me this time. Because I'll be that one. Nice to see you Daniel again.

Daniel Stillman:

Likewise.

Kelly:

Wow Carrie. So many things that you said were exactly, I'm only on Chapter Two. I consider myself an accidental and a somewhat reluctant facilitator. I am an introvert and yet I have stuck myself in a position where I felt facilitation was important. It was needed at the moment. And lo and behold I was going to step in to try to be that person.

Kelly:

I was struck immediately from the book, just joyfully surprised about sort of elevating the role of the facilitator to sort of this, it was sort of a spiritual celebration of the role of facilitator for me. Because the facilitator is often, especially in my work environment, reduced to its minimal parts. You are going to keep us on time. You are going to create an agenda. It's really pretty stale. And I was really struck by the vertical and horizontal as well. Coming at it from the side. And I think one is sometimes more formal and the other one is sort of how it really happens, right?

Kelly:

And to Carrie's point I would love to learn how to influence the organization to buy in to a different way of doing and being. And also Carrie, echoed your developing empathy with myself as a facilitator. Lynne and I are colleagues and we've done a ton of co-facilitation, and just the exhaustion I personally feel sometimes with something, I just need to give myself permission because I felt I was giving so much to the group and felt so much accountability and responsibility for the success of whatever it was I was trying to get the group from point A to point B. Just being okay with sometimes it being messy or just missing the mark. So I also learned, or look forward to learning how to tap into the flow of this transformative facilitation to A to help bolster myself through and gain some buoyancy through some of the ups and downs of how these things really unfold in real life.

Kelly:

That's all. I'm just in chapter two. So tremendously impactful right at the get go Adam, thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

All right. Thank you everyone for doing that. And Adam I hope that wasn't too much of a shower, slash fire hose of insights. What from that is sticking for you as worth stretching out and expanding? I know that was a lot, but I'm curious where you think it would be interesting to start unpacking.

Adam Kahane:

Well, first of all thank you very much. Thanks for reading the book and finding something useful in it.

Adam Kahane:

Let me say a few things. And also perhaps its counter norm but also show you a few slides. And the reason is that I finished the book early in the year. It's a very long process from the time you finish the manuscript to the time the book comes out. I love Berret-Koehler by the way. I really enjoy working with them. But, any how, the point is I finish writing the book, I don't know six months ago, but I wasn't really presenting it yet. So I was sort of mulling it over in my mind and also rereading it many times, because you have to keep proof reading it and things like that, so as a result there are a few things that are clearer to me now that aren't in the book.

Daniel Stillman:

So you've learned things since writing the book? That's not allowed. It stays in time and that's it.

Adam Kahane:

Including some images, because it's more trouble than it's worth to try to get images into a printed book usually. But I'm giving a lot of presentations and I like to use images in my slides. So the one phrase that I've come up with that's not in the book, about which I think explains the book, is that I think the world needs more and better collaboration. And if you define a facilitator simply as somebody who helps people to collaborate to effect change then the world needs more and better facilitation. So that is a summary of what the book is about that isn't in the book.

Adam Kahane:

And I'm just going to show you a few images that relate to some of the things, well images that I, I like making these slides and they relate to things you said. So I'm just going to quickly share my screen here. I'm sorry this is in the wrong place.

Adam Kahane:

So you mentioned being a physicist. This is a bar in Montreal. I don't think it exists, I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist anymore. But when I was a physics student, I was dating a theater student and she worked at the Kon-Tiki. She was a bartender at the Kon-Tiki. And I would go, I can't remember how often a week, but I don't know maybe three or four times a week, and sit at the bar waiting for her shift to finish and work on my physics problem. So I like that a lot. It actually really, I think this is a photo from before my time, but it really did look like this when I used to go there.

Adam Kahane:

But anyhow, I do like this activity of trying to figure out very precisely how to say things. I haven't taken anything else from my studies in physics, but I did take this love of finding a clear and simple way to say things. And the table at the back of the book, which I suppose doesn't show up very well in the audio version, or even in the digital version, but you can read in the paper version is pretty complete. And this vertical and horizontal is a new idea. I'm not surprised that you haven't heard of it before. It's not that, the book is describing something that lots of good facilitators do, but it's describing it in a new way. And the big turning point in the book is when I realize the book was not about vertical bad, horizontal good, but choosing vertical or horizontal as bad and working with them both as good.

Osama:

Can you say it one more time?

Adam Kahane:

Yeah, so my editor, I don't know if it's the same as Carrie's editor, is the former president of Berrett-Koehler. His name is Steve Piersanti. He's a really, he's probably the best business book editor in the United States. He's quite a modest man, but he will admit to that. And one of the things he's told me recently, because I worked on five books with him, is that a book has to have a bad guy. You know, you have to say what this is not. And so I thought that when I first started writing and I thought that the bad guy was vertical facilitation and that the point of the book was that you needed not to be vertical and horizontal.

Adam Kahane:

But early on a very generous person, who I actually don't know, who was one of the readers, one of the 207 readers of the manuscript, a guy named Marco Vallenti, said to me no, he thinks I'm wrong. This is a polarity, the bad guy is choosing one or the other, which I think most facilitators do, or at least they tend to one or the other. And the recommended approach is to use them both. Which you'll recognize is the central organizing idea in the book. And so a very important piece of feedback.

Adam Kahane:

Now this thing about similarity and difference is interesting to me and I, years ago somebody said to me it's both. It's like Paris fashion week. Every year it's the same, every year it's different. So to me they are equally important. It's an ordinary polarity, it's related to power and love. But that they are both true. And that you need to focus both on what's common and what's different, and to focus only on what's common is the vertical and to focus only on what's different is the horizontal.

Adam Kahane:

Now the last image I want to show you is something I described in the book, but I have photographs about it. And it relates to the point that Kara made. That I'm going to say that you don't need to decide if transformative facilitation is the right approach. I'm asserting that it is, that this is a general theory and practice of facilitation and that transformative facilitation equals good facilitation. So I know that is an audacious statement. So there is a discernment about fit for purpose, but its not about transformative facilitation, yes or no. It's about which move to make. That's where the discernment comes in.

Adam Kahane:

And here is a, when Covid started my wife and I moved from the city to the country, and I wrote about this in the book. But the images I think will say it more clearly. So I live in Montreal, I'm back now and this is where I go jogging every morning. It's pretty straight forward, because the streets are marked. But when I go out to the country I jogged here where there are, yeah there are no marked paths. And it was really interesting because there's lots of paths in this forest and I kept getting lost, for days and days. In parentheses, I got lost while I was thinking about my book. So I was paying attention to something else and I would get lost. And the first time I got lost for hours, and it was getting dark, and I really thought I wouldn't make it back. I was pretty scary. And even when I did get back to a part of the trail I recognized I again started thinking about what I was writing and I got lost again, right at the end.

Adam Kahane:

But the interesting thing is its not true, I realized after three or four days, its not true that the path is unmarked. Actually its marked very clearly. There are red ribbons around the trees. But because I didn't know there were red ribbons I didn't notice them. Actually its more dramatic now that there are parts of the trail where somebody has spray painted big red dots. They are pretty high up. But the point is, if you know what to look for you can find your way, but if you don't know it just looks like this, like what's the direction. And I did this for a full year, and more or less tried to go on the same trail. But its pretty different from month to month, at least in Canada. And you have to be paying attention to different things. On the top right where the leaves are very thick its real easy to trip. When its snowy its not hard to find the trail, but its dangerous in other ways, etc.

Adam Kahane:

So anyhow, I'll stop there. So this idea that the discernment is about which move to make, there's only 10 moves. In a way its pretty simple right. Its just 10 things, it's not a million. 10 is not a very big number. But they're not in any particular order. I was thinking its like a recipe where they tell you there is 10 ingredients, but they don't tell you how much of each, in what order, or how to combine them. Just pay attention to what is needed next. I guess there are people who cook like that. I wouldn't know how. So that's the discernment. It's about what to use when.

Adam Kahane:

And I don't have to say a lot to say about this question about being present. I mean people are always interested in that. I don't know any way to do it except pay attention and when you screw up figure out what did I do there. And how do I do it better next time. There may be better ways.

Adam Kahane:

The last thing I will say in relation to your comments is, it is an interesting question is how do you get consent to facilitate in this way. I think one of the reasons for writing this book, well for all of my books, but including this one is, I'm trying to make it easy for people, I'm trying to give the user some authority. To say well, you might not believe me, but here is a book. It's got Nelson Mandela on the back. Because my experience is actually almost nobody cares about the process, if you try to explain it to them. Very few people are interested. All they want to know is do I trust you it will work. And that's about credibility and privilege and received, whatever is it called, referred credibility and things like that. So any way, I'll stop there.

Adam Kahane:

Oh sorry. The last thing, one of you mentioned this being a part of and apart from. I think it was Maggie. This is really interested me a lot. That is why I, even though logically the last story doesn't really, it doesn't have to be the last chapter, but I really wanted that to be the last chapter, because I think it's a very fundamental thing about whether you consider outside or inside a situation. And somebody said to me today it's the difference between controlling a situation and entering a situation. And when you think about it that way, of course we can't control and of course we are entering, but to recognize that, and again to recognize it's not that inside good, outside bad, but choosing one or the other rigidly is bad, and so like the other four polarities, its a matter of doing them both.

Daniel Stillman:

I'm going to invite Kara and Maggie, since I think your points were the ones covered by a fair bit of that, if there is a follow up or a deeper question you have from what was just shared by Adam.

Daniel Stillman:

Not to put you both on the spot.

Daniel Stillman:

[crosstalk 00:34:20]

Daniel Stillman:

Am I inquiring or advocating Adam? I actually don't know.

Maggie:

Well I like the idea that those, there are five polarities. And its that discernment at any moment, are you getting too involved and trying to shift the group to where you think they should be? Then you need to back off. If you are not paying attention and you are just outside and checking your phone, then you need to get re-engaged. And I think that for each of those polarities, I mean I love facilitating because when you are enroll its so easy to hold unconditional positive regard. And to just accept that whatever is happening is part of the process and we trust the process, and itself as instrument. And I think I acknowledge as well that the longer you do this work, the less vulnerable you are to making it about oh I hope I don't make a mistake, or I don't want to look stupid. You can just be there and stand in grace, not always. And what I appreciated too your admitting when you really messed up and when you were awkward or scared. And I think that that, I just loved your stories. But that to me, just that notion of these as polarities and having the versatility to be able to toggle back and forth pretty immediately.

Maggie:

Kara, say a lot.

Kara:

I don't think it was my comment though. I think it was somebody else who made, about the apart, a part or not apart of it.

Adam Kahane:

No that was Maggie.

Kara:

I'm not sure if that is what you were referring to Daniel.

Daniel Stillman:

No, I think it was the.

Adam Kahane:

I think it was you about is transformative facilitation the right tool.

Kara:

Right, okay. Then yeah, I want to ask about that. But I was like I don't want to take it off topic.

Kara:

I'm trying to deepen my understanding and your points that you just made I think were really clarifying that this isn't a tool or a method or a technique that you use in a specific scenario. Its the way you work with people in this scenario that you are helping them move forward together, in any time that that's what's being asked of you to help people with. So I guess what I've been trying to grasp for a process. You know, like what does an agenda look like in a transformative facilitation situation. But I think what I'm hopefully understanding, and correct me Adam if I'm not quite there yet, but, this is more a set of inner moves that you are using and cycling through in whatever the agenda is. [crosstalk 00:37:34]

Adam Kahane:

You are correct and I'm seeing more clearly now. It's a set of outer move and inner shifts. Well, let me say what the book says. Someday we can decide whether this is a true or false statement. What the book says is that this is a set of outer moves and inner shifts required for any and all good facilitation. And that this is a general and complete theory in practice. So I say it with trepidation, because that's a big claim. And there may be more than five or fewer than five. But yes this is, I don't know what you would call it, but its the basics for all kinds of what I call real facilitation. That's to say, not including where you are trying to manipulate or control people.

Daniel Stillman:

So Adam, there's two things I want to follow up on. One is I think, sometimes I think about it as there's the center and the edges of a conversation. And there's definitely a heart beat in a powerful group conversation where the edges are everyone having their own opinion, but also small conversations, self conversations and the center where we are all having the conversation together. And whether or not we can align or agree or find a path forward that's the other questions. But I think when you flashed your slides I saw number 51 is I think from collaborating with the enemy, which when we talk about physics brain and thinking really schematically and clearly about these things, when we had our first conversation I loved seeing this flow chart of is a real change here possible. Can I live with it, if not then, can I walk away from it, if not then? I don't know if you can share that for a moment because I think that, yeah there it is. I feel like in a way that answers a little bit of Kara's question. Like is a real change here possible. Is everyone co-located in the same, are they all reading this diagram in the same way.

Daniel Stillman:

Because if somebody says okay I think I can force this and other people are like I'm going to exit this, and somebody is saying I think we should collaborate, then we are not. Maybe we are not ready for, I feel like I'm getting and Amen from Carrie, so but I would love to get a conformation from you Adam.

Kara:

I think that's also where part of my question came from, is like how do I know we are ready to move forward I think with the collaborating like you said. So I love that slide. That is really helpful. Thanks.

Adam Kahane:

So Daniel is referring to an idea that I think I allude to in this book, but which is this central point in my previous book Collaborating with the Enemy. And it makes the point that there are, there is more than one way to deal with a situation. There are these four ways. And collaborating for some people is their favorite thing, for some people it is their least favorite thing. But anyhow you can't collaborate with everybody on everything, so collaboration is a choice. And not only is it a choice, but it is an unstable choice. So people can say we want to collaborate and then after five minute or five months say this isn't working I'm going to exit, or adapt, or force. But the subject of this book is if and only if the actors want to collaborate, then you need, then some person or people have to facilitate and this is how to do it. But this book says nothing about what to do if people or if key people don't want to collaborate. The book is silent on that question. Except to say that's non-facilitation and that's something else.

Wayne:

Excuse me Adam, can you? Oh I think Osama had his hand.

Osama:

Are we open to make general comments, or there's a flow?

Daniel Stillman:

Absolutely yeah, totally. I'm not in charge here strangely enough.

Osama:

So for me the story about the mystery Adam comes back. The story that you started the book with. I'm both delighted and sad to see the mystery decomposed, and to gain a deeper understanding of the mystery. And when I hear you saying a general theory for participation I cringe a little bit and I think, I would like to think that there is more to that. But I think this is a very useful theory. It's like the Newtonian view of physics. Very useful. And then maybe later we'll have the theory of facilitation that adds a few things that we missed and things like that. It's like this alternation between the magical, the mythical and the kind of rational, kind of carefully strategized approaches that I get when I read the book.

Adam Kahane:

Yeah, thanks for saying that. Of course you will recognize that early in the book I abandon any attempt to define the mystery or even explain it. I don't even understand it at all. And I didn't elaborate on it, but my conversation with Pacha DeRue was super confusing because he was trying to, he basically said, anyway, he basically by the end of the dinner said don't worry, you don't need to understand that. And I moved on.

Adam Kahane:

And as I point out, which you recognize, this isn't like a mystery, like an Agatha Christie mystery that you solve. And so what I became more interested in was not what's the mystery, but what can you do to remove the obstacles. So that is where I turned my attention. As for what it is, and it's a bit of a leap to say the expression of the mystery is power, love and justice. I don't have much confidence in that statement, it just was a way of tying the whole thing together. So don't worry, there's lots more to be said about the mystery and the expression of the mystery. I haven't even begun that.

Osama:

Thank you for that.

Daniel Stillman:

Wayne what's still on your brain?

Wayne:

Yes. Thank you. Adam I had a question about the last thing you said before [inaudible 00:45:18] book being about facilitation and so when the chief, or something or another, the Manitoban Elder said I don't trust you, was he still collaborating with you or was he not? Were you not at one of those forks in the road? Or was he still participatory?

Adam Kahane:

Well it's a good question. I shortened the story a little bit because it was hard to get the tone right. So let me just add a few more things. So George Moosewagon, who was the man who made that statement, is a tall guy and he has a ponytail. So he looks like I imagine, he's a big guy, tall and he has a ponytail, so he looked like what I would've imagined a first nations, he was an elder, but what a first nation chief would look like. So when he said, I hadn't met him before, this was the first day of the meeting and I didn't know him from beforehand, so when he said that I, as I said in the book, I was pretty scared. But he said it in a very kindly way. And I got to know him later, and he is an exceptionally kind and generous person. So he was, in referring to that framework, he was saying I might exit here. Or you might have to exit here, which is how I took it. Because I have two or three times been asked to leave in the middle of a meeting, and it's not a fun experience. I was not anxious for it to be, I mean I have literally been asked to leave meetings and it's not the sort of thing you want to have happen again. [crosstalk 00:47:26] What's that.

Wayne:

We really appreciate you putting that in there. That it wasn't all happy roses. That you did put in that. It was appreciated. Being asked to leave, a little vulnerability there, loved it.

Adam Kahane:

Yeah, and being asked to leave in the middle of winter in Manitoba is like an extra kind of hardship. But anyhow, so yes he was saying I think, I'm not sure this is going to work. I'm not sure this is working for me. I might have to exit or I might have to ask you to leave. But he said it in a way that implied that he was open to staying, and that's why, when I said to him later I don't want you to trust the process, so that's the opposite of what facilitators usually say, or often say. I think he took that as a, that he liked that, that I wasn't demanding that he trust me or the process, but could we just keep going for another little while and see. And anyhow after a while things with that particular crisis passed and we became pretty good buddies and the process as a whole was quite successful.

Daniel Stillman:

I think this question of unconditional positive regard, which another way of putting it is assuming positive intent, I think someone else might have heard that comment and heard it as a threat or as a declaration of intent, not we are at a fork in the road and what would you like to do. In a way I would propose it, you took it in the best possible way in that moment, through your inner shift of oh what are my choices here.

Adam Kahane:

Well, I was, I think I at least kept the door open and then we had a facilitator meeting, and it was other people, not just me, who together we decided very quickly what to do differently, and it was on a better path. And he, his tone of voice was not threatening, it was just honest. And I've often found as a facilitator that most people in a group don't speak honestly. And the people who do you can hear them so well. It's a thrill when somebody will speak honestly, because it just cuts through the normal, you know the crap that fills up most rooms most of the time.

Daniel Stillman:

Well Adam, speaking of not filling up a room with crap, this has been a really, for me this is my favorite thing to talk about, so I'm glad to spend this time with you. I want to respect your time. We only have a couple more minutes with you. I will stick around if anybody else has some final check out or processing or additional conversation that they want to have, but I just would like to thank you Adam for making this time to have this conversation. As you say the world needs more of this, of people who feel empowered to do the thing that can help better things get done together. So thank you for doing that and thanks for everyone for being here.

Lynne:

Thank you Adam.

Adam Kahane:

Thanks to all of you. And Daniel I really enjoyed our conversation, whenever it was a year ago. And so I think you are a very gifted podcaster. So I was happy to have at least a consolation prize of a book club conversation. And it's really fun for me to talk about this with people who are interested in it. So thank you all.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you all Adam. Happy Tuesday everyone.

Adam Kahane:

Okay I'm going to leave.

Maggie:

Thank you so much.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you [crosstalk 00:51:40]

Lynne:

Daniel it was great.

Daniel Stillman:

Lynne it was a pleasure.

Mark N:

Thank you Adam. And Adam if you ever need any Korean translation of those comments that never quite arrived, I'd be happy to do so.

Daniel Stillman:

That's amazing. Thank you Mark. Oh it's the Marks. Thanks Marks.

Mark:

Hey one thing I was thinking about. The art of hosting community has a lot of great frameworks that resonate really strongly with a lot of those things.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. Yes.

Mark:

Chaordic path is kind of the same thing to me. And four fold practice is another thing. I just sometimes, for me they are so kind of powerful, sometimes it feels so hard to get the world hearing some of these. Even collaboration is kind of

Daniel Stillman:

Du jour

Mark:

Yeah and what we need to get to.

Daniel Stillman:

I think that is an interesting question, and I must confess that I don't know about the four fold practice, which I want to look in to. I know with the chaordic path, I think it is interesting because of Adam's diagrams and I tried to make my own visual, like yeah it's about the shift. It's about the moving back and forth. And non-polarity thinking, right or polarity thinking depending on how you like to look at things. And boy oh boy I don't know. I think it is a hard thing for the world to lean into non-polarity thinking. To sit with polarity, because just like it is hard to sit with the polarity.

Daniel Stillman:

One of the polarities that I have been talking to people about is, there's nothing wrong with a sprint. Right? Jake's book is awesome. Let's spend a week just chugging through it. And then people are like well actually can we do it in a half day, can we do it in a day. Totally fine right. Let's just full speed ahead. But we don't know how to slow down and have more languishing conversations. And in the kind of conversations that Adam hosts they do both. I guarantee you that you have some rapid fire cadences and some slowed down conversations, but I think just generally speaking the western disease is speed and efficiency. That's my hot take.

Mark:

Yeah. And I wonder if, I guess a product of being in a state of anxiety or trauma or stress or whatever, you do gravitate to black and white thinking. And being able to navigate the wavy part of vertical horizontal chaordic path, actually requires that gray and negative capability stuff. Which is probably, works against the young conscience tendency we have in that sort of trauma, kind of anxiety state maybe. Anyway, keep trying.

Mark:

I can recommend outofhosting.org has a whole lot of videos, vignettes, and templates and things. Some really, people who have been working at it for a long time. Take through the stepping stones of the chaordic path. Anyway. Just thought I would say that.

Daniel Stillman:

No I appreciate that.

Mark:

Great work. Thanks Daniel.

Daniel Stillman:

Good to see you Mark. I'm glad you could make it out. I'm going to include this in the episode. I hope that is okay. This is great stuff.

Mark:

Oh of course. No worries. All right. We'll catch you around.

Daniel Stillman:

All right good to see you brother. Take care.

Mark:

You too. Bye.

Daniel Stillman:

Bye bye.

Leading a Culture of Critique

Season_Five_Image_Stack_crit.jpg

Recently, I’ve been reading a book called “Ethic of Excellence” by Ron Berger. He teaches teachers about how to invoke pride in students, to invite them to work through community engagement and thoughtful feedback, and multiple drafts of work. Check out his classic short video called “Austin’s Butterfly” here.

He asserts that thoughtful feedback (ie critique) is essential to making great work, which he also asserts is the whole point of life: Make great things.

He boils a philosophy of critique down to three principles:

Be Kind
Be Specific
Be Helpful

I wanted to bring together three of my favorite leaders to have a roundtable conversation about leading a culture of critique, and to open up about how to bring these ways of working together to life at work.

Aaron Irizarry has been on this podcast before, with his co-author of “Discussing Design” Adam Connor. He’s the Senior Director of Servicing Platforms Design at Capital One and is a deep, deep thinker on this subject. 

Aniruddha Kadam recently left LinkedIn, where he was a Senior Design Manager. He’s also an Advisor at Rethink HQ, which recently released an excellent guide to leading critique. 

One of my favorite points in that guide is: Make it clear what you are NOT asking for feedback on! 

And the roundtable is rounded out by the amazing and delightful

Christen Penny, who is a Design Educator & Community Builder and leads the Design Education team at Workday, an enterprise cloud application for finance, HR, and planning. 

I wanted to open with Christen’s quote about culture change being challenging, because it’s critical to have empathy for ourselves and others as we try to facilitate and lead change. 

Creating rituals around critique takes time. Getting people to lean into the discomfort takes effort. Building psychological safety doesn’t come for free.

We should remind ourselves that we’re asking people to lean into discomfort - to run into the fire.

Ron Berger’s perspective is ultimately the goal: 

We want our work and our organization’s work to be excellent. And we need outside feedback to make that possible. Critique before a launch is a lot less painful than realizing a missed opportunity after we hit “send”.

There is so much goodness in this conversation! I hope you take the time to absorb it all.

Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources

Aaron Irizarry, Sr. Director, Servicing Platforms Design at Capital One  is here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aaroni/

Adam Connor & Adam Irizarry on a way-back episode: Designing a Culture of Critique

Aniruddha Kadam, Advisor at Rethink HQ, formerly Design at LinkedIn is here:

 https://www.linkedin.com/in/aniruddhakadam/

Rethink HQ Critique guide: https://www.rethinkhq.com/design-critique/leading-effective-design-critiques

Christen Penny, Design Educator @Workday is here: 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/christenpenny/

Some questions that guided our conversation:

Why is Critique important?

Why is a culture of Critique important?

What are the barriers to cultivating a culture of critique?

What are best practices on the individual, team and org levels to invite more critique?

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

All right. Well, I'm going to do the thing where I record on all of the places. We're fully live and direct. Welcome to the conversation factory you all. Welcome back to the conversation factory. I guess if we're going to go in alphabetical order, you actually get to go first, Aaron, with the... Tell us about you and why critique is important to you. We'll just do a quick whip around just so everyone's oriented to the people in the room. How's that sound?

Aaron Irizarry:

Awesome. Yeah. Thank you. My name is Aaron Irizarry. I'm the head of servicing platforms design at Capital One. For me, critique is crucial to the conversations we have about our work, to use as a measurement tool to see where we are making strides in the right direction, as well as where we might need to adjust. And so I just think it's such a key component to the conversations we have and the things we do.

Daniel Stillman:

Okay. As we say in my men's group, aha. I agree. Aniruddha, say a hello to the fam. Welcome aboard. I'm glad you're here.

Aniruddha Kadam:

Thank you. I'm Aniruddha Kadam. I'm a senior product design manager at LinkedIn. I believe critique is important because it just leverages the strength of the entire team to drive that iteration and improvement. And it brings different skills and expertise to create space for a thoughtful discussion on the problem-solving approach.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, [inaudible 00:01:35].

Christen Penny:

Yeah. So, hi. I'm Christen Penny, and I lead a design education team at Workday. I'm always thinking about things from the lens of education and how to upskill our designers and researchers. So that is one of the reasons critique is really important to me, as I see this as a muscle that we want our design team members to constantly be practicing and building towards, with that ultimate goal of having amazing products out there that are helping to improve our users' experiences.

Daniel Stillman:

So there were so many keywords, but three that came up to me was thoughtful, conversations and a muscle. I think this goes into this question of why is it important to have the culture of critique, a real habit of it. I guess the question is like, what are some of the barriers to having it be a muscle, a natural response to host, to invite, to curate these kind of thoughtful conversations, as a matter of course? And that's just popcorn style, or Quaker style actually. Whenever the spirit moves you.

Aaron Irizarry:

I'll say for me, it's tough because it's a conversation, and conversations are had by people, and people come on sometimes in an exciting way with diverse lenses experiences and things that influence how they approach certain things, which the more of that diversity and inclusivity we have, the richer conversations we can have. At the same time, when we're having conversations, that also means people might come with different anxieties, different fears, different experiences that have impacted them. And so to build a consistent culture around something that can often make people feel uncomfortable, or is it an uncomfortable situation, because it comes with a set of challenges, and that's why creating culture for it that is inviting and safe. Even if I know it's inviting, but I'm not feeling too comfortable because I'm new to this, or I'm passionate about my work and I don't want to have it be looked at through a critical lens, at least I know that when to go there, the culture is such that it lends to a more productive conversation.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Aniruddha Kadam:

I think I would totally plus one that. You spoke about building a muscle. The way you build a muscle is, you become uncomfortable. Your muscle gets strained to do it all in over time. So there's a routine, there's a structure. So it feels uncomfortable at first, but as you kind of build in that routine and that structure to it, it just becomes your second nature. It becomes one of the parts of building that inclusive, trustworthy space. The designers can come in and just talk about all things design, and get feedback on it. So I think that structure and that rigor is really important while setting up any kind of critique.

Daniel Stillman:

Christen, how do you feel like making those reps possible and safe happens? Because you sort of create scaffolding and structuring and education around that. If we want to invite people into a safe space where reps can happen, how do we create that space for those types of conversations?

Christen Penny:

It's a great question. I mean, first off, I'd like to just acknowledge that shifting culture of any kind, is hard. That is one of the barriers in and of itself, is you have to acknowledge and understand the current culture to be able to shift the culture. Fear and psychological safety is something that has come up in this conversation. One of the ways that we have been building towards that is, just by addressing the topics. So we talk about fear. We talk about psychological safety. What needs to be present when you're having a disagreement? Don't run from that disagreement.

Christen Penny:

Sometimes I think of it as running to the fire. You want to be able to give people the skills to run to the fire in a way that's useful. No, we're not telling them to run into a burning building, but that's part of it, is just really helping them also practice it. Practice I think is one of the most important parts. We could give articles, we could give education resources. If we're not giving them opportunities to practice it in a safe space, to again, get it into their muscle memory, I'm not sure how else we could shift culture. That's one of the best ways I've seen enacted.

Daniel Stillman:

This is like getting down to the idea of creating rituals around... It's a pattern, it's familiar. I mean, what are some of your rituals and patterns of reliable orientation to a space for critique? That's open to any of you. Aniruddha, maybe you haven't shared [inaudible 00:07:03] this round. Any thoughts on that?

Aniruddha Kadam:

Yeah. I think definitely just creating that ritual. The way I've done it in the past is just kind of setting clear boundaries on what's expected, what's a safe space to bring in topics of any kinds. Reviews are typically more formal, more kind of buttoned up. Whereas critiques can be like, "Yeah, just bring in a paper schedule. Let's talk about that idea. It's a safe space." So, setting those boundaries. And then also letting the presenter own the feedback, where they are responsible for coming back and responding to the feedback they have gotten in the session on why have they chosen to include the feedback versus not, so that the audience and presenter... Everybody feels that they have a part in the conversation. Overall it just feels like a good use of everyone's time.

Daniel Stillman:

This goes to the question that we were talking about before we started recording, just the question of power, right? Is the critique to give you feedback that you can take or leave, or is it, "You did this wrong, go make it better." Or, "This has to change." I think that's where, speaking from my past life as a designer, we get very protective. We want to have done a good job. We have made certain choices, and it can be really confronting to have people question your choices. And the question is, who gets to give you feedback that you have to take? And who gets to give you feedback that you can take under consideration? And as you were saying, in the next review, you say, "Thanks for all the feedback. I chucked it. And this is why."

Aniruddha Kadam:

Yeah. I think for me it's a combination of both approaches, where I do try to use a do, try, consider model for critiques that, "Hey, do is something. Yeah, this is absolutely... You messed up. It's a design system thing. This is what you should fix it." There's no kind of try or consider. Whereas, a try or consider feedback can be just checked out and be like, "Hey, I thought about it. It doesn't work for me because, all of these reasons, and that's the reason why I'm not doing it." But a do kind of feedback is just very black and white.

Daniel Stillman:

That kind of framing. When I talk about designing a conversation, that kind of fundamental framing... I saw Christen go like... That's a really nice framing. And that's actually kind of what we were talking about the other day about fixed, flexible and free. But it's just interesting to me when I think of like rose, thorn, bud, as a really safe way of setting up feedback. Do, try, consider sounds more like stop, start, continue. Always bothers me that the bad stuff comes first, just in terms of creating psychological safety. Does ordering of the feedback matter. Do you think in your experience, or do you... Christen, do you teach an order thing of feedbacking?

Christen Penny:

I think not necessarily in order, because I think sometimes we get stuck in this, "Give a positive." And then, one positive and two negatives or two... Or two positives and one negative. The order I don't think is as important as having an actual framework. We get into deep debates over which framework to use. So there could be rose thorn bud. There could be do, try, consider. I think what's most important is there is a framework that the team agrees with and is enacting. It's a little interesting in the do, try, consider, is we try to talk about staying away from solutioning in design critique. I hear when you're telling someone to do something, that it's more directive and a little solutiony. So I wonder if there's a different framework that is used for critique versus reviews. Because I could see a do as a review. That is someone in a position of power telling you, "This is what you need to do." Or I might have misunderstood that.

Aniruddha Kadam:

Yeah. Yes, the do is very directive. In my experience I've seen people in power use that. But I've also seen just peers use that a lot, where it's very black and white. Where like, "Hey, I see you've used a button that, this is not how we do design system. We usually use like 12 pixel instead of an eight pixel over here." Which is rooted more in kind of those kind of systems and guidance in place. But so do feedback is typically, I would say mostly tactical feedback, that then kind of just more strategic in nature.

Aaron Irizarry:

Yeah. The way our teams work, the way I've tried to give them context is creative direction, versus critique. Because being, I just came from design systems to work. I lead the main design system one in Capital One, and there are times where someone's doing the work, and we're in a critique setting where we say, "Hey, if your goal is to accomplish this, that element you're using doesn't have the right hierarchy. You might want to try something else." At the same time, that element is also not the approved design system one. So you sync with that team and get the right element you need. What I try to do in any critique I view with my team and then I try to teach my team is, talk about what's absolute kind of the do if needed.

Aaron Irizarry:

But also even if you're doing that, explain where there's what I call room to wiggle. And it's like, "Hey, I'm telling you the direction you're heading's not working. I think you should probably consider heading this direction." And I try to give some level of boundaries, because maybe there is something like, "Hey, using patterns of art in the design system, or [inaudible 00:13:17] with our components. That being said, how you choose to work with those components to solve this problem, is all you. Put your fingerprints all over that." So that they understand that part of is like, "Hey, this is systematic. This is how we work. This is like some of our process. And some of this is okay, and here's where your room to play is within there." So they understand that. The other thing I try to do with leaders in particular is talk about... I kept trying to tell them that the designers or designer, needs time to process the feedback that they're given.

Aaron Irizarry:

So don't expect they're coming out of that critique or that feedback session, a shorter cook with a list of things to go make or change. They may need to come back and explore that a little bit, because they've just been bombarded with information. And so I started talking to them about is, think of critique as kind of like a off form of research where this designer is coming to gather insights about what's working, what may not be working, or leading towards us achieving our goal in this design. And they need to go back and process those insights the way we process research insights.

Aaron Irizarry:

And then we come back and give a report. They can follow you up with questions. They can say, "Hey, we don't know if that's the right approach. Let's have a discussion about that, and here's the reason why." I try to get away from the like, "I said so, so you must go do that." Or the exception as much as I can mitigate it from leadership. That is, "Well, since I am the VP of whatever, engineering, product, marketing, business analyst, whatever it is, and I said something, they have to go do that now." It's really about establishing in that culture that, it's a free change of ideas and we measure those the same we measure anything else, to try to ensure that we're heading in the right direction.

Daniel Stillman:

Christen, I'm wondering, in the education that you're setting up, do you talk about that journey? Because what Aaron's talking about sounds almost like an extended journey map of critique. The critique happens way before, and continues after. And it's not like, "Oh, it's just the meeting." How do you speak to some of that broader contexting and boundaring in some of the training that you're setting up?

Christen Penny:

I don't do it alone. So we have another group who has been working a lot on an overall design review framework. So groups like that, they map out the entire process. Here are different kinds of team reviews. Here's where we can get reviews with other experts who are content designers or content strategists. All the way through you're going to a VP of design and you want to get an approval. So part of it is helping people understand just that, that there is this larger context of which they're living in. I think also teams work so differently, so making sure... I'm always trying to balance this directiveness, because with education, it's for many, many teams who are doing design at Workday.

Christen Penny:

So always trying to give them some guidance, and talk about the ritualization of it. Talk about the importance of circling back on the feedback, and having deeper conversation. So maybe you want to go deeper with someone from the design system team, schedule a one off for that. So understanding that they're going to also do it in different ways. Yeah. It's a balance. That's why I'm hedging a little bit, because we're not super directive with it, since the teams tend to work so differently. So we want to give them enough guidance to set them up for success, and then let them kind of adapt.

Daniel Stillman:

This just sounds like the... when I think about designing a conversation, this is about who do we include in the conversation and being intentional about it. Can you overindex on inviting people into the conversation, or is under ex? Which is more challenging, problematic or common? Under or over indexing on inviting people into the conversation?

Christen Penny:

I think you can definitely over index on inviting people to the conversation. If you're in your early design phases, and you're showing very incomplete thoughts, I don't think that's a safe space to then take it to your product manager who wants to just pass it to developer and start building. I mean, I could see it working both ways. It depends on your partnership with your product manager. I think those early conversations can be... I've seen them be very well received when you have the support of your team, of other designers and researchers, who understand your process of design, and what you're trying to accomplish.

Daniel Stillman:

I see some nods from the rest of you all. Do you want to just add?

Aaron Irizarry:

I was thinking about designing the conversation, and that it depends on the type. And kind of to what Christen was saying is like, what type of feedback or critique conversation are you trying to have? And at what point do you feel like an attendee list makes that conversation hard to manage? Think about what that means, because if you start getting 10, 11, 12 people, you have to start really having some facilitator superpowers to keep that conversation heading with... depending. Unless there's clearly defined roles. Maybe some folks are just observers, but they're observers because they just need to be kept in the know, and see if there's opportunity for follow up. There's a select few that have chosen, "Hey, we're very close to the work. We'll be active critique participants in this. Maybe we got a note taker facilitator." But I try to think about, what is going to help us manage the conversation in a way that we get the right amount of insights. Maybe that's where, looking to things we have like racy charts and other... just artifacts we might have that a define engagement, might help there.

Daniel Stillman:

And thanks for mentioning facilitation skills, because I feel like when Aaron and I had you on the podcast means, like wow, going back a couple of years. You and Adam. Adam had this attitude like, "It's an organic conversation." Or just like, "Work together." Maybe you get past the one pizza rule, the conversation becomes very complex. And so turn taking and inclusion and the sort of me time, we time facilitation, having an inter-facing where you're doing it becomes really important. I mean, what is the average size? I mean, you're saying 12 is when things get complex, but I'm willing to bet that people are breaking the two pizza rule inside of everybody's organization on their eggs, when it comes to just getting these critiques together. They're doing it without strong ritual and facilitation skills I'm guessing maybe. I mean, not anybody on this call obviously that's... Not pointing. I'll just say, I have done that.

Christen Penny:

I do appreciate the call out for facilitation. It reminded me that that's one of the things that we do highlight quite a bit, is the need for facilitation and kind of helping people... I don't know vegetarian friendly word, but beef up their facilitation skills so that they are well prepared for these kinds of critiques.

Daniel Stillman:

The beef could mean a beef steak tomato. If you follow Aaron on Instagram as I do, do. You could just imagine a really beefy beef steak tomato. You could be-

Aaron Irizarry:

We protein up. We protein up. [inaudible 00:21:01].

Daniel Stillman:

Well, let's talk about best practices, because on the self perspective, I'm hearing, being prepared for a potential barrage, and then also having facilitation skills to manage the barrage, and some sort of a framework to pre organize the barrage. And that's just me pulling out some things that I've heard from this conversation. What else is important from the person who is subject, for lack of a better term. Subjecting themselves to this critique. What can they do to set up that critique, well, to create safety and clarity and optimized for the usability of the feedback that comes out of the conversation? I also heard one other things that I know. Maybe having a scribe, not doing it all yourself. [crosstalk 00:22:06].

Aniruddha Kadam:

I think one of the basic things that comes to my mind is really creating clarity around, this is what I need feedback on. And also this is what I don't need feedback on. I think a lot of people miss out on the latter, but people will start jumping on you and then they're like, "Wait, wait. I never wanted feedback on that one thing." So I think just creating that clarity. And then channeling those comments or feedback as they come, into these two buckets, but like, "Hey, great. I appreciate your feedback, but this is exactly what I mentioned that I don't need feedback on that." And being comfortable doing that. Kind of empowering oneself to channel that feedback that's coming through, and just kind of dropping them in these two buckets and kind of bringing the conversation back on track, and getting the feedback that that person needs.

Daniel Stillman:

I want to know a little bit more about that. Oh, sorry. Before we go to you, Aaron. How do you do that? Because I think it's so easy to doubt all of the other... Somebody says, "Hey, what about that? To say, "I don't want feedback on that. I feel confident and strong in that." How do you create that boundary? Christen here is nodding on that too? Because I think that's not trivial.

Aniruddha Kadam:

Yeah. I think the way I've done it with my team is just providing them with feedback right after, that critic session. They're helping designers on my team grow that muscle, where they don't need me or any design operations manager to jump in and help them facilitate the conversation. And they are themselves empowered to be like, "Hey, this is really not what I'm looking for." And also kind of grounding it back into a design process. So we do have a design process. We have a visual for it. Designers will indicate I am in this part of the process, so I need only feedback at this level. I might need your feedback later, so hold on to that, later part in the process, but right now I'm at this design defined state of the design process and I only need this kind of feedback. So not that your feedback is irrelevant. It's not just timely.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. That's really helpful. Christen, do you want to say more about your nod and then Aaron, hopefully you remember what you wanted to say.

Christen Penny:

The nod was not 100% on topic, but it made me think about giving and receiving feedback. We piloted some upcoming design critique or culture critique education. The need to be better prepared to give and receive feedback is something that was coming up a lot. That is a general skill, whether you're using it for a design critique or not. So we also try to highlight the psychological safety, or the need for psychological safety, for the people who are also in the room as reviewers. So calling out those different roles that... It could be a bit hokey, but feedback is a gift, right?

Christen Penny:

They're putting themselves a little bit on the edge by even giving you that piece of feedback. That could feel risky and edgy to some people. So reminding people that when they're asking for critique, it's the other side of being defensive. You might feel defensive when you're getting this feedback, but keep in mind, feelings are coming up, and it could feel a little unsafe for the person who's giving the feedback as well. So let's try to diffuse this from being something that's personal, and think about it in terms of the feedback that you ask for, to help improve this design.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. We almost forget that asking is kind of power. Right. You did create this space to do this. And as you've said earlier, you can say, "I don't actually want to get feedback on it." But it does take a lot of self possession. Aaron, what was on your mind?

Aaron Irizarry:

This all resonates with me really well. Two things I kind of really try to stress, highlight, ingrain, lean heavily upon my team about our setup and expectation setting. So, "Hey, we're going to have a critique. It's Monday. We're going to have a treatment Wednesday. Here's the work we're going to review. These are the specific things we're looking for feedback on. Please, we're giving you this now so you can gather your thoughts and not feel like you're put on the spot, and have to have give feedback this triggered by a gut reaction. So hold the feedback, jot down your notes and questions and we'll talk about it then. Set the expectations for how you want the session to run."

Aaron Irizarry:

Adam and I have kind of always kind of sketched out some rules or loose guidelines for things that we want to keep in mind when we're providing critique. But then on the other side, is preparation. Hopefully you can have the presenter and the facilitator, talking leading up to that saying, "Okay, hey. One, I may ask for more clarity, so please don't go to the next person or..." Just keeping that connectedness between the two of them to ensure that the facilitation of the meeting gathers the things they need from it.

Aaron Irizarry:

There's lots of little things to do. Also helping people understand how they might give feedback, right? And this is in the expectation setting and preparation. I with my teams I use just four questions. What was the individual trying to achieve? How did they try to achieve it? Was it effective? Why or why not? Pretty much anybody regardless of their familiarity with critique as a process or a living thing in our process, can usually use those questions to frame their feedback. So the more we give structure on how we want the feedback to be framed, I think it sets us up to have those things where it's like, "Oh, thank you for sharing feedback on that. As you recall, we're not going to touch on that one. Say, if you want to talk outside of this meeting about that, we can talk a little more. We're just not there for that yet." Right?

Aaron Irizarry:

It is. I mean, again, even giving feedback is people don't want to hurt people's feelings, but so many interpersonal dynamics that come in play, the more structure and framework we can put in place to help people feel safe, that they just have to show up and engage. Yeah, it's still on them to take the risk to say something, but there's the reporting process that's set up for a specific culture we're trying to build in a certain type of safety we're trying to encourage during the conversation.

Daniel Stillman:

They build your sense from [inaudible 00:28:44].

Christen Penny:

So appreciate some of what I heard and what Aaron was saying was, that frameworks help people relax. It helps them know what's expected of them. And even I relaxed a little bit when I heard him say that. I think it's such a great reminder. Talking about facilitation, it was also that the preparation part, we always say this about workshops. People think, "We're going to have this one workshop. Everyone just needs to show up. It's only going to be an hour of your time to facilitate this workshop." We know that that's not accurate. The preparation and the planning is what really takes the most time, to help that be successful. So I also appreciate Aaron, you highlighting that. The work really begins before the critique, that preparation.

Aaron Irizarry:

[inaudible 00:29:33]. That's something that should not be unfamiliar to designers who have... just over the course of designers doing design, have constantly had to educate others to the importance, the value of why things are the way they are, surrounding their work. And this is another area that's different. We have to help people understand. And it's not because they're willfully choosing to not understand, but I don't know a lot of data analysts who participate in regular critiques, which is actually unfortunate because design should know critique. We should always be [inaudible 00:30:03] all the things we want to approve regardless of our craft, our profession, but there is a part of that upfront work.

Aaron Irizarry:

And I think there's post work as well. There is the follow-up to help people understand like, this is going to continue. So that process that you experienced today, embrace the familiarity [inaudible 00:30:19] the next time we meet, and the next time. And you'll start to see people get more comfortable, potentially engage more. You'll see your own teams start to find their voice, because they're more comfortable, because the [inaudible 00:30:32] process protects them. So I just think there's a lot about that. Pre-work, following up, just the structure I think is just so, so key. I mean, it's like you're designing a conversation to improve upon your people, again, sounds familiar.

Daniel Stillman:

That was music to my ears. And also closing the loop on the conversation. I always get the sense that we do all this upfront prep work. And if you don't close the loop on it, people are like, "Well, why didn't they invite me? What did they do with it?" People really want to see the impact, and it will also make them much more enthusiastic to participate in the future. I don't think many people think about how...

Daniel Stillman:

I think often about the challengingness of receiving it, but it is also shocking to me that even if you set up a little mock feedback session in practice workshop, people are kind of reluctant to give a cool feedback. We're sort of, well, it'd be nice. It can be challenging to improve something with only warm feedback. And so it just seems like this is a very helpful reminder to me just to have that mindset of, of course we need feedback to improve. How could we possibly not need feedback to improve? One thing I heard you say, Aaron, and I just want to see if this is right. It's like, "Maybe don't facilitate your own feedback sessions."

Aaron Irizarry:

I mean, I...

Daniel Stillman:

If there's multiple peoples.

Aaron Irizarry:

Yeah. I mean, I wouldn't say I'm a rule follower, but there is a certain level to like, if you're presenting... So you're kicking off the meeting, setting the context, presenting your work, building questions, taking notes, diving deeper. If you are doing all those things successfully, regardless of your level of experience, take these your paddle and murder. I need to understand how that works, because I don't know that that's really... That's a lie. Even if you somehow pull it off, there's going to be things you missed. That's why I think it is great to keep people engaged through rotating roles. Have different people take notes. Okay. As much as possible, take them visually, so you can go share understanding, but rotate through who does that. Rotate through different facilitation techniques as well as facilitate towards if possible. Use different ways of actually facilitating and going around and driving the conversation.

Aaron Irizarry:

All that stuff is really super helpful. We want each person to feel like they're getting the most. I think one of the things that dawned on us hearing the following conversation before right now was, I don't know how it is in other organizations. I'm making an unvalidated assumption, which is probably bad as a designer, but we live in a very needy, heavy culture, especially now with so much remote work. And so every time you ask someone to come to critique, you cost them something. They need to know what the return is on that. Hey, that was a productive conversation. My feedback was heard. I'm helping this team understand where we need to head and for meeting our OKRs or goals. If you leave it open-ended, they don't hear back from you. "Well, what did I even get from that? They didn't tell me what came of that. Meaning, I'm probably less likely to accept that invite next time because I had another meeting where I need to be more productive. So a lot of these things are also to help drive engagement as a part of building that critique culture.

Daniel Stillman:

I think one thing I want to circle back around on, as shockingly our time grows nigh. I want to talk about what a culture of critique really means. When it's not just about design, it's about taking this mindset of designing the conversation around how to get the best feedback, to give the best feedback so that we can grow. If it really is a culture critique, how does the whole organization ideally participate in this? I don't know. Christen, maybe you... Well, because I know that you specifically from our other conversations, have an interest in what happens when a designer can't even be involved in a conversation. So there may not be somebody who specifically has the designer's mindset or the facilitator conversation mindset. So how do we set up that culture of critique so that the technology people and the product managers and everyone, has this mindset, and is armed [inaudible 00:35:15] with these skills? Again, militaristic metaphor, just as bad as immediate metaphor. I don't [inaudible 00:35:21], but anyway, please, take a spirit of the question if you can.

Christen Penny:

Such a big question.

Daniel Stillman:

I know. I'm sorry.

Christen Penny:

Aaron mentioned I believe data analyst. It really made me want to retract something I said earlier, when you were talking about numbers and whether or not you're showing something, like inviting other team members. I use PMs as an example of interior design critiques, because I there are different kinds of design critiques. I'm focused right now on my work specifically on the design critiques that are within your design and research teams, because we don't have that muscle built for some people, even within their own teams, to be able to then go out and defend their designs, or talk about them in a meaningful way and get great feedback from their product managers, who are maybe not as equipped to give certain kinds of feedback.

Christen Penny:

So I feel like I'm not actually answering your question because it is so big, because there is this understanding of design that needs to happen on a general level with all of our design partners, and how they can be part of the process. Maybe critique is a way to introduce them into those conversations, to have them be part of it. My thinking is shifting a little even in this conversation.

Daniel Stillman:

What about your thinking has been shifting? That's really interesting. Kind of awesome.

Christen Penny:

Because I was thinking of it very much within the design team. I think it just keeps becoming a bigger and bigger conversation, and inclusion is such a big conversation right now as well. So when we get stuck on talking about number of people, we're also talking about who is excluded from the conversation. I think it can be really powerful to exclude people from the conversation. Building on what Aaron was saying. If it's not someone that you're necessarily going to be able to follow up with, or maybe if it is an expensive meeting for them, maybe they aren't the right people to be in the meeting. So it could be a gift to clearly exclude people from a conversation as well, if it's in a value of their time. Someone yes hand me.

Daniel Stillman:

Amen.

Aaron Irizarry:

I was going to say, we do... I love that Christen, you talked about. For me it's about levels of zoom, right? We have multiple types of critiques. So we have standalone critiques. That could be, "Hey, you know what, Daniel? If you're free on Thursday, I've got something. There's a formal critique coming up, but I need something a little sooner. Can you set aside 30 minutes for us to chat." Critique is just a part of your design process. Maybe it's at the pod level, and that's with your product partner, your engineering partner, as you're working through just your agile delivery process. There's broader team. Like, "Hey, our teams all working on different streams of work, let's do something where we have them sign up every, once or two weeks, you can sign up to have your work, you can demo your work."

Aaron Irizarry:

Present your work, get feedback. When we start trying to talk about [inaudible 00:38:32], I start to try to take design out of the competition actually. Just talk about, let's find ways to create a culture where we talk about our work in productive ways. And here's some things that I've found around feedback. And then I start talking to them. And maybe this is front of mind for me because I just posted some writing on critique and feedback in the context of people and performance management, because I got a lot of questions from my team about that. Like, so do these same principles apply when I'm giving feedback to my direct report? And like, actually a lot of them probably do. Yeah. You want to do stuff that's actionable, that it needs to be, what's their growth look like?

Aaron Irizarry:

What is the impact of maybe not doing something or something they're doing really well. And so we can start to find ways for that type of conversation designed to work its way into other conversations, that if we just start getting people to actually do critique without knowing they're doing critique, air quotes. If they're just kind of having productive feedback conversations about, "Hey, that research script might need a little tweaking. That project plan, I don't see a little clarity right around here in this section, but it's okay." They say, "No, PM's are doing it. HR, who knows?"

Daniel Stillman:

Well, to your point, Aaron, and to your point Aniruddha, having a sense of the person's intent, and curiosity about their intent. And as you said, Aniruddha, where are they in their process? And clarity about what they need to get themselves to the next step. I think that is a pattern that is universally applicable. And maybe one of the reasons why some of the organizations that I've worked with in the past, love the idea of design thinking for everyone, because that means that there is some shared scaffolding around, "Oh, here's the squiggle." Where are you at least in the squiggle? Are you at the beginning of the squiggle? Are you really close to the end? What do you need to get you to move forward? That's really important. Also important is first have some closing thoughts. My Lord, where does the time go? Aniruddha, what haven't I asked you about critique, and building a culture of critique, that's important? Do you have any parting thoughts to share with us before we thank everyone for their time?

Aniruddha Kadam:

I think yes, to everything that everyone's said. I would say, I would specifically talk about bringing other functions into the design critique process where I've tried to do that at a smaller scale, not just with the entire design team but just a bunch of designers and one PM. I've seen that they watch this in action, and get influenced about... I've heard so many PMs be like, "Hey, your design team really works very creatively." I really like the process that you guys used while going to and giving feedback. I've had many advocates that we were like, you start off with one PM, a second one, a third one. And so you're kind of transforming everyone one PM at a time. Then I've seen PMs get together, and just do the same.

Aniruddha Kadam:

They will not call it a critique. They will call it brainstorming or whiteboarding. But essentially what they're doing, they're using the principles of critique, and trying to bring an idea. So a PM will pitch an idea to other PMs. As a design manager, I get to kind of be a spectator to those, and I see that you're really using what you kind of saw in action in a design team, and you're calling it something else, but that's kind of how you're building that culture across the company, and not just keeping it within the design arc.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. This is building relationships, building culture one relationship at a time.

Aniruddha Kadam:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

And I saw. Aaron, you heard of that. Nobody could see that unless they're watching this video. If you want to share some closing thoughts and then Christen will [inaudible 00:42:34]. That's okay.

Aaron Irizarry:

I heard of it because that's how I felt about it. Yes. No. For me, as long as you're trying to improve something, or measure something, you've got an opportunity [inaudible 00:42:51]. I always feel a level of guilt and like [inaudible 00:42:57] teams whether it's [inaudible 00:42:59] sharing the book with them or giving a presentation like [inaudible 00:43:03] some stance on this. Right? That being said, I don't think you can take everything I'm telling you and lay it directly over your organization. It's a one-to-one. Look at the context of your organization and the things you're trying to do there, and see what works for you, and try to use these as guidelines to help shape that, and then iterate on it. Just practice. Start small, practice, keep going, and just keep trying to have the right conversations. Because those of us who are thinking about this, are the ones who are responsible for helping create or find those who will partner with us or who can help create that healthy culture and critique within our organizations and with our clients and partners.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Amen. Christen.

Aniruddha Kadam:

Like [crosstalk 00:43:46].

Daniel Stillman:

No, sure.

Aniruddha Kadam:

I think it's talking about sharing resources. I bought five copies of Jake Knapp's Design Sprint, the book, because each time I kind of give it to a PM, they'll be like, "Hey, what are you looking at? Or how are you creating these critiques or these sessions together?" I'll give them my book, and it never comes back. So to buy a new one. Then I give it to a different PM and it never comes back. [inaudible 00:44:16].

Daniel Stillman:

I mean, that's our culture of generosity too. Just trust to get the [inaudible 00:44:23] book [inaudible 00:44:23]. Closing thoughts, Christen Penny, go.

Christen Penny:

Earlier you asked us about barriers. I think one of the barriers is just that people are busy. I think that's one of the reasons it's so important to make something like this a ritual or something that doesn't feel like a big deal every time it happens. It's just part of how we work. I think part of that is also showing the value. How do we answer the question to someone who comes to us and says, "Why should I even participate in a critique? Why should I ask for feedback? Showing the value is a big part of people understanding why it should even be a ritual. It's something I'm still working through a little bit. How to answer those kinds of questions, to people who don't inherently see the value.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I think that goes back to the importance of closing the loop on the conversation, to make people feel like your voice mattered. It was hard. It was helpful, for the people who were included in the conversation, but also for the person who invited the conversation, facilitate the conversation. This is like, if you don't close the loop, then you lose that some conversational momentum somewhere along the way. Well, geez you all, where's the time go? I'm super grateful that you all were willing to give up some of your time for this conversation. I know you all agree that better critique, better design, better conversations can save the world, which is why you're here. So thanks very much. I'll call scene. Did everything feel cool? I don't think we got to any dangerous territory.

Aaron Irizarry:

No, all good.

Christen Penny:

I only felt self-conscious when I mentioned product managers. I'm like, "No, I love my product managers. I don't want it to sound like they're not invited."

Aaron Irizarry:

Yes. I'm always like, cross-functional partners.

Christen Penny:

Yes.

Aniruddha Kadam:

That's safe territory.

Daniel Stillman:

Okay. Well, I can include this as a patter, just in case you want to make sure that everyone feels like... We love all of our collaborators. And everyone needs to be included in the conversation, but not all at once. One thing we didn't talk about, wait, this is really important. We didn't talk about asynchronous critique at all, because the question of like, how do we actually include more people? Why does it all have to be synchronous? Why does it all have to be synchronous? Can we just include this? Why doesn't all have to be synchronous? Does it have to be all synchronous? Christen, just one [inaudible 00:47:16].

Christen Penny:

You said that I thought what is life. [inaudible 00:47:20]. Yeah, so much is about synchronous versus asynchronous these days given the world that we're living in.

Daniel Stillman:

Everyone's busy.

Christen Penny:

Everyone's busy.

Daniel Stillman:

The reason why I think we do synchronous is because it engages people/"forces them to participate." But asynchronous means, as you pointed out, Aaron, gives people to prepare their feedback, gives them ability to think, how can we engage people in asynchronous feedback without too much cross pollination between each person's feedback so that they don't all jump on one thing.

Aaron Irizarry:

I have a lot of opinions about that, Daniel. So yeah. Here's what I'll say. I'll play with this. There's ideal and there's what's real. It's the value. Just something I live by, right?

Daniel Stillman:

So true.

Aaron Irizarry:

It is ideal. The asynchronous feedback is productive, and doesn't end up being more of a heavy lift thing, it sounds like. An activity I have participants go through will be the critique workshop. Is we have them critique an unsolicited redesign of Craigslist, using that four question process. Like, [inaudible 00:48:41] to achieve? We have them critique the street design. And I'll say, "How did it go?" And they're like, "Oh yeah, we learned how to use the question." I'm like, "Cool. Any challenges?" "Well, we didn't know what the intent of the person was. We couldn't ask them." Now, with tools and what's a lot of our Figma, XD, InVision, [crosstalk 00:49:01].

Daniel Stillman:

A Loom video maybe.

Aaron Irizarry:

Yeah. Yeah. You have opportunity to provide context there, but it just feels like I have to over-communicate so much because when you can't see me, you can be led towards assumption driven thinking when you read my written work, no matter how many emojis I use. And even if they're the right ones, because they might be funny to me, but not to you. And so it can work. It's a lot of effort and you just got to have the right process around it. So that's my very loose, but kind of really helping them.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. No, no. That's where the juice may exceed the squeeze on that one.

Aaron Irizarry:

Asynchronous prep, asynchronous follow-up the next steps. A lot of [inaudible 00:49:47] surrounding the conversation can be done asynchronously, to make the conversation go smoother. That's one [inaudible 00:49:56].

Daniel Stillman:

Aniruddha, I feel like you wanted to add something to that. And then we're totally out of time. I'm doing the [crosstalk 00:49:59]. I'm being so awful of a host right now. [crosstalk 00:50:03].

Aniruddha Kadam:

I would agree with Aaron and I would plus one that, that it has to be like that right combination of asynchronous and synchronous, because you mentioned in trans-synchronous it's more kind of like forcing people to be there. I see it more as bringing all that energy together. Usually I would always read a pre-read when I come to this conversation, based on the conversation, based on the energy in the room, I would have more ideas. That's always better than me. Just kind of sitting by myself and just jotting my feedback down and not really knowing what the world thinks about this idea, what other people think about this idea? So I think it does. I really like the framing of ideal versus real.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I think that's a nice way of putting it. It creates density and combustion through that density, versus the slow burn of asynchronous can be [inaudible 00:51:02]. I think it's more cat herding, which as we know is called cat herding because it's not a thing. Anyway, we're well past our time. I mean, I really appreciate you hanging out and for this extra bit. I think this is the after show.

Christen Penny:

Cat herding also takes more time. So if time is one of the barrier, then the more... I have yet to see people fully participate in asynchronous work. It always, like you said, Daniel, winds up being more of chasing people down. Like Aaron mentioned, you're not in the moment, so you can't answer the questions. So then people start to feel like they need to over-prepare. When they start to over-prepare, this becomes more and more barriers to entry, and makes it more and more of a significant thing, where I prefer to think of it as, "Here's what we're going to... We're going to have our weekly design critique. Let's have a conversation."

Daniel Stillman:

Right. Then it becomes more of a review. There's a heavier load on it versus just a regular Kaggles and critique where whoever can come, comes. It feeds forward the quality of the work. I think that's really, really powerful. And that's really great stuff. I'm so sorry for keeping you in all over, but that was a really awesome. That was good stuff. Does it exist? Maybe. Can it exist? Possibly. But yeah, that's a really, really good reality check from everyone. Thank you so much. You all are awesome. I imagine-

Aaron Irizarry:

No, it's great.

Daniel Stillman:

... you might have other places to be.

Christen Penny:

So nice to meet you all also. Thanks for the conversation.

Aaron Irizarry:

I really-

Aniruddha Kadam:

Yeah, nice to see everyone.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It's really great to see all of your faces. Thanks for participating. I'll let you know when this is real.

Aaron Irizarry:

Awesome.

Aniruddha Kadam:

Thanks, Daniel.

Christen Penny:

Bye, thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

Bye.

The Conversation Factory Book Club: Making Conversation with Fred Dust

Season_Five_Image_Stack_Book-club_FD.jpg

The Conversation Factory book club is an experiment I’ve been running for a few months now. I’m experimenting with deeper conversations and collaborations with the subscribers of the Conversation Factory Insiders group as well as working to go deeper with some of the ideas that have been shared on the Podcast.

This is a round-table conversation with Fred Dust, author of Making Conversation, with a few special guests from the Conversation Factory Insiders group. If you haven’t listened to the interview I did with Fred OR read the book, I think you can still enjoy the conversation.

LINKS, QUOTES, NOTES, and RESOURCES

Making Conversation by Fred Dust

Debt, the First 5000 Years by David Graeber

Otto Scharmer's Presencing Institute

Minute 3

is that it's like all I think we've learned is to just be as human as we can possibly be. It's just to be so deeply embedded in who we are as people, as our own individuals, and pick up what we're feeling and really pay attention to that, and that's a change. It's almost like being really, really, really human is a superpower. Isn't that weird?

Minute 8

The other thing that I really liked in the constraints was that boundaries are required for growth, and as a student of yoga, I always think about that as nirodha, which are the ... Those are the bounds from which you begin through which you also experience infinity, because if you didn't have those bounds, you couldn't experience infinity, and so you can translate that physically for people in a practice to say, "It's really not about touching your toes. If you can, fabulous, but if you can't, the experience is the process. So don't get hung up on it," and so I really loved that idea.

Minute 10

The last part of that story, the person who I was talking to who I said, "You actually have to think about this," ... What was interesting is they were being attacked by their staff and really in a depressed, bad position and really cynical and unhappy, and then they said, "Okay. Got to go into the staff meeting. Got to just be perky and open and excited," and I'm like, "What about that's going to feel authentic to the staff? They know you're being under attack. Why would you feel that way?" and that's ... The HR person later on was like, "We've been trying to say that for 10 months," and so it was just this thing where I'm like, "Why not be human in front of people that know they're attacking you, and what could that do in terms of disarming them in some way?"

Minute 15

This was a piece of feedback somebody gave me for me as a coach. They were like, "Well, look. At the middle of any challenge is a conversation. That might be a conversation with yourself. It might be a conversation with your boss or whatever, and if you can actually define the way you'd like it to feel, then the question of 'How might I create that feeling?' is a whole other exploration, and that is the creative part of designing a conversation." Well, if I'd like this to feel like my client doesn't think I'm an asshole, because that's a risk with some clients all the time, how do I make this fun? How do I make it feel egalitarian? How do I make it feel safe? Those are questions that then I get to sit with. Well, how do I make this feel safe for me and for them?

Minute 16

Yeah, and I think, on the back end of that, Daniel, is the notion that we often don't think that we can ask for the conversation that we want to have, and I think that one of the things you realize is that it's like you absolutely can. It's like once you know where you want to go, it's like it's well within our power to be asking for the conversation we need or want to have, I think.

Minute 38

I had a really interesting experience where I was hired to be the CEO of an organization that focuses on global conversations and convenings, and I came into the institution. I was like, "Oh, there's some really messed up things here," and was like, "There's a lot of things that are wrong about it," and I said it to some people before we began to... So already I had ... There was anger in the institution on the first day I was going to go, and I basically said to the chair of the board ... I was like, "Okay. We're going into this really hard conversation tomorrow. It's going to be really rough, and what's the plan for the conversation?" and he was like, "There's no need for a plan. You're utterly charming. You're going to be fine," and I'm like, "That's not a plan. Let's put together a plan, or else I resign," and he was like, "I don't see why we need a plan. We hired you because you're charismatic and charming and you can handle the situation," and I'm like, "Nope," and I resigned.

Minute 47

and so we're trying to figure out a way that we can message the United States like, "Hey. Let's take some time before." I've been doing a lot of lectures and am doing a three-part essay series on why stay hybrid, which is ... Hybrid workplace has been a kind of holy grail for workplaces for forever, and now we're seeing people being like, "Nope. Everybody comes back in," and I'm like, "No, no, no, no, guys," and so we're writing some evidence-based pieces on why we shouldn't be doing that.

Daniel's Notes:

The biggest vision: to see conversations as an act of creativity. We are never just participants in a conversation...we’re co-creators. And we can step up and re-design our conversations if we look with new eyes. 

P. 20 "I want this book to give you the hope I’ve found..."

118 - the ideas of compression and expansion. How does space now play a role in our conversations!?

"If you could choose 3 adjectives to describe how you want your reports to feel after this conversation, what would they be?”

Danny's Notes:

Listening should be a form of exploration, but it has become a form of consumption. P. 47

Constraints (or rules) are important in conversation. P. 105

When we make conversation, we’re ultimately aiming not necessarily for action but advancement. Moving an idea forward, exploring that idea but not necessarily just making it happen. P. 155

Maaike's Notes:

MaaikeNotes.jpg

More about Fred Dust

Fred Dust is the founder of Making Conversation, LLC and works at the intersection of business, society and creativity. As a designer, author, educator, consultant, trustee, and advisor to social and business leaders, he is one of the world’s most original thinkers, applying the craft and optimism of human-centered design to the intractable challenges we face today. Using the methodology in his forthcoming book Making Conversation, he has been working as the Senior Dialogue Designer with The Rockefeller Foundation to explore the future of pressing global needs; and with The Einhorn Collaborative and other foundations to host constructive dialogue with leaders ranging from David Brooks, Reverend Jenn Bailey, and Vivek Murthy to rebuild human connection in a climate of widespread polarization, cynicism and disruption. He is also proud to be faculty at the Esalen Institute.

Full Transcript

Daniel Stillman:

I think it's like ... I'm going to respect Fred's time as much as possible, and we have about 45 minutes together, and I think this is ... If I haven't done it this way, I want to reflect on how Making Conversation has changed all of us and how we make conversation. I want to start with Fred, actually, and say, "How has making conversation changed you?" What have you learned since making Making Conversation?

Fred Dust:

Yeah. It's interesting. I'll give you a funny little anecdote, if that's cool. I'm not sure this'll totally answer the question, but so last week I was in New York. A friend of mine who's in the media ... She's the CEO of a media company. She and I were having dinner, and she was like, "What do I do? We're having problems with the news room," and dah, dah, dah, dah, and I was giving her insight, and then she ... As we're leaving, she's like, "You have to come in. You have to come talk to me and my staff tomorrow," so I was like ... Just the leading staff, and so that was bizarre.

Fred Dust:

I'm literally showing my ID, and then I'm going through a turnstile, and then I'm having small chit chat in the elevator with somebody, and then I'm walking to an office, and then I'm in a board room, and then there's a table, and then there's a white board, and there's three other people, and it was just really interesting, and we were working through what they were grappling with, and each time I would go through it, I'd be like, "Well, what if we designed a conversation that was like this?" and we would just sort of try it on, and then we would do it again, and we'd do it again, and we'd do it again.

Fred Dust:

Two things were interesting about it, which is that it's like I realized that whether we've been in rooms or not, I felt like I knew we were going to get there. We were going to get to the right structure for them to have a conversation. I had full confidence, and as did they, which was actually really interesting, and it's only, I think, because they had taken in the book and were really engaged with it. But what I didn't realize that was really interesting is that not only was I able to help do that, but I could actually see that one of the things that was a flaw in ... So some of the staff are saying that there's a flaw in one of the leaders.

Fred Dust:

At some point I was like, "This is a real problem for you. We need to work on how to fix this," and she was really surprised, and I was like, "No, no. Actually, what they're seeing is, in fact, true," and so it was this funny thing where I was like ... I feel like this is a bad thing to say. I feel like I got it, like I got this, because we have yet to have a failure. It's bizarre, and what's funny about that ... That sounds like bragging ... is that it's like all I think we've learned is to just be as human as we can possibly be. It's just to be so deeply embedded in who we are as people, as our own individuals, and pick up what we're feeling and really pay attention to that, and that's a change. It's almost like being really, really, really human is a superpower. Isn't that weird?

Danny Kim:

Sounds like a title of the next book.

Fred Dust:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Being really, really human is weird.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. It's like, yeah. Exactly, but it's what we're good at. If we just leaned in, we'd be really good.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Do you feel like you're more supercharged coming out of the pandemic and then going back into physical spaces with physical, breathing people and-

Fred Dust:

Well, that's actually what was really interesting is that what I've realized is I was picking up ... Because we were sitting at a table, which means sometimes people are behind you a little bit depending on where you're looking any moment, and so what was interesting is I was picking up a vibe I was getting from the person who was sitting behind me who I couldn't even see, and that's something that I think you really need a room to do. I mean, I can sort of pick up the vibe because you're all focused on me, but if you're sitting behind me, it's like the fact that you could pick up a vibe in that context was like ... I don't know what that is.

Fred Dust:

One thing I've been wondering ... Sorry, and then I'd love to hear from you guys [inaudible 00:04:19]. I think, in general, I wonder whether or not this whole last 18 months has changed the way we experience sensations in general, and it's certainly remapped our neurochemistry. It has to have.

Daniel Stillman:

Fred, thank you for that, and thanks for, as David Whyte likes to say, starting close in. I'm really glad to be hosting this conversation about how your book has changed how we've thought about making conversation. Kathleen, you were stuck in the matrix for a few minutes when I introduced just the fact that we're going to be first names for as long as possible. I mean, I do want to talk about how you've brought it into your work, and that's been transformative, but I think maybe we can just start with ... Since you're here, Kathleen, what have you been imbibing from Making Conversation by Fred Dust? What is it changing for you? What's waking up for you in the way you approach this thing we do, being as human as possible?

Kathleen Rutherford:

I mean, well, I want to say two things. Technically, I'm in my mom's house, and so I'm rigged up on my phone. I'm hoping this connection stays. There's a big storm, just FYI in case I disappear, and also our realtor's going to bring a vacuum by at any moment, which I'm desperate for. So I'll jump off for that. That aside, I listened to the book, Fred, and I have about an hour left. So I sometimes like to read books, and as I ... I don't know. I guess, as I get older or I'm more slow at doing tasks, I really enjoy listening to audiobooks while I'm doing things, and I think the thing I've picked up that I really vibe with in your approach ... I mean, I appreciate a lot of the methodologies that you talked about and tools, and I'll talk some about that. There's the vacuum, but what I really-

Daniel Stillman:

[crosstalk 00:06:17].

Kathleen Rutherford:

... [crosstalk 00:06:17] curiosity, was this constant-

Fred Dust:

Curiosity.

Kathleen Rutherford:

... curiosity that's very childlike and full of wonder, and that is so affirming to me in terms of thinking about design. So BRB.

Daniel Stillman:

This is the best bell to keep people short. So Danny, that's short.

Danny Kim:

Yeah. That's [crosstalk 00:06:39].

Daniel Stillman:

That's your opening. That'll be your opening introduction. If you can get the bell-

Fred Dust:

Can you have a vacuum delivered? Is that possible?

Danny Kim:

This is so funny. Yeah. I love it.

Daniel Stillman:

The real question is what was she listening to your book on if not vacuuming? How did she do that without the vacuum?

Fred Dust:

I know, and I want to talk about her topic, because it's something I'm writing about right now.

Danny Kim:

Cool.

Fred Dust:

[crosstalk 00:07:02].

Danny Kim:

Cool. Kathleen, do you have anything else do you want to add?

Kathleen Rutherford:

If I can, sure.

Danny Kim:

Sure.

Kathleen Rutherford:

So I took notes on what really stood out to me, and is that relevant right now, what sort of [crosstalk 00:07:15]?

Daniel Stillman:

Sure. Yeah. This is like our opening statement, so whatever you'd like to include in your opening statement, that's fine.

Kathleen Rutherford:

I've studied two things for a long time, yoga and poetry. So I love the haiku not only as a tool, but also as a form of expression. Just I really love that, and I love that as a way of simplifying complexity, and I can expand on that, so just to put a pin in that. The other thing that I really liked in the constraints was that boundaries are required for growth, and as a student of yoga, I always think about that as nirodha, which are the ... Those are the bounds from which you begin through which you also experience infinity, because if you didn't have those bounds, you couldn't experience infinity, and so you can translate that physically for people in a practice to say, "It's really not about touching your toes. If you can, fabulous, but if you can't, the experience is the process. So don't get hung up on it," and so I really loved that idea.

Kathleen Rutherford:

There's a thread for me, I think, in your work which is ... I think the biggest anchor was really about that curiosity component, that great wonder, and there's a thread for me too of, within that great wonder, having the presence and stability, sort of like what you were talking about in the part of your opening remarks that I heard, to be able to reflect, to be sufficiently present as to be able to witness what's happening around you and be cognizant of what is engaged in you and what's not when you're designing the conversation, so not denying your presence on the one hand, but also having a distinction about that presence that helps you observe, direct, et cetera.

Fred Dust:

Thank you.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Yeah. It's super fun to have you on. I was so excited when I saw that.

Danny Kim:

Yeah. It's great.

Daniel Stillman:

One thing I want to just connect back, because what you said, Fred, about being as human as possible, "How could that fail?" and what you said, Kathleen, of like, "Well, we're touching our toes, and as far as we get touching our toes is our experience of touching our toes," ... I see this like I'm trying to be as human as possible, and to the extent in which we do that, that is the extent which we can. That's what we did. We were as human as we could possibly be. If we get further and deeper, then that's great, and if we're just surface-level humans, then that's what we did, and that's what we could achieve in that moment. So it's a win.

Fred Dust:

Well, can I just ... The last part of that story, the person who I was talking to who I said, "You actually have to think about this," ... What was interesting is they were being attacked by their staff and really in a depressed, bad position and really cynical and unhappy, and then they said, "Okay. Got to go into the staff meeting. Got to just be perky and open and excited," and I'm like, "What about that's going to feel authentic to the staff? They know you're being under attack. Why would you feel that way?" and that's ... The HR person later on was like, "We've been trying to say that for 10 months," and so it was just this thing where I'm like, "Why not be human in front of people that know they're attacking you, and what could that do in terms of disarming them in some way?"

Daniel Stillman:

I really feel that in my chest when you said it. It's like you could try to fight the fight or [crosstalk 00:11:08].

Fred Dust:

Or recognize that you're being hurt. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Go fight the feeling.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Yeah. Such courage to be vulnerable like that, actually.

Daniel Stillman:

Danny, what's up for you?

Danny Kim:

Thank you. Yeah. No. Fred, thanks for being here with us and just writing this great piece for us to chew on. For me, I mean, I have about one more chapter left. However, I think that, for me, what's really stood out was really the idea of creative listening, and I love attention. I love your first quote that you use, "Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity," I mean, I think, even more so today with these guys around and Zoom and Slack messages and notifications. I feel like that is what it means to be human is to give each other space and listen.

Danny Kim:

I love the premise of the idea of create a conversation is not about holding true to your beliefs, but being willing to let go and hold space for possibility, because I think that's where a lot of tension and or disagreement arises. Really, that's the center of it is when we're not willing to let go of core beliefs. As important as they are to you, to be human means to show up and be willing to listen and say, "Your perspective is different than mine," however you argue truth and however you argue beliefs.

Danny Kim:

So I mean, I'm dealing with that in some ways in my organization as we complete Pride Month this month, and what a beautiful conversation that we get to say, "Listen. The point of, for example, our diversity, equity, and inclusion committee is not to should say you have to believe what I believe. It's to say 'Are you willing to show up and listen to the conversation?'" and I think ... So that has been such a ... and then your journey weaved into the story has been really cool for me to even reflect on, and thank you for the gift that it was for me during Pride Month to listen to your journey all marked throughout. It's just been perfect timing. That's the way the world's supposed to work, you know?

Daniel Stillman:

[inaudible 00:13:11].

Danny Kim:

I love the anecdotes. I think the one question that I'm mulling on is ... I don't know where I ... I wrote page 61, but this idea of how do we ... The question I had emerging was "How do we listen with our bodies remotely in this Zoom world?" because I wonder if there would have been an appendix or if there was another ... like, "How do we do some of these practices in a virtual context?" knowing that we'll probably be most likely hybrid to a certain extent.

Fred Dust:

Well, you haven't read the last chapter.

Danny Kim:

Oh. There you go. I was asking questions before they're ... Well, I'll have to get back to you on that then. Yeah.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. Because it happened-

Danny Kim:

Right during [inaudible 00:13:57]?

Fred Dust:

I finished the book. They were supposed to be published last year. I was like, "There's going to be a pandemic," and so I was actually doing changes to ... George Floyd is in there. That happened during-

Danny Kim:

Yeah. Yep. Yeah. I saw that. Yep.

Fred Dust:

So I was doing changes while it was actually supposed to be locked down. So there's a short chapter that's all about that.

Danny Kim:

Perfect. I can't wait to read it. Yeah.

Fred Dust:

By the way, thank you, and I will tell you I hate praise. So it's like it's not something that I ... It makes me very uncomfortable.

Daniel Stillman:

You're welcome, Fred.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Fred, this will be good practice.

Daniel Stillman:

We're going to start heaping more on you, so-

Danny Kim:

Yeah. Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

The thing that I've actually found myself using the most from the book ... Here's the thing. When I met you, Fred, as you know, using the language and the mindset of design on this very mushy thing that [inaudible 00:14:54] conversation, a friend of mine ... I think I told you this ... was like, "Don't write a book about conversations." It's just like they're just amorphous, and people don't get it, and the idea of being able to zoom in on the tactical level of a conversation to be able to actually make it as you choose, either magnificent or hubris, and I think the idea of knowing your three adjectives ... It's so simple, but it's the essence of the idea of what are your design heuristics, and I think people ... I've found in coaching conversations, people get it. At the heart of any real change is a conversation, and just I've been working on some of my own languaging.

Daniel Stillman:

This was a piece of feedback somebody gave me for me as a coach. They were like, "Well, look. At the middle of any challenge is a conversation. That might be a conversation with yourself. It might be a conversation with your boss or whatever, and if you can actually define the way you'd like it to feel, then the question of 'How might I create that feeling?' is a whole other exploration, and that is the creative part of designing a conversation." Well, if I'd like this to feel like my client doesn't think I'm an asshole, because that's a risk with some clients all the time, how do I make this fun? How do I make it feel egalitarian? How do I make it feel safe? Those are questions that then I get to sit with. Well, how do I make this feel safe for me and for them?

Fred Dust:

Yeah, and I think, on the back end of that, Daniel, is the notion that we often don't think that we can ask for the conversation that we want to have, and I think that one of the things you realize is that it's like you absolutely can. It's like once you know where you want to go, it's like it's well within our power to be asking for the conversation we need or want to have, I think.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Danny Kim:

It's interesting. One note I made too on the concept ... I forget. It was where you were talking about words and the power of words and change. I think it was in section of change, and I think that goes down to the premise of that actually our words matter. I think so many people ... They think, to your point about conversation, it's like yes, and I've jotted down a note, because once upon a time I was studying speech act theory and the idea that our words have power to change reality. So when you say, "I will do this," and you don't do it, you've broken a promise that ... You know?

Fred Dust:

Yeah.

Danny Kim:

So it's fascinating that you were talking about that, and I was just like, "Wow." I think we have to, one, believe that our conversations and our words have power to make an impact versus something that is just normal and ... You know?

Fred Dust:

Yeah, and you know what's interesting, Danny, is it's ... I was on the phone. A friend of mine is the surgeon general, and he summoned me to his office today. So we were on the phone planning a national strategy on some work, some really interesting work, and one of the things I was talking about is it's also recognizing the power of the words that you might want to remove. So for instance, if you talk about divide, you see divide. That's the frequency illusion notion. It's like 11:11, and so one of the things ... I was like, "If you guys go out with divide, gap, loss, conflict," dah, dah, dah, "then all you're doing is calling attention to it. So it's counter to being therapeutic in that construct," and so it was a really great conversation and really interesting, I think, too.

Danny Kim:

That's cool. It's kind of like your one point about front porch. I forget exactly, but renaming it and being like, "We're going to relabel it in order to change the way we experience this." That's one word.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. It's funny because it's like sometimes ... I have a quiz for you at some point, since you guys are so deep in this, but I feel like sometimes I feel like the book is almost like a little set of magic spells, because sometimes our team will open up and will be like, "Let's go here," and then we'll throw it into ... and it's a funny little thing.

Kathleen Rutherford:

That doesn't feel very different than how I approach my work, and I actually have a couple of magic wands.

Fred Dust:

[crosstalk 00:19:27].

Danny Kim:

I believe it. I believe it. Vacuum, appear. I'm just kidding.

Fred Dust:

What's cool, actually, about the evolution of my work that I think will make you feel better or even better is that I have a neuroscientist on my ... I have a death doula and neuroscientist. I have a bunch of different people on my team, but the neuroscience backs up a lot of what's in here, which I was just like really ... Writing without a neuroscientist, I was like, "I don't know," and now it's like it's been really interesting to [inaudible 00:19:55] affirmed in it for sure. Can I give you guys a little quiz.

Danny Kim:

Sure.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Sure.

Daniel Stillman:

We're all co-designing this conversation, Fred, so-

Fred Dust:

Okay. Cool. So you guys have read the book and you've read far enough. There's one section that's the most important section. It's a very short section.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Which section is it? Is that the quiz?

Danny Kim:

Is that the quiz?

Fred Dust:

That's the quiz.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Okay. Wait. Wait.

Danny Kim:

Oh, man.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Nobody answer until I can pull mine up in front of me.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I feel like, Kathleen, you're at a slight disadvantage because audiobooks are not as-

Danny Kim:

Harder to ... Yeah.

Kathleen Rutherford:

I have an outline though. I have an outline.

Daniel Stillman:

[crosstalk 00:20:35] or at least scannable.

Kathleen Rutherford:

I have a good gut. So let's see.

Daniel Stillman:

A short chapter. I mean, I'm like-

Danny Kim:

[crosstalk 00:20:43].

Daniel Stillman:

I know where I put my-

Danny Kim:

[crosstalk 00:20:44].

Daniel Stillman:

... [crosstalk 00:20:44], but I'm not [crosstalk 00:20:45].

Danny Kim:

It's a quiz.

Fred Dust:

[crosstalk 00:20:46] shortest ones.

Daniel Stillman:

One of the shortest ones.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Well, I have times on mine, so-

Danny Kim:

Yeah. There you go.

Kathleen Rutherford:

... I don't have to do math.

Fred Dust:

I will tell you that it is almost precisely, almost precisely, 10 pages off from the center of the book, not including all the extra material.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Oh, that makes it complicated. Okay. I'm ready.

Fred Dust:

Okay. Do you want to guess?

Kathleen Rutherford:

Do you know that I was always the kid in school who was the [inaudible 00:21:24], by the way? [crosstalk 00:21:25].

Fred Dust:

Go for it.

Danny Kim:

[crosstalk 00:21:26]. Just go for it.

Fred Dust:

I was the one in school who my report card always said, "Disturbs others."

Kathleen Rutherford:

I just want to give you this quick anecdote. I'm down cleaning my parents' house out to prepare it for sale, and I found my older brother's fourth-grade report card. It was so hilarious. The first quarter was ... Well, anyways, it was just hilarious-

Fred Dust:

Was it accurate?

Kathleen Rutherford:

... and I sent it to his wife and to other members of my family, and everyone was like, "Yep. That sums it up." So should I say my guess? Or should I put it into the chat?

Fred Dust:

No. Say it.

Danny Kim:

Yeah.

Kathleen Rutherford:

I mean, I'm going to guess, because you're saying it's ... My first guess is going to be commitments, but then you said it's more towards the middle of the book. So I'm going to say it's the clarity.

Fred Dust:

Cool. It's a part of clarity. So you're close.

Danny Kim:

Oh. It's [crosstalk 00:22:16].

Kathleen Rutherford:

Oh. Part of clarity.

Daniel Stillman:

[crosstalk 00:22:18] part.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Yeah. I can't get that much more ... Let's see if I have notes on it. Okay.

Danny Kim:

Oh. So it's a section within clarity.

Fred Dust:

It's a section within clarity.

Daniel Stillman:

[crosstalk 00:22:24].

Danny Kim:

Oh, man. This is a-

Daniel Stillman:

So what you're saying-

Danny Kim:

I will say this, Fred. As you're talking about clarity, I was going to pick clarity as the section, but I didn't realize ... It was ironic to me on 87 where-

Fred Dust:

I know.

Danny Kim:

Okay. I literally called it out. I was like, "This is funny. It says 'Talk clearly. Talk normally,' and then it says 'Obfuscate.'" I was like, "What?" like "What?"

Fred Dust:

I know. It's so funny. I was like, "Could you have caught that, editors?" I was-

Danny Kim:

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Fred Dust:

It was just funny. I'm glad you saw that.

Danny Kim:

I was like, "He probably did that on purpose just to-"

Fred Dust:

No, but I laughed when I saw it in the final thing. I was like, "Oh, yeah. I could have probably caught that.B"

Daniel Stillman:

Yep. Talk normal. Are you talking about a subsection of a section?

Fred Dust:

Subsection. Yeah. I'm willing to give you ... You guys got the chapter. You all got the right chapter. So do you want me to tell you what it is?

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I mean, we're talking about giving it a name, right? I mean, that's the magic spell, right? This is the Ursula Le Guin concept, right?

Fred Dust:

That is true. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

The true name for something summons it.

Fred Dust:

Well, go to page 102, if you can. Sorry. This is super self indulgent, but there's a reason I want to tell you about it. It's kind of interesting.

Danny Kim:

Yeah. That's good.

Daniel Stillman:

Script spotting.

Kathleen Rutherford:

No. That's the thing I want to ... I wanted to come back to script spotting whenever that's appropriate.

Fred Dust:

Yeah, and so I did this quiz with my team, and they were like, "The one part that we didn't get was this script spotting thing." It was so funny, which is really interesting, and so if you noticed, the book goes through things that are very personal. They're all things that you could do on your own, and then at some point you transition to things that you have to do as a collective, so there was ... In country music, there was this thing called, I think, the hinge, where it's like the song is going in one direction, suddenly there's a flip, and the song goes in another direction or it changes level.

Fred Dust:

So in order to proceed into context, change, create, you have to recognize and see the scripts that are embedded in a conversation, and so you can't ... For instance, in the chapter on change, which is my favorite chapter, actually, it's like it's only by ... The scripts are one of the things that help you notice change. It's when things actually play off across that. So it's this really interesting tool that had to be there, and it was ... I wrote this out of order and the rewrote it in order, and this, we knew, is a really key point, but we didn't know where it needed to land, and we realized [inaudible 00:24:59] to be the hinge in the book, where it shifted the way you practice.

Daniel Stillman:

Interesting, because yeah. After you talk about spaces here, then you talk about context, and actually that was a question I caught in ... There's a Google Slides that we've been collecting some of our thoughts. On page 118, you talk about the feeling of compression and release, the very architectural concept, the very Frank Lloyd Wright compress and release, and with physical spaces, it's easy to do that. Obviously, with virtual spaces, I feel like the only way to do that is with pacing, with cadence.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. I think that's one. I think there's definitely rules. You can establish rules for the way things that you want to do. I actually feel like that there are also things like, to be honest, even like the rooms I'm in are ... This room is the room I want to be in, and I don't want you to see the bookshelf. I want you to see the full room. So I actually choose the backgrounds of the rooms that I'm in. This is my office up state, but then the other thing, for instance, is if you ... In my real life, my desk would be a mess, but actually I clean my desk before I have a serious conversation.

Fred Dust:

So there's all kinds of things that can actually affect your own psychology or even ask other people to do that. It's like maybe, "Everybody, just clear your table for this conversation," if there's something that you ... So there's actually things you can do, but you'll see a ... Danny and Kathleen, I talked a little bit about context. I thought context was going to be out the door when the pandemic happened, but it works really well especially with people who are in isolation and need to have conversations with family members and things like that. So every night, my husband and I ... We make the table for the conversations we want to have. We set our table, and my guests, if they come ... We set the table together, because I believe it's something that we should be doing to establish the platform for which we'll have the conversations.

Kathleen Rutherford:

We do the same in my household, and when my husband and I are having ... When there's difficulty, there's negotiation about dishes and who sets the table and where you put the ... It's so funny how there's so much meaning in that and so much energy.

Fred Dust:

So much energy. It's actually really true. Yeah. Well, okay. I've got a bunch, but you guys [inaudible 00:27:28].

Kathleen Rutherford:

Well, I'm going to jump in, and then, again, I'm open to being facilitated, Daniel. So if I'm taking up too much time, just tell me. So the script ... Can we talk a little bit more about that? I'm going to try not to talk about work, but just thinking-

Daniel Stillman:

We have about 15 minutes left. So at some point we can transition into the who we are and how we've brought it into our work. So if you want to bring that thread in-

Danny Kim:

[crosstalk 00:27:55].

Daniel Stillman:

... you want to start-

Kathleen Rutherford:

Okay.

Daniel Stillman:

... leading-

Fred Dust:

Yeah. I'd like to know more about that. So yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Fred might be curious at this point. What's your line?

Fred Dust:

Yeah. Exactly.

Kathleen Rutherford:

I paid so much damn money to a coach to be able to deliver that, and I still can't do it, Daniel. So might have to [inaudible 00:28:10], but I kind of get paid to be me. I'm trained as a mediator, facilitator. I just am apparently getting hired to do this big DEI thing, and I was like, "I'm not a DEI person." They were like, "No. We need you." So I don't know, but that is my training. I work in really complex areas, climate change, land use, clean energy, also violence prevention, gender equality, other social justice things. Haven't been so active in those of late, but apparently I'm getting back into that game.

Kathleen Rutherford:

When I think about scripts, I think about narratives, and when I think about narratives, I think they're embedded in this social ecological system. So they have lots of expression. They could be individual, community, more broad national identity or global, can sort of scale, but I don't know ... I came away from the scripts thinking, "How is that different than a narrative?" Do you delineate between, and if so, how or why?

Fred Dust:

Well, it's funny that you say that, because actually what's interesting for me is that increasingly I feel like our world has been dominated by a singular script writer, to be honest, and I would sort of ... So the book has a lot of history. It looks back at where I think conversation de-evolved, which is [inaudible 00:29:45] where I think that did happen, but I do think ... In my most recent work, one of the things I write about is where the places that most likely are going to set the script for you, and that's typically media and then, as a side of that, politics. It's like those are the two places that are establishing your script.

Fred Dust:

So I wrote a piece on Medium a couple weeks ago on ... I don't think I saw the story in the New York Times about ... It was like, "Are you languishing?" Did anyone see that story? It was a big story. It was basically being like, "Oh, you're at a certain point, and you're not really exploring, and you're not really ..." and it was like this diagnosis piece about how you might feel where you were, and so I had a friend who came over, and she was like, "I think I'm languishing. I read this article, and it's said-"

Kathleen Rutherford:

Oh, I read that. Yes. Languishing. Okay. Sorry. I misheard. Yep.

Fred Dust:

Yeah, and I was like, "I'm a little confused. You're a documentary filmmaker. You just made your most recent documentary. You're dating again. You've gotten hired by a big client." I'm like, "Tell me what's languishing about where you are," and so I wrote this fairly angry piece, because not only did the New York Times write this piece, which is I think is actually coining a term from Adam Grant, who I really like. I mean, he's a friend, but nonetheless. But then the film critics used it to describe some movies. They're like, "Oh, and this character is languishing," dah, dah, dah, and then they started writing all the articles that were like, "Oh, are you languishing? Here's how to fix it," and I'm like, "That's not journalism. They're selling you a script. That's marketing," and so it's like-

Daniel Stillman:

Oh. Is this the one about the story's telling you how you feel?

Fred Dust:

Yeah. Exactly, and it just ... That makes me furious. When you start having media being the thing that ... So in essence, that is narrative, right? So it's like wherever our dominant narratives come forward, that's actually one of the things ... I can't say whom, but I'm working with a foreign policy ... Not foreign. Diplomatic corps for a country, and we're reinventing statecraft, because we realize that it's like the old scripts just don't work in this construct, because it's-

Kathleen Rutherford:

So needed.

Fred Dust:

Yeah, and what we're doing, frankly, is we're gamifying it. We basically [inaudible 00:31:52] a deck of 90 cards that each day gives you a different practice and a specific task of what to do. So anyway.

Daniel Stillman:

This is where metaphor and narrative and the giving it a name, the front porching of something, becomes the transformation.

Fred Dust:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

I always give a shout out to ... I did an interview with a man named Ian Altman where he talks about sales as same-side sales. Most people are like, "I hate selling," because the narrative of their head is the person coming with a vacuum cleaner not to loan it to you, but to make you buy it versus [inaudible 00:32:28] what's the real problem, and everyone loves telling people about things that they love that they think are going to help them. That's another metaphor for sales is like, "Hey. Let's play the game of what problem is there and how can we solve it together." It's easy to say that. It's hard to do that, and we all feel anxiety over selling our work, but when you change the metaphor ... Ian really helped me to ... Yes. It's a puzzle we're solving together, not a game to win, just like-

Kathleen Rutherford:

I love the collaborative game stuff that you talked about too, by the way, and I've worked on those things. So cool.

Fred Dust:

Yeah, and it's like we have two new games coming out soon. I'm really excited about that, so one that's like a very personal game and one that's actually a professional game. So I'll let you know when they're out. It's weird. Also, to the clarity point, one of my favorite parts of doing this is we'll write proposals, for instance, and at the bottom of the opening paragraph, we'll be like, "And by the way, every consultant says that, but what we're saying is this." We're teaching them how consultants talk, and we're like, "But we don't talk like that. What we really mean is this is how we do it." So it's like it's been this really funny meta narrative in the proposals of unpacking what people always say and what we're saying.

Danny Kim:

Yeah. [crosstalk 00:33:50].

Daniel Stillman:

That's funny.

Fred Dust:

Danny, tell me a little bit more about you.

Danny Kim:

Sure. Sure. So my background is in organizational psychology, and so I was working in a consulting firm for many years doing organizational design and leader development and recently transitioned out right before the pandemic as a director of people and culture at a branding and advertising agency. So the script spotting is actually really relevant to the work we do, because we write lots of scripts for production work and ... But my job, I think, and the way this works for me is elevating high-contact conversations and providing frameworks for people to be better leaders, and I think, if you just give people ... I guess my intention, my hope, is to continue to provide tools so that I can continue to develop leaders in our organization to lead feedback conversation, performance reviews, to developing emotional resilience and ... You know?

Fred Dust:

Yeah.

Danny Kim:

To hold some of our beliefs loosely as we enter into different kinds of conversations that ... So yeah. So I love what I do. I'm a culture creator within our agency and hired about 40 people since January, and I just hired my first talent acquisition manager. He started like two weeks ago. So it's kind of like thank you, you know?

Fred Dust:

Yeah.

Danny Kim:

I've gone through a lot of what does it mean to build a world-class culture. That's our hope.

Fred Dust:

That's fantastic. Yeah, and it's a great moment, I think, to be really working in that space, I think.

Danny Kim:

Yes. It's beautiful. Yep, and then DEI has been a huge part of my reality. So maybe, Kathleen, if you want to talk through that, I'm happy to share any thoughts, but leading a couple different initiatives on our end, and it's been a beautiful exploration as I try to figure out how do I give people a greater voice and impact, and I think that's what part of conversation is is sometimes allowing silence to be the note that we play and me being very intentional by saying, "Listen. My job is to empower these four women to be the leaders of this conversation, and my job ... I'm not being quiet because I'm not invested. I'm being quiet because I'm empowering you," and I think even just naming that is part of creating space for conversation.

Fred Dust:

That's really interesting. Yeah. No. Kathleen, I'd be curious. I mean, it's funny. I'm not going to say the name of the organization. Well, I'm going to say it, and you can bleep it or whatever, but it's like I'm on the board of National Public Radio, and I got a call-

Kathleen Rutherford:

You say that in your book.

Fred Dust:

Oh, okay.

Kathleen Rutherford:

So we already know that.

Fred Dust:

[crosstalk 00:36:33].

Danny Kim:

Yeah.

Fred Dust:

But this part is the part where it's like [inaudible 00:36:37] is like, but the chair of the board called me the other, black man, and he was like ... Whenever somebody calls me, I'm assuming they're going to fire me. That's just like I'm always [inaudible 00:36:44] like, "Oh, god. They're going to [crosstalk 00:36:53]."

Daniel Stillman:

That's so normalizing.

Danny Kim:

[crosstalk 00:36:53].

Kathleen Rutherford:

Dragons. Big Dragons. Very successful.

Fred Dust:

They're going to kick me off the board, and he was like, "Well, I was hoping you would join the DEI committee," which we're just starting, and I'm like, "Oh, yeah. Of course." It's like I'm on the DEI committee for most of the organizations that I work with, and he's like, "Yeah, and then I was thinking it'd be great if you would be the chair," and I was like, "Uh," and then I just basically was like, "Let me think on that one." I'm not going to do it. It's like I'm not going to be the chair of the DEI committee [inaudible 00:37:20], but ...

Kathleen Rutherford:

Yeah. It's a very interesting ... That part of our conversations right now, I think, in terms of how we show up around power and how we recognize it, respond to it, share it or not, including saying no, I think, right?

Fred Dust:

Right.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Like, "Yeah. I'm the easy one, and I'll find other ways to support you, but it can't be me." I kind of-

Fred Dust:

That's [crosstalk 00:37:51].

Kathleen Rutherford:

... [crosstalk 00:37:51] backing out on this one, and I was like, "I'm not trying to shirk duties," and we'll see. I'm talking to those folks later today, but I was like, "I'm a white woman. I'm not really sure. I mean, I can definitely whip some white women into shape who are acting badly on this board, but I think maybe a woman of color would be better than me, and I know you know me and you trust me, and that's awesome, and I'm honored, but I'm not sure if it's the best, and I'm not sure I'm the one to make that call either."

Fred Dust:

Yeah. It reminds me. I had a really interesting experience where I was hired to be the CEO of an organization that focuses on global conversations and convenings, and I came into the institution. I was like, "Oh, there's some really messed up things here," and was like, "There's a lot of things that are wrong about it," and I said it to some people before we began to... So already I had ... There was anger in the institution on the first day I was going to go, and I basically said to the chair of the board ... I was like, "Okay. We're going into this really hard conversation tomorrow. It's going to be really rough, and what's the plan for the conversation?" and he was like, "There's no need for a plan. You're utterly charming. You're going to be fine," and I'm like, "That's not a plan. Let's put together a plan, or else I resign," and he was like, "I don't see why we need a plan. We hired you because you're charismatic and charming and you can handle the situation," and I'm like, "Nope," and I resigned.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Not doing the work for you.

Fred Dust:

Because I was like, if the chair of the board won't sit down to make a plan for the conversation, and we're just [inaudible 00:39:22] whatever, it's like then that's not an organization that's going to be the kind of caring organization that I need to do the work I needed to do.

Daniel Stillman:

You being charming is a plan.

Fred Dust:

It's his easy-

Kathleen Rutherford:

It's fantastic.

Fred Dust:

It's his easy plan, right?

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Fred Dust:

But it's not a plan for me. There's nothing in it that protects me as an individual. It just-

Daniel Stillman:

Right. You wanted an equal conversational partner who was going to bring his own heuristics, his own energy into the conversation so you could co-design it.

Fred Dust:

That's right.

Daniel Stillman:

Versus like-

Fred Dust:

Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

... [crosstalk 00:39:51].

Danny Kim:

That takes effort.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. It does, and-

Kathleen Rutherford:

And be willing to do it, not relying on you, right?

Fred Dust:

That's exactly right. It's like I think that really ... It feels like that felt extractive, and it was like, if this is an indication of what it's going to mean to be working with this person and this board, then this didn't feel like the right thing.

Daniel Stillman:

Speaking of extractive, we only have about five minutes left, because it's Tuesday night. It's 5:55 on the Eastern Seaboard.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Tuesday night.

Daniel Stillman:

I know. I'm-

Fred Dust:

I have hours more. Honestly, this is really fun for me because I'm like, "Oh, we're talking about things that people like about me," even though, I mean, I'm red as can be and so embarrassed, but it's like at the same time, I'm like, "Oh, this is ... I kind of like this."

Daniel Stillman:

Push another 15 if you can, Fred. I just try to respect everybody's time.

Danny Kim:

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Fred Dust:

I mean, I'd love to just hear a little bit more about the work you guys are doing, and just if there's anything I can learn or whatever, I'd be down for staying a little longer. It's up to you guys.

Danny Kim:

Yeah.

Kathleen Rutherford:

I would too.

Daniel Stillman:

Yay.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Daniel, are you willing to host for a little bit longer?

Daniel Stillman:

Oh, totally. In full disclosure, my wife is getting a massage from my mother. So I have nothing to do. The two most important women in my life are entertaining each other, and I don't have to have dinner. There's food in the fridge. So-

Fred Dust:

Can I-

Daniel Stillman:

... go ahead. I can totally be here a little while.

Fred Dust:

Can I tell you a really funny story about that since ... It's kind of just like sort of weird intimacy story, but it's like [inaudible 00:41:18].

Danny Kim:

Oh, my gosh. Fred, we're still recording, by the way.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Yeah, and over full disclosure. Yeah.

Fred Dust:

It's okay. I think that it goes to Kathleen listening to the audiobook of the book. So when I did the audiobook, I did it last summer in Maine, and they wanted me to put me in a big studio in New York, and I was like, "No. I just want super small, minimal contact audio studio," so the place ... Because I was just like whatever. So the place I was in was a little glass booth. It was about 110 degrees in Portland, Maine. It was [inaudible 00:41:57] ever been. They can't run the air conditioning, because if you run the air conditioning, the sound-

Danny Kim:

The sound.

Fred Dust:

The sound.

Danny Kim:

Yeah. Yep.

Fred Dust:

That's why I have mine off right now, and the booth had heated up so hot, and they decided they wanted to compress three days into two days. So it's like the room had heated up so hot that there was condensation on the walls. I wasn't allowed to eat, because of stomach noise. I wasn't allowed to ... Which I'm actually better if I don't eat. I wasn't allowed to drink too much, because you start to get clacking in your voice, and finally I was like, "I'm dying." I'm like, "It's so hot in here," and they're like, "We can't see you. If you want, take off your clothes," and so the funny, intimate secret is that the book you're listening to, Kathleen-

Danny Kim:

Oh, my gosh. I love it. I love it.

Kathleen Rutherford:

That changes the whole thing entirely.

Daniel Stillman:

I hope the fabric-

Kathleen Rutherford:

[crosstalk 00:42:52] hilarious.

Daniel Stillman:

... [crosstalk 00:42:52] the seat wasn't too sticky.

Fred Dust:

It was a wool fabric seat. It was gross.

Danny Kim:

Oh, my gosh.

Kathleen Rutherford:

I would expect nothing less in some sound booth in Maine.

Danny Kim:

I don't-

Daniel Stillman:

This doesn't come up in most podcasts. This is good. This is-

Danny Kim:

I don't know if I want to listen to it or if I shouldn't listen to it, because now I just can't get that-

Kathleen Rutherford:

Oh, you should totally listen to it now.

Danny Kim:

Maybe I have to listen to it now that [crosstalk 00:43:18].

Kathleen Rutherford:

This gives a whole new spin on the closing chapter for me.

Fred Dust:

Honestly, Kathleen, what's funny is that I've been stuck in a monsoon in a taxi for 18 hours in the most rural parts of India, and I think reading my audiobook was the most extreme experience I ever had. One of the things that you might hear in the thing is when I was reading about my grandmother seeing Jesus, I was like, "I'm seeing Jesus," [inaudible 00:43:44], and It's like when I started to tear up about something, the director would be like, "Go deeper. Really. Go ahead. Tear up more." So it was intense.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Well, and that does convey. Your emotional range really is conveyed [inaudible 00:44:03], and I love that. I mean, that's why I still ... On occasion, I do like to listen to books, because otherwise I'm inferring that and it's my voice, and yeah. So that totally worked.

Fred Dust:

It's really interesting. When I was editing the book, I sent it to a couple friends, some of their quotes. Casper, I sent the thing on pilgrimage, and Andrea [Lean 00:44:26] I sent the-

Daniel Stillman:

This is Casper ter Kuile, author of The Power of Ritual, also a ... I think you introduced me to him.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. Casper's a [inaudible 00:44:34].

Daniel Stillman:

Wonderful guest. I really loved his work.

Fred Dust:

But so Casper's quote and then Andrea Lean's quote. In Andrea Lean's quote ... Often when she'll talk about kids, she'll be like, "And they're like," dah, dah, dah, "and I'm like," dah, dah, dah, and then with Casper, he has this long thing about pilgrimage, and it starts with um and a pause, and then it goes into it, and so they both wrote back, and they were like, "Can you take out um," and I was like, "Casper, if you went into a super long monologue about pilgrimage and didn't stop to say um beforehand, which you actually did say, it wouldn't sound like you were human," and with Andrea, I was like, "Andrea, you work with teens. You say like. It's like it makes you sound more human." So I had to coax them to let me leave some of their colloquialisms in so you could actually hear their real voice. Otherwise, they would sound too expert.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Yeah. Really interesting.

Daniel Stillman:

Speak as human as possible, to the-

Fred Dust:

That's right.

Daniel Stillman:

... very first point.

Fred Dust:

Exactly. So anyway.

Kathleen Rutherford:

I always love the invitation to be who you are. I mean, I tend to like people who show up as the best version of themselves, but whatever's going on for you is going on for you when you're in the room, and I don't know. I feel like the pandemic in particular has spawned this whole new emerging field. I'm not sure about that. I might be getting old and grouchy, but at any rate, I've been on a lot of calls and webinars about this emergent field of ... Much of this, I think, links to Otto Scharmer's work at MIT, so presencing. He has this thing called the Presencing Institute. I don't know if any of you have seen or heard about that, but I really like that work.

Kathleen Rutherford:

There's accordingly this field of ... I guess, most simply put, it identifies as a field of transformation and systems change and talking about how do we design a visual language for that and how do we identify as a field, and sometimes I get off those calls, and I feel like I found my tribe, my actual people, and then other times I'm like, "What the hell are we all talking about?" So I kind of swim along there, but I think it's an interesting ... It's not for nothing that that is coming online as we're coming out of the pandemic, I guess is my point.

Fred Dust:

I think that's right. I mean, that's actually the work we're talking about right now with the surgeon general, frankly, is basically how not to just jump back into normal-

Kathleen Rutherford:

Yeah. Going back.

Fred Dust:

... best, and so we're trying to figure out a way that we can message to United States like, "Hey. Let's take some time before." I've been doing a lot of lectures and am doing a three-part essay series on why stay hybrid, which is ... Hybrid workplace has been a kind of holy grail for workplaces for forever, and now we're seeing people being like, "Nope. Everybody comes back in," and I'm like, "No, no, no, no, guys," and so we're writing some evidence-based pieces on why we shouldn't be doing that.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, but we have a lease on this office. So we have to use it. That's a constraints-based ideation. That's really important.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Totally.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

Danny, I want to bring in ... because it feels connected. I was looking at page 155 where you were talking about moving an idea forward, exploring the idea, not necessarily making it happen, and ironically the surgeon general's quote about having a minute of silence in a staff meeting is on the opposite page, and I think a lot of times people want forward-moving conversations and this idea of making conversation does feel like making something happen and moving things forward, versus circular conversations, which nobody really wants. But it seems like, Danny, what you picked up there is the importance of creating a space to marinate. I don't know if there was something more you wanted to say on that and then maybe [crosstalk 00:48:45].

Danny Kim:

Well, it's interesting. So I'm a musician, classically trained violinist, and in music, silence is a note, and so I think, in conversation, I mean, and even giving feedback to one of my team members, you can't just always talk, and her thing is like, "I get nervous if there's silence," and whatnot. How do I help develop her as a leader into this next evolution of herself of silence is key to conversation? Give space for other people to share their voice. But for me, I think I take that note, no pun intended, to heart, because I think there is ...

Danny Kim:

I mean, as a violinist in an orchestra, I mean, I would be sitting there with like 18 bars of silence, and I'm waiting my turn, and I have to count every single beat, "One, two, three, four, two, two, three, four," and then if I'm off, I miss my note, and so it's really interesting how that plays into conversation. It's scripted, Fred, to your point, I mean, as we were talking about. There's a very clear way of how we will play this piece of music, and yet there's artistry in that, and every note has its own space in that.

Danny Kim:

So anyways, and then I think that, to me, is where the ... I mean, as we talk a little bit about DEI, but for me, that's where asking people to step back from the conversation at times versus stepping in and leaning forward and giving space for that, and so I don't know. I've been thinking about that a lot, Daniel, and I'm glad you called that out in 155, and I did highlight that. Too often we prize decisiveness in leadership, and sometimes we just need ... I don't know. Let's just be present together and figure this out together, and let's circle back to it later.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. I mean, I had the, I mean, the good luck, I guess, of working with the prime minister of Greece when he was going through the crisis, and what would happen is that he would make an announcement. He would say something like, "We're not going bankrupt," and in the time that he was finishing that statement, it had been misinterpreted by the press to be already in the aether saying, "The prime minister just said that they're going bankrupt," and so it's just like this speed just builds on itself in this way that was really intense, and so I think what's really fantastic about being able to coach conversations when that's happening is when you see a leader become like, "Oh, we're planning things for four years out," then in five minutes because they're feeling crisis, you can always be like, "Let me just tell you this story about Greece in crisis," and everyone's like, "Oh, right. Well, we don't want to be Greece in crisis."

Daniel Stillman:

Well, speed's a virtue, but where, speed to where?

Fred Dust:

Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

Always a-

Kathleen Rutherford:

[crosstalk 00:51:26]. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

... [crosstalk 00:51:26] asking.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Speed to where and to what end? I mean, I feel like so many of the systems that are falling apart right now ... The tendency is to reify those systems and how we think and speak and act and organization and move and talk, and if we don't take advantage of the disruption to really think about what do we want, what should our social contract look like with government, how are we actually going to deal with a wildfire, then we're just going to keep repeating ourselves.

Kathleen Rutherford:

But it's a really scary thing, I think, also, because I'm working on wildfire. This is in my portfolio right now with the US Forest Service. How do they not respond like they always have while also addressing real infrastructure, real human health concerns, and in the context of climate change? All the easy work has been done. We are entering a stage of civilization that is far more complex and interconnected, I believe, I than it ever has been, so how do we ... Where I want to go speedy, Danny, on organizational culture is how can we speed up the organizational culture change-

Danny Kim:

Yeah. Nice. Yeah.

Kathleen Rutherford:

... so that it's commensurate with what we're seeing outside, you know?

Fred Dust:

Yeah. Well, it's pretty interesting, because one of the things that we've been ... So one of my clients is Rockefeller Foundation. So I've been running all of their major global convenings since March one, and so our first series was on pandemic prevention and awareness. So that was happening back in the fall of whatever, or spring of 2020, and it was really interesting. So that was fascinating because you had people from all over the globe. You had people from Google. You had whatever, and I was basically ...

Fred Dust:

One of their first comments to me when I was like, "What do you want us to design here?" is they were like, "Well, we want a situation where, for instance, the movement for Black Lives is going to give us their data," and I'm like, "Well, if that's what you want, then we're going to have the movement for Black Lives in the room," and so basically what we did to speed up the dialogue is I invited a bunch of different people who are the users. So I'm like, "If you want to hear what Black Lives feels about that, talk to the head of coms for Black Lives. It's like [inaudible 00:53:43] for Black Lives."

Fred Dust:

It was fascinating because we were able to speed through the solutions within a three-week period of two 90-minute conversations a week [inaudible 00:53:50] a pandemic institute, which we stood up, but it was because we were like, "We don't have time. We're going to collapse users into the room with the leaders and the thinkers, and you're going to ask the users directly, and they're going to tell you what they agree with and what they don't." So it's like there's some really interesting things where we were able to really speed to solutions in really phenomenal ways by bringing in different kinds of voices than would be in the room typically.

Daniel Stillman:

I think that might be one thing that ... I was just taking a look to see if I'm missing this, but in terms of the chapters, commitment, creative listening, clarity, context, constraints, change, and create, is there a C that represents participants, the who is in the room?

Kathleen Rutherford:

The collective?

Daniel Stillman:

The collective. There you go. Can we add another C? Are we allowed to do that? Because there's this question of who's in the room and who's not in the room and how do we bring them in the room, and-

Fred Dust:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

... [crosstalk 00:54:44] way to bring their voice into the room. Is it a persona? That might not be enough. They have to be in the room.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. It's funny. I write about it in create, which is basically like looking at the idea of bringing a second in or whatever, and going back to the commitment notion and even in the last micro chapter on the pandemics is I'm like ... I basically say, "Commit or don't, especially now. Make your lives less busy unless you're the voice of difference in the room," because it's one of the things ... The whole first chapter is like, "How do you get comfortable with the fact that there's different people in the room? They look different from you. They might act different from you. They talk differently, and how do you deal with it?" That's kind of where we got to in the pandemic is like, "No. We need to broaden the net in a huge way to actually have the conversations that need to happen."

Daniel Stillman:

Well, just it increases speed, because it's a game of telephone. Every time someone who's not in the conversation has a relay back and forth, it's a lossy process.

Fred Dust:

Totally. I'm like, "Don't-"

Kathleen Rutherford:

[crosstalk 00:55:45] balancing feedback loop too, right? I mean, there's a dynamic that happens in the conversations.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. Exactly.

Kathleen Rutherford:

[crosstalk 00:55:51].

Fred Dust:

Yeah, and I'm sort of like, "Yeah. Well, you waited for a year to talk to USAID, and now you're surprised by what they said. We could have had them a year ago, and we would have been starting from a different point.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Could have started a decade ago with AID.

Fred Dust:

Oh, my god, and don't get me started on-

Kathleen Rutherford:

Okay. I won't.

Fred Dust:

I will say really interesting the parts of government. I'm going to meet live with immigration, and-

Kathleen Rutherford:

Oh, fascinating.

Fred Dust:

... one of my first conversations with them on the phone was like, "You know you need to change your name," and they were like, "Yeah." I just think ICE in general doesn't work for immigration.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh, yeah. That's the acronym. Fair.

Kathleen Rutherford:

No. The thing that you have to put on your face after somebody just threw you into a locker? No.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It doesn't pass the Ursula Le Guin test-

Fred Dust:

It does not.

Daniel Stillman:

... by any stretch of the imagination.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Most of my career has been working with government. They are my primary clients in the US and other, and it is, I think, such an amazing ... So Danny, I know so little about corporate life, for example. I know about corporate life through multi-stakeholder dialogues, and on occasion I'll work for a company, but if I'm working for a company, it's because they want me to help them do something with government, but it's a really fascinating ... They play such fascinating roles in designing our reality, actually, and so much of it goes unquestioned. Or when it is questioned, the constructs with which or by which it's questioned are so weak, feeble. They're not-

Daniel Stillman:

These are fundamental metaphors. Sorry for interrupting, Kathleen. I just started reading the free chapters of debt, a history of the first 5,000 years. I don't know if you've read this or come across it. It's one of Bill Gates' top books or somebody. I'm amazed at how much of the book is available as a free sample on the Amazon Kindle, just for the ... So you can get pretty far in and get a lot of the goodness, and the fundamental idea is the notion that a debt is a moral obligation is a shocking one. When-

Kathleen Rutherford:

So effective.

Daniel Stillman:

And super effective, and it's really old, and the myth of money and the myth of what is forgivable and what's not forgivable and who gets bailed out when things go awry ... Spoiler alert.

Kathleen Rutherford:

The wealthy people are not suffering in that way.

Daniel Stillman:

Right, and so this ... You talk about changing the metaphor or changing the conversation around something like money. We just literally cannot see another reality. He does this hilarious bit where he goes through half a dozen economics textbooks where they just basically all share these same metaphors of like, "Well, the barter economy is insane and it's impossible, so we need money, and we have to have this medium of exchange, and this is why things are the way they are," when history, apparently, and that's why you need to buy the book and read all the chapters about all 5,000 years of history is there are tons of examples of Mesopotamian cultures that did it differently and had a very effective medium of exchange that thought about debt and forgiveness of debt.

Daniel Stillman:

Spoiler alert, again, if you've read the Bible, it's in Jewish law. Every 50 years, there's a jubilee and all debts are forgiven. That was something that used to be part of certain cultures, and it was just a completely different narrative about what money is versus a permanent binding moral obligation to pay the French government back if you're Madagascar, regardless of the fact that all of those debts are based on colonialism and extractive relationships.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Right, and they've commodified the extractives they've gotten out of your country and made-

Daniel Stillman:

Correct.

Fred Dust:

[crosstalk 00:59:50].

Daniel Stillman:

So you have to-

Fred Dust:

So that's the thing about naming is it cuts two ways, which is that it's like ... One of the things I did with Skoll World Forum is we did two-word things that established the destiny of humankind, and one of the things was manifest destiny, and it was like these superficial labels that basically push us forward. Danny, can I ask you a quick question?

Danny Kim:

Yes, and then I have to go. I'm sorry.

Fred Dust:

I do too.

Danny Kim:

Yeah. [crosstalk 01:00:24].

Fred Dust:

Given the context of what you're doing, I'm curious. What are you seeing? How has this changed the stuff that's happening over at IDEO? How's that affecting the ways that you're thinking about your work?

Danny Kim:

Can you say that one more time?

Fred Dust:

I don't know. Have you been following what's been happening over at IDEO at all?

Danny Kim:

I have not, actually. Tell me more.

Fred Dust:

Check it out.

Danny Kim:

Okay.

Fred Dust:

So basically what's happened is that there's been a whole Medium stream called Surviving IDEO, which actually ... I'll tell you honestly, and I wrote a piece about this that got a lot of traction, and I read the first article in it and was like ... I had a lot of glee because I was like, "Oh, yeah. I saw this happen. I saw this happen." I mean, just to be honest, I hired the first black designer at IDEO, and for years, my practice was called the Benetton ad, and it was derogatory. It was derisive in the way that it happened. So I was really loving it until I got to the last story, which is about me, and so then I wrote a Medium piece about it and was like, "Yeah. This happened. Here's what I learned," and that was my response, but-

Danny Kim:

I'd love to check it out. I'm sorry. I don't have much more context on it, but-

Fred Dust:

Yeah. Take a look. But the Medium piece was basically like ... It's like, "What happens when you get called out as a bad leader in a viral article."

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. George Aye, I think, started the-

Fred Dust:

Yeah, [crosstalk 01:01:53].

Daniel Stillman:

Apparently, there were some more written before that that didn't go viral.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. Yeah, and then what happened? Oh. Fast Company reprinted it.

Daniel Stillman:

But I mean, it speaks to the challenge of an outside group thinking that it can solve any and all ... I mean, these are also the critiques of design thinking, which we talked about. If we can't have an inclusive conversation with all the stakeholders in a conversation, then it is a exclusive not conversation.

Fred Dust:

Yeah. No. It's funny. I mean, it's like that's the premise. I mean, with our consultancy, it was sort of like we're the last consultant you're ever going to hire, because our job is to teach you to actually do this ourself so that you can ... Yeah, and again, that's why people have been hiring us. They're just like, "Yeah. We just need to do it ourselves."

Danny Kim:

Yeah. Thank you, Fred.

Fred Dust:

Thank you [crosstalk 01:02:47].

Danny Kim:

I appreciate your time. This was awesome.

Fred Dust:

Thank you. It was [crosstalk 01:02:50].

Danny Kim:

I really enjoyed your book.

Fred Dust:

It was just so fun, and now I have to go do more work, but ...

Daniel Stillman:

Fred, do you want to have a two-word checkout?

Fred Dust:

It's the end of a long day. Peace out.

Daniel Stillman:

Kathleen, what's your two-word checkout?

Kathleen Rutherford:

Gosh. The word that's coming to mind is blessings, blessings and light.

Daniel Stillman:

Mr. Kim?

Danny Kim:

Mine is more work, but I mean, and I say that positive.

Kathleen Rutherford:

More work for-

Danny Kim:

I say that positively. I say that like there's more work to be done, more good work to be done.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Yes.

Daniel Stillman:

With just this last conversation, it seems like what I'm checking out with is inclusive conversations. That's a really good thing to meditate on. Fred, you are, as my people call it, a mensch for hanging out with us. Kathleen, Danny, thank you for donating your time to this conversation-

Danny Kim:

So good.

Daniel Stillman:

... and I'm so excited to share this conversation with other people as soon as I can get it into the universe. Happy Tuesday.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Yeah, and I think, for hosting, I'm looking ... This is a great start for me-

Danny Kim:

Thank you.

Kathleen Rutherford:

... and I look forward to more, and Fred, thank you so much for coming-

Danny Kim:

Thanks, Fred.

Kathleen Rutherford:

... in person. What a great gift.

Fred Dust:

Nice meeting you guys.

Danny Kim:

Bye.

Daniel Stillman:

[crosstalk 01:04:19].

Fred Dust:

See you soon. Bye-bye.

Kathleen Rutherford:

Ciao.

Leading Deeper Connection

Season_Five_Image_Stack_KV.jpg

I'm really excited to share my conversation with Kat Vellos, an amazing designer of experiences. 

Today we talk about the art of intentionality and the power of hearing yourself say something you've never said before. We also dive deep into some of the incredible insights in her book, "We Should Get Together: The secret to cultivating better friendships

One of the things that I loved from the book was Kat's powerful metaphor about "hydroponic friendship," and how you can create a supercharged connection through intentional vulnerability and shared experiences. 

She draws on her long-time experience as a facilitator and designer to create what for me was one of the big "Aha!" moments: hydroponic friendship requires a container, and that's one of the things that leaders can do to design experiences: They can create the container. 

A container can be the question that starts the conversation, the invitation to the party. In Improv, it’s called the “Magic Circle” - the place where new rules and ways of being apply, the “game world”.

While Kat's book is about designing friendship in our lives, she points out that connection in one part of our lives leads to connection in all parts of our lives. We’re experiencing loneliness and disconnection not only in our everyday lives but at work... and work is where we spend a lot of time.

Kat and I unpack four powerful facets of leadership: 

One: the ability to design experiences - the ability to bring people together to have a shared, transformative conversation.

Two: the ability to be flexible on outcomes while still being aligned on a larger goal. This is one of the most powerful Design Thinking mental models: focusing on needs instead of solutions.

Three: We also explore an absolutely fundamental capacity of leadership - the ability to listen and connect with people, deeply. 

Four: Kat also points out that actually doing something with what you’ve heard is the last, most crucial component of leading and caring for a team.

I'm thrilled to have connected with Kat, and excited to share her work with you. I highly recommend reading her book "We Should Get Together" and its addendum, "Connected from Afar," which is filled with ways to create more intentional connection in your life and your work - it was written during the height of the pandemic, so the tools are all zoom-friendly.

Also, make sure you check out the links below to some of her other projects, and to her amazing post on 40-plus alternatives to "How are you?" with different versions for work and everyday life. Enjoy the show!

LINKS, QUOTES, NOTES, AND RESOURCES

Kat's Alternatives to "How are you"

Kat's Website

We Should Get Together by Kat Vellos

The problem with how are you: brightsiding!

Inspiration

Friends: Understanding the Power of our Most Important Relationships: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08W4XPK7G/

https://www.antionettecarroll.design/

https://www.creativereactionlab.com/

Minute 1

the post you're talking about, which was a month's worth of alternatives to asking how are you, a different question for each day, and then the work version upon request of a reader out there really came from my own internal frustration with this question, particularly during the last year of the pandemic. It's not that I'm opposed to people checking in on each other, it's not that I'm opposed to people caring about each other; that is not the basis of this frustration. 

But I wrote a blog post that really accompanied this. It was like 40 plus alternatives to how are you? And here is why. Part of the reason is that on a personal level, me, as an individual... I'm not saying this for everybody. I've always had a challenge with that question because it is so broad. And the other challenge that I have with that question is that particularly in the United States, the question "how are you?" is used as a greeting and not really as a question. And then as using it as a greeting, it also has a pre-supplied set of acceptable answers, which are, "Good, fine, how are you?" And so it's this perfunctory performance of a check-in, a perfunctory performance of a question that actually is not a question when it's used as a greeting. As a word nerd and someone who really cares about authentic connection, I find that irritating. And I also don't like the social expectation to just say, "Good," or, "Fine," when maybe I'm not good and maybe I'm not fine. And answering that question honestly would seem like some kind of breach of social contract to actually say, "Really stressed out; kind of falling apart right now."

Minute 8

Whenever we bring a very intentional practice to designing, whether it is boxes and arrows and technology for people to interact with or it's conversations like you're describing, or if you're designing a building or if you're designing a city or if you're designing your outfit of the day there's an element of intentionality to it. Because that is a part of who I've always been and I've applied that practice in a variety of different mediums, I still do identify as a designer. I know there are a lot of product designers, digital designers out there who only consider someone a designer if they're pushing pixels; I think that's a really limited definition of design.

Minute 16

it's often something that I think gets overlooked when people are thinking about wanting more friendship in their life or if they're feeling lonely. And I sometimes talk to my coaching clients about this is, "how are you showing up for yourself right now? Are you being a good friend to yourself? Are you being a good listener to yourself?" And it often gets put in the same category as "self-care," and it goes beyond just buying a bath bomb and taking a bubble bath.

While valuable and delightful, also, are you doing the things for yourself that you would love for a really good friend to do for you? When we talk about listening skills, it would be really nice to have someone who listens really well. Well, what are you doing to listen to yourself? Journaling, as I mention in Connected From Afar, is a really powerful tool, particularly expressive writing as designed by James Pennebaker and crew. This is a really, really valuable tool to process challenges, struggles, emotion, vulnerability, and to then get to a place of learning or perspective or at least getting out of a feeling of stuckness with a challenge or an experience. And so I've always been a writer in addition to a designer, although writing was not always the basis of my day-to-day work like it is more lately. Writing is a really, really generative, powerful tool. I consider writing to be a friend of mine. When I think of what are the intangible friends that support me in living my life? Writing is one of them.

Minute 24

One of the things people really want the most that is lacking in their work life or personal lives is the experience of really being listened to, and the experience of really being listened to can contribute to the feeling of being cared about. And if you've been listened to and you've been cared about and you see any supportive action taken on the things that you have shared, then that's a demonstration of the listeners commitment to their care for you. It's not just one step, and often that first step of listening is what's missing, therefore it's harder to then be cared about and it's harder then, for whatever actions and evidence you're seeing in the world, to feel connected in any way to what your needs and feelings are as an individual human being.

Minute 26

And this is usually not what makes it to the boss's boss's boss's ears, it's when people speak to each other and it's one person saying, "I don't want to go to this mandatory happy hour on Wednesday night. I need to pick up my kid from daycare by 4:30 and I have to give them a bath and help them with their homework and be doing my job as a parent." Being forced to stay at work or to figure out a sitter or to figure out how to pay extra for the childcare, that actually does not make them feel good. Even though they might enjoy the happy hour or the game night or whatever it is, the lack of concern, the lack of listening about what they need and what might actually help them more and feel better is completely missing. 

And this goes all the way from every kind of thing, from introverts and extroverts to people who want to do public performances like karaoke and people who are mortified to feel like doing karaoke's the only way to get on the list for a promotion next season. There's not enough listening and flexibility to accommodate the fact that people need and want different things to feel connected, heard and seen, and some people... There's just not going to be one answer for everybody, and the lack of adaptability, flexibility and accommodation is what often leads to frustration.

Minute 44

Well, one thing that we didn't talk about, and I'll just briefly touch on it, is to say if there is anybody listening who has a curiosity about this, about learning how to be a better friend or learning how to cultivate more connection in your life intentionally, I would say go for it. Whether you read my book or other books that are out there or you take a class or a workshop, the benefit is not just for you, the benefit is also for each person that you then get to interact with and befriend. And the usefulness of learning how to feel more comfortable and capable in these kinds of interactions is that it doesn't just change, oh, your friendship with Mary or your friendship with Bob or whatever; it will also change the other areas of your life.

MORE ABOUT KAT

  • Creator of Better than Small Talk, which has created connection for hundreds of people across the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond, helping people get closer to their friends and loved ones. An avid workshop facilitator and experience designer, Kat brings two decades of experience creating powerful positive communities where people find belonging and authentic connection.

  • User Experience and Product Designer who has researched, designed, and advised on the user experience of countless flows in digital products serving millions of people at Slack, Pandora, and multiple Silicon Valley startups. In addition to her design work in the corporate sector, Kat also has almost multiple years of experience designing powerful and effective creative empowerment programs in the education and nonprofit sector as well.

  • Founder and Community Leader of Bay Area Black Designers, a company-agnostic employee resource group that exists to provide meaningful community to Black design professionals who want to support each other’s growth and development. BABD members work at startups, agencies, design studios, universities, midsize companies, and large corporations. BABD provides professional development and community for Black designers, especially those who know what an isolating experience it is to be the only Black designer in their company or design team.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Daniel Stillman:

Okay, well then Kat Vellos, I welcome you to The Conversation Factory officially.

Kat Vellos:

Thanks, Dan.

Daniel Stillman:

I'm really excited that you made the time. Thank you, I appreciate it.

Kat Vellos:

Thanks so much for inviting... Oh.

Daniel Stillman:

It's okay, we're just going to have high collaborative overlap on both side of-

Kat Vellos:

Yes, I love that description from your book. High collaboration, high overlap. Yes, it's great to be here. Thank you for having me.

Daniel Stillman:

I'm really excited to have you because your work is so interesting, it's so broad. I feel like there's so many places we could start the conversation, but I'll start where it started for me which was seeing your grid of all of the alternatives to How Are You? that you had made that went, I don't know, kind of viral. And when I re-posted it, a lot of people liked it, so I think it's awesome. And then you made another one for work. Can you talk a little bit about your experience with the question how are you? And what are some of the challenges around it?

Kat Vellos:

Absolutely. I love that question as a alternative to how are you? as well. Yeah, the post you're talking about, which was a month's worth of alternatives to asking how are you, a different question for each day, and then the work version upon request of a reader out there really came from my own internal frustration with this question, particularly during the last year of the pandemic. It's not that I'm opposed to people checking in on each other, it's not that I'm opposed to people caring about each other; that is not the basis of this frustration.

Kat Vellos:

But I wrote a blog post that really accompanied this. I was like 40 plus alternatives to how are you? And here is why. Part of the reason is that on a personal level, me, as an individual... I'm not saying this for everybody. I've always had a challenge with that question because it is so broad. And the other challenge that I have with that question is that particularly in the United States, the question how are you? is used as a greeting and not really as a question. And then as using it as a greeting, it also has a pre-supplied set of acceptable answers, which are, "Good, fine, how are you?" And so it's this perfunctory performance of a check-in, a perfunctory performance of a question that actually is not a question when it's used as a greeting. As a word nerd and someone who really cares about authentic connection, I find that irritating. And I also don't like the social expectation to just say, "Good," or, "Fine," when maybe I'm not good and maybe I'm not fine. And answering that question honestly would seem like some kind of breach of social contract to actually say, "Really stressed out; kind of falling apart right now." And during the last-

Daniel Stillman:

You're like, "Oo, awkward. Didn't really want-

Kat Vellos:

Awkward. Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

"... an actual answer."

Kat Vellos:

Didn't want to hear the truth. And so during the last year of the pandemic and the social uprising around racial justice, there were many days where I was not "good or fine." And each time I got asked that question in that expected way of you're just supposed to say good and fine and move on, it did more and more highlighting the fact that it was not appropriate to share what was real and true and that this question, which is a meaningful question and a powerful question if meant intentionally, was actually just a throwaway set of words.

Kat Vellos:

It's too vague, it's too dictated by what's an acceptable answer? And it can also be triggering when someone's in a time of crisis or stress. Someone's just like, "Oh, how are you?" It's kind of upsetting to realize you can't tell your whole truth right then because it might be awkward or they're not ready to really hear it or they don't have the capacity to really hold your truth. And so it's a tough one and I think especially in challenging times it can be loaded. And it puts the burden on the person who is being asked that question to explain themselves to the person who asked it, and they may really not be in the mood to explain themselves to that person. There's a whole lot of mental gymnastics around it, and that was all the basis of why I was like, "Here's a bunch of alternatives, because I feel this way," and it just so happened that thousands of people who saw that post were like, "Oh my God, this captures my feelings too."

Daniel Stillman:

Where I really loved about it... And thanks for giving that broad overview. When I looked at that grid, I thought to myself this is what I mean when I mean designing conversations. Designing the invitation, setting the stage for the kind of conversation you want to have, it's a type of design. When we were connecting before we started recording, saying, "How are you really?" Is providing the opportunity for somebody to say how they really are or saying, "Hey, what's lighting you up these days?" Is asking someone to talk about what's on the bright side of stuff, which it's choosing the conversation I want to have.

Kat Vellos:

Yes, yes. And I think that the addition of the word "really" is a part of making it safer for someone to then know I don't just have to say good or fine and leave it at that, I can actually say, "Wow, I think my dog is really sick," or something, "and I'm really worried about them." Or you can say something that gives more context about how you are really and to know that the person asking that question is more prepared to hear any answer because any answer is acceptable if they really want to know how you are.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Yes. And this also speaks to one of my favorite invitations on Twitter, which is for people to give only wrong answers for something.

Kat Vellos:

I love that.

Daniel Stillman:

How are you really? Wrong answers only.

Kat Vellos:

I think you'd get a lot of good and fine there as well.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, fine, good.

Kat Vellos:

I'm great.

Daniel Stillman:

Awesome. All right, let's get to the agenda. Weird pivot. And this is the kind of emotional agility that's required to be alive in 2021 as a person. My answer to that question of how are you? is it's a strange time to be alive, which is my way of allowing other people to go, "Oh, yeah, okay, thanks."

Daniel Stillman:

I'm curious about so many things, but you are a... I assume you identify still as a designer. Is that true? Do you identify as a design person?

Kat Vellos:

I do. Do you still identify as a a designer?

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I do in the broad sense of I still get people on LinkedIn trying to get me to design bots for them because I call myself a conversation designer. I'm like, "No, no, you should actually look at my profile. I design human conversations, not human computer conversations." I guess what I'm curious about is the river of your journey from designing experiences between a person and a company mediated by a piece of technology to designing human-to-human experiences with the kind of love and intentionality that you clearly bring to it based on what I've read about you.

Kat Vellos:

Thank you. Yeah. Part of the reason why, yes, I still identify as a designer is... And I talked about this in an article that was in Communication Arts magazine last summer where they were profiling designers, and in my definition of design that I give, it's that it's the practice and the art of intentionality. Whenever we bring a very intentional practice to designing, whether it is boxes and arrows and technology for people to interact with or it's conversations like you're describing, or if you're designing a building or if you're designing a city or if you're designing your outfit of the day there's an element of intentionality to it. Because that is a part of who I've always been and I've applied that practice in a variety of different mediums, I still do identify as a designer. I know there are a lot of product designers, digital designers out there who only consider someone a designer if they're pushing pixels; I think that's a really limited definition of design.

Kat Vellos:

And also, from the early 2000s I've been a facilitator as well and a convener of community spaces and IRL interaction design, and so when doing that kind of experience design for the real world, for human-to-human interaction, for change then, yes, three is still absolutely that same process of intentionality that I would bring whether I was designing screens and flows for an app or what is the process that should happen for humans who arrive on this day and time at this setting and they stay for anywhere from three hours to 10 days? What should happen for them over the course of that time? And I've designed for that scenario as well, and so we typically call that facilitation or experience designer. Experience I know something gets mixed up with user experience designer, which is the digital wing. And I do both, and I've done both for a very long time. I've also been a graphic designer.

Kat Vellos:

I think it's more exciting, honestly, to live in the world when we have that lens of anyone can practice this, sort of similar to the idea of creativity. I don't only thinks someone's creative if they have gallery paintings hanging on a wall that they sell for thousands of dollars. I think anybody is creative. Everyone has the ability to accept their innate, internal creativity just like all kids have it, and then we grow out of that as we get older. And similarly, I think everybody has the capacity to bring an intentionality to the practice of whatever they're trying to create in the world.

Kat Vellos:

There was another quote I really liked in your book that said... You'll probably remember it better than I can, but it had to do with saying that it's designing a conversation to get the expected outcome, the change the existing conditions into preferred conditions. That is the thing.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, that's the classic Herb Simon definition. I sometimes ask people who gets to make things worse on purpose? And who-

Kat Vellos:

Tricksters.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Well, and some of us can make things better by accident, but the ideal is to make things better on purpose. But I love the idea of intentionality is a much more beautiful word-

Kat Vellos:

Thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

... to describe the act of trying to create an experience for other people to have a transformation of some sort. There's so many layers to unpack here because I'm wondering... I have some of the frameworks that you have from your book, which everyone should read because I think beside the fact that it's beautifully illustrated, it's beautifully read, and it's an important idea. I'm wondering, as a design person, what are some of the frameworks or mindsets or mental models that you've taken from your user experience design world into your humans in a place and time, what my friend calls meat space, to meat space design? In what ways do you feel like you are doing the same thing through the same eyes?

Kat Vellos:

Good question. I think that because I see a lot of overlap, as I mentioned, with facilitation and user experience design... I wrote a, ages long ago, medium post about why these two would get a 90% match score on OK Cupid.

Daniel Stillman:

That sounds amazing. And you're also dating yourself by referencing OK Cupid, which is amazing.

Kat Vellos:

I know, and I'm totally into that because then my people know I'm their people. Yeah, there is a huge overlap in the way that we question what is the ideal path or outcome for someone to experience here? What are the different realities that they're showing up with? What are the considerations that we need to make around accommodations or accessibility? How can we make this usable and pleasurable for as many people as possible for them to achieve the intended outcome or the intended experience? And so having that mindset, whether it's for meat space or pixel space, I think it's the same to me, it's the same to me, and that's probably why... I was a graphic designer in... That was my college degree. And then I did that for awhile, and then I did facilitation. And then when I found UX Design, I was like, "Oh, this is the same thing. This is what I've already been doing." And dating myself further, UX Design was not a major that you could have when I went to college.

Daniel Stillman:

No.

Kat Vellos:

There was no smart phones and social media, all the things that we have nowadays, and so it was a completely different world. And when I met UX Design, I was like, oh, this is literally just the digital version of the same kind of practice that you would bring to designing experiences for facilitation or other kinds of meat space experiences for human-to-human interaction. Obviously there's more to it than that and some learning I had to take on and certification and whatnot, but there's just so much similarity, again, in that envisioning who the people are that you are there to serve? What is the outcome you hope to achieve? What is your attitude towards experimentation and testing and trial and error and figuring out and adjusting the flow that you've designed? so that it can continue to be welcoming and accommodating to the people who are literally there and also get them to the goal at the same time.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Sometimes I use the term empathic walkthrough. A customer journey map is such a powerful idea in the user experience design world; the ability to put on the glasses, the mental model of a person who's not you and to take a step-by-step walk through what you think they will experience is, I think, a very similar... is what I'm hearing in what you're saying. Who is this person and what's going to happen and what's going to be their experience? And can I then adjust on the fly based on what I'm learning from them or not?

Kat Vellos:

Mm-hmm (affirmative), right. To me, it's always been an exciting and a challenging practice. And it's a space where I can feel both confident and insecure at the same time because the exciting and confident part is having the vision and having the opportunity to say, "We're going to create a thing together. We're going to create an outcome and an experience. Let's do this together." And then the part of it that feels a little bit scary or insecure is there's things that we can't predict that are going to happen and we're just going to have to trust all of our intuition and training and gut and collaboration to figure our way out when that happens because there is always the unexpected. That's where the nervousness comes from. Oo, this is exciting. What's going to happen? And it could be better than we expect and it could be worse than we expect, but let's go find out.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. It's funny, I wanted to get to this question much, much later, but something that I try to teach folks that I'm coaching on facilitation is the importance of being a friend to ourselves, managing ourselves through this experience while we're trying to create an experience for others. And I feel like you addressed this question a little bit in Connected From Afar where you talk about journaling and being intentionally intimate with ourselves. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts to share about the importance of... I want to talk about being friends with other people and the power of that, but there's also the aspect of am I a friend to myself?

Kat Vellos:

Yeah, that's a big one, and it's often something that I think gets overlooked when people are thinking about wanting more friendship in their life or if they're feeling lonely. And I sometimes talk to my coaching clients about this is how are you showing up for yourself right now? Are you being a good friend to yourself? Are you being a good listener to yourself? And it often gets put in the same category as "self-care," and it goes beyond just buying a bath bomb and taking a bubble bath. Are you doing-

Daniel Stillman:

While valuable-

Kat Vellos:

While valuable and delightful, also, are you doing the things for yourself that you would love for a really good friend to do for you? When we talk about listening skills, it would be really nice to have someone who listens really well. Well, what are you doing to listen to yourself? Journaling, as I mention in Connected From Afar, is a really powerful tool, particularly expressive writing as designed by James Pennebaker and crew. This is a really, really valuable tool to process challenges, struggles, emotion, vulnerability, and to then get to a place of learning or perspective or at least getting out of a feeling of stuckness with a challenge or an experience. And so I've always been a writer in addition to a designer, although writing was not always the basis of my day-to-day work like it is more lately. Writing is a really, really generative, powerful tool. I consider writing to be a friend of mine. When I think of what are the intangible friends that support me in living my life? Writing is one of them.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I think that's so beautiful. I don't know if you've read The War of Art. I feel like I'm permanently halfway through it.

Kat Vellos:

Steven Pressfield.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. There's this-

Kat Vellos:

It keeps getting recommended to me. I got to finally get to it.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, there's this moment where he... The visual that I'm remembering is him setting up the things on his desk. There's this little cannon that he points towards him that's supposed to point good ideas at him; just this little moment of... When I was writing my book, I opened up Oblique Strategies. I don't know if you've ever played with oblique strategies they're from... Brian Eno made this list of... There's some apps. You can buy a deck of cards if you like holding cards. It was a list of oblique strategies, weird prompts to get you to think differently about whatever problem you were solving, and he used them to write music with. I would just look at an oblique strategy just to twist my brain a little bit before I sat down. When you were writing your book, what did you do to be a friend to yourself to get through the process? Because it's a hard process-

Kat Vellos:

Interestingly-

Daniel Stillman:

... at least that was my experience.

Kat Vellos:

For me, I worked on this book off and on over five years, and in a way, getting to work on the book felt like being a friend to myself because there was this curiosity I had around this question of friendship during adulthood and why so many people that I was meeting and who were coming to my events and gatherings for connection were saying that they were having a hard time making friends. It puzzled me because these were really lovely people; they were fabulous to talk to great person. There was no reason why they should have a hard time making friends.

Kat Vellos:

And so my curiosity around what is it that is getting in the way for people? is something that felt like a source of energy and curiosity. I just kept wanting to follow that thread. And in a way, giving myself the opportunity to explore that question and to study it and research it and interview people and dig into the academic research as well around connection and friendship; it was a sort of play for me because it was so different from my day job. It had nothing to do with my day job at all, and so it was my project that I was interested in and constantly wanting to go and dig in and play on, and so it was that. When I started doing that took it to another level of play or exploration for me because, originally, I didn't know I was going to write a book; I was just writing on this topic over and over and over again. And then I was like, huh, got a lot of content here. It was a book.

Kat Vellos:

And in the process of doing that writing, sometimes I would read a certain academic study or have a response to an article I had read or an essay I had written or someone I had interviewed and the only thing that could capture all of the feelings in experience of that was a drawing because words, 1,000 words, pictures; you get it.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah, I do.

Kat Vellos:

And so I would do these little cartoon drawings to capture some of these moments, and that level of play for me was just taking it even further. It was like, oh, this is actually just really fun for me to get to make these doodles that nail a lot of these experiences that we have with adult friendship. That really was it for me, was because it was not the thing I was "working on," it was not my work, it was my play.

Daniel Stillman:

I'm really curious because it's becoming your work now.

Kat Vellos:

Now it is. I've got to find other things to play. Seriously.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. There's a few things I want to pull on because from the perspective of a designer and me and the work I did in terms of what are we designing when we're designing these experiences and conversations? I love that you have this metaphor of hydroponic friendship and the four seeds, which I look at as levers we can pull. It seems like when you're creating these shared experiences and intentional vulnerability - I think I can pronounce that correctly today - you're pulling on the levers of proximity and commitment to create that supercharged connection, as you referred to it.

Daniel Stillman:

I guess the lens I want to unpack that through is leadership as the art of designing experiences for others, because I know you do keynote and talk to companies about this. Because we spend so much of our time at work, it seems to make sense that we should know how to create these moments of connection.

Kat Vellos:

Mm-hmm (affirmative). Well, I hope so. In the ideal situation, that's what leadership delivers for people, and it's done in a way that makes the experience magnetizing rather than mandatory.

Daniel Stillman:

That's a really great heuristic, because I think a lot of people rely on mandatory "voluntolding" people to do things. When you are trying to help a leader or an organization, what are some of the seeds that you try to plant with them so that they can transform people from being disconnected to feeling connected?

Kat Vellos:

One of the things people really want the most that is lacking in their work life or personal lives is the experience of really being listened to, and the experience of really being listened to can contribute to the feeling of being cared about. And if you've been listened to and you've been cared about and you see any supportive action taken on the things that you have shared, then that's a demonstration of the listeners commitment to their care for you. It's not just one step, and often that first step of listening is what's missing, therefore it's harder to then be cared about and it's harder then, for whatever actions and evidence you're seeing in the world, to feel connected in any way to what your needs and feelings are as an individual human being.

Daniel Stillman:

When I look at the arc of the thread that's holding that together - listening, feeling cared, action, showing commitment - this is the arc of the experience that we're designing. I think we often think, oh, it's an icebreaker; let's have a happy hour, let's play a game together. But what you're talking about is actually connecting with the people that we serve and then doing something about what we've heard, which is pretty fundamental.

Kat Vellos:

And in doing so, if there's true listening happening and true care, if you have a large enough group of people, one thing you're also probably going to discover is that people don't all want the same thing. People don't all feel cared about in exactly the same way. There's a reason why Gary Chapman's Five Love Languages is a bestseller around the world because it captures the fact that people need different things to feel cared for, to feel cared about.

Kat Vellos:

In a work setting, when I think about how do we create connection? What's going to make people feel connected? Maybe what you need is to actually let people know that you are listening to them as individual human beings, you hear their needs, you hear their desires, and you're willing to be flexible in how you supply the solutions so that there isn't just a one pill that's going to meet everybody's needs perfectly and everybody take it and therefore check the box, it's done.

Kat Vellos:

I've worked with so many people who have been my colleagues and peers who've expressed frustration to me. And this is usually not what makes it to the boss's boss's boss's ears, it's when people speak to each other and it's one person saying, "I don't want to go to this mandatory happy hour on Wednesday night. I need to pick up my kid from daycare by 4:30 and I have to give them a bath and help them with their homework and be doing my job as a parent." Being forced to stay at work or to figure out a sitter or to figure out how to pay extra for the childcare, that actually does not make them feel good. Even though they might enjoy the happy hour or the game night or whatever it is, the lack of concern, the lack of listening about what they need and what might actually help them more and feel better is completely missing.

Kat Vellos:

And this goes all the way from every kind of thing, from introverts and extroverts to people who want to do public performances like karaoke and people who are mortified to feel like doing karaoke's the only way to get on the list for a promotion next season. There's not enough listening and flexibility to accommodate the fact that people need and want different things to feel connected, heard and seen, and some people... There's just not going to be one answer for everybody, and the lack of adaptability, flexibility and accommodation is what often leads to frustration.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. You know what's amazing? What I'm hearing is in the situation you're setting up and the lens you're bringing to it; one of the classic [designerly 00:28:17] ways of thinking... [Designerish 00:28:21]. The difference between needs and solutions. And the desire to uncover unmet needs is a very... I don't think many people realize that this is a core UX passion, and that when we think about design and designing things, I think that people think about the creativity and the making, but designing experiences for other people means deeply understanding what they actually need and then, as you said, being flexible on the outcomes, not being restrictive on, well, what we're going to give you is a happy hour, what we're going to give you is a means away, an affordance for feeling blank; whatever that thing is that we've identified.

Kat Vellos:

Yeah, and understanding that there are so many ways to meet a need once you fully understand it; it doesn't just have to be the cookie cutter thing out of the box that everybody does. And if you invite other people to help define and decide what would help meet that need and make it a collaborative process rather than, as you said, volant hold, they're more likely to want that outcome than if they're just told and forced to do the thing.

Daniel Stillman:

What you're outlining is a type of experience-driven empathetic leadership that also values co-creation and what we would call user input. This is not this is what you've got, it's being in conversation with them through the process.

Kat Vellos:

Absolutely.

Daniel Stillman:

That kind of leadership takes a certain type of, I would say, intestinal fortitude, a kind of bravery. I think a lot of people feel afraid to ask, to open up these conversations with people because they can't do everything that they're going to want.

Kat Vellos:

Sure, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. You know another designer who is... talk about leadership in this area is Antoinette Carroll and the creative reaction lab, which is all about that participatory design, it's all about you must invite in. It is only responsible to invite in the people that you're "serving" to help also create the solution that is for them.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. Yeah, I agree 100%. Well, because otherwise its design is colonialism.

Kat Vellos:

Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

It's pushing something onto people without them pulling it, being part of what's being created for them. There's this quote that you mentioned before we started our conversation; the best thing... And I don't know if I said it or where it came from. We'll just pull it from the ether again that hearing yourself say something that you've never said before, the idea of designing for surprise, for designing for moments of delight where... One thing I'll say, it's been really enjoyable to interview because I feel like some people have talking points and I feel like you are expressing ideas in the moment, which is delightful to me, so that's... we'll just put that there on the side.

Kat Vellos:

Thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

But I feel like this act of designing experiences for others in this context of listening, making them cared for, taking some action co-creatively with them and committing, there is this element of surprise, of expecting to be surprised, which seems to be an important lever of creating this kind of connection. I don't know, I feel like I'm running on. I don't know if that's a question or a comment at this point. I don't know if you can make anything of that. I'm trying to chip away at this idea of how does this surprise element come into this process of designing experiences for others? For everyone's benefit.

Kat Vellos:

Mm-hmm (affirmative). I think that what it is is inviting the opportunity to experience togetherness in a new way, in an unfamiliar or nontypical way, let's say, because it's not necessarily that it's like, oh, I'm trying to design for surprise, because there's a lot of things you can do that are surprising that are really unpleasant. I could be like, "Surprise, here's a pie in your face." That's not actually fun. It's not just about, oh, I'm trying to make a surprise happen; that's not the core of it for me. But I think what it is, and what's at the core of that quote for me is when we show up in an experience or a conversation and, to use the words of that quote, hear myself saying something I'd never said before, what happens for me, personally, is a feeling of being alive in the form of words. I'm alive in my body, I'm alive in my heart, I'm alive certainly with my mind running all the time, but when I hear words coming out and I'm so present and so fully immersed in the experienced, that is a feeling of being alive, and it is in the intangible experience of trading words in a conversation back and forth.

Kat Vellos:

And that presence and that connection, when it's happening, Dan, to me it feels like a type of flow. When we talk about getting in flow state and sometimes it's Dan saying, "We're making art," or whatever, but being in a conversation where that happens where it literally does feel like a type of flow, that energy between you and me, time is suspended, our attention is here, it's effortless, it's magnetic, it's just time is irrelevant. Hours could go by, I have no idea how long it's been, I have no idea what day it is, but that energy that is happening that is being maintained and created by the two of us in that moment is that feeling, to me, of flow, and I think it can happen in a conversation. And I think it is surprising because that is not what conversations normally feel like everyday all day long. And when it does happen, my God, it's like a type of joy. It is so beautiful.

Kat Vellos:

And I think then when we talk about what does it mean to design a conversation or design for that to happen? I think it's creating the conditions that hopefully... You can't guarantee. People got to show up with who they are and be ready to go into that experience. But if you can create the conditions of suspended reality in that experience, maybe then it's more likely to happen. And when it happens in a room, I've seen it; it feels contagious in this beautiful contagion of joy and openness and presence and togetherness.

Daniel Stillman:

I'm curious how you... because I know you create experiences where people come together for intentional vulnerability, to create a shared experience, to get connection, to make friends. And I'm looking at this quote that I pulled out from your book about we can adjust how we show up for each other. The idea of being intentionally vulnerable; how do you feel like you lead people into that space? How do you get them to open up in that way, to show up for each other in that way?

Kat Vellos:

Mm-hmm (affirmative). One of-

Daniel Stillman:

Because commitment is how do you twist the knob of commitment?

Kat Vellos:

Mm-hmm (affirmative). One of the very first things that I learned in my training as a facilitator had to do with creating the container, creating the space, physical space, energetic space. What is the actual container that we are going to occupy? And what is it made of? And how do the community agreements that we set up as the walls holding us safely inside, what are the social contract that we enter together and that we invite everybody else to enter into together as well to help create that experience? To share here's the goal we're trying to get to, here's what the desired outcome is, and can you all say yes to participating in getting there by doing these things together? And those are the agreements that typically are unspoken, and I think to some detriment I think it's useful to speak them aloud or to have even visual representation of them to say, "This is what we're agreeing to do together. And if we do these things together, it will be easier for us then to have this experience or reach this goal together. Will you say yes? Will you help create this with me?"

Kat Vellos:

And in doing so, it's not just the facilitator who's responsible for making that happen, it is everyone's job, and it's everyone's opportunity and responsibility. And to hold that space together, to hold that container together with each other; that is where... that's the very first agreement that you make, and that's the beginning of transforming a generic gathering or a generic meeting or a generic workshop or a generic dinner or whatever into something different. And when we all know that this is going to be different and here's what's "expected/asked/magically presented as the opportunity to do together," we could say yes. And then in stepping into that alternate reality of that experience, things can be different, therefore maybe you can be more vulnerable here, maybe you can say the thing that you've been thinking about and haven't told anybody for months, maybe you can listen to somebody in a different way, maybe it's okay to cry in front of someone you've never talked to before. All of the maybes suddenly become possibilities, and that possibility can take shape in reality because, again, of that mutual, dedicated commitment as a group to make this thing together. Do you get what I'm saying?

Daniel Stillman:

Oh, absolutely. It's funny because I made a sketch of the hydroponic friendship bottle, and of course the bottle is the container. It is the power of drawing that circle and inviting people to step into it I think is absolutely profound.

Daniel Stillman:

Okay, so sadly our time together is growing to a close and I feel I would be remiss if I didn't ask you to say, at least briefly... because I know you've made these experiences in person and you've also done them online. And everyone's in this place and we're... I think it's a fundamentally transformative shift to this space where we'll be for some time. What do you feel is the same about creating these experiences in this remote space or virtual space versus doing it in three dimensional, four dimensional space?

Kat Vellos:

Good question. As somebody who has done IRL gatherings, experiences for so long, since the early 2000s, it was unwelcome for me to be like, "What do you mean I'm going to do this virtually? Excuse me?" But very quickly adapt, adjust, change. And it felt like the most unique design constraint I'd ever met in my life, which was we're going to be together without being together. And as you know, constraints are the workspace of creativity.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh, yeah.

Kat Vellos:

What do I think is the same and what do I think is different about it? Well, I'll start with difference first because the first thing that comes to mind, certainly just pragmatically one of the things that's different is the fact that we can get together with people who are not in the same physical proximity. I've had people join workshops that I have done over the last year from what feels like every continent, dozen upon dozens of countries, different time zones. The ability to reach and connect and serve so, so many more people in so many different parts of the world is profound. That is so absolutely different. And it's also better for the environment to do this virtually than for me to take plane trips to 70 countries to do this. And so just on a practical level, the opportunity that we have to reach each other and to find each other via the joy of the internet is just a huge plus and a wonderful thing that I've gotten to say yes to in my work because it's just opened so many more doors for connection and reach and all of those things, so that's a major difference. That is also, I think, a big plus.

Kat Vellos:

And something that I think is the same then in getting to do that is it is possible, certainly as I talked about describing how we create a container together, create an alternate reality together. When I do workshops and gatherings online, I often try to speak directly to the fact that even though you're joining on... Let's say it's possibly the same computer you just sat in a bunch of meetings for work in, or you're using Zoom, which maybe in your head you compartmentalize as, oh, I'm at work now because I'm in Zoom. I want you to step away from your computer, shake your body, walk around and come back and let this be new, let this be a new experience. Mentally shift out of that space.

Kat Vellos:

And there's things that you can add in to, again, as a facilitator to break that norm so that it doesn't just feel like, oh my gosh, the same old, same old. But yeah, that's a different thing that I think is a challenge because when we're IRL, I have the ability to say, "Come to this address at this time and date," and when you walk in the room, you know that's not your office. I can create an environment. There's flowers on the table when you walk in, and pre-COVID if people want a welcome hug and it's mutual and consensual, you can have a welcome hug.

Kat Vellos:

There's just things that are different that are not so great. I really liked doing face-to-face work for so long, and I hope to do it again at some point when it feels safe and for it just to be so easy. Time, I think, is experienced differently online as it is in person. I think it's easier to get quicker closer in person when you can make eye contact, when you can see the small shifts in someone's facial expression or how they hold their body in their chair or how they move through the room. There's just so many subtleties of being in face-to-face space, meat space, that makes certain things easier, certainly.

Daniel Stillman:

I love that all of those examples you've brought are focusing on some of the opportunities in both of these contexts. I know that definitely has created a lot of stress for people. And as you reference yourself, the shift is not without its learning curve. But we accept the joyful acceptance of constraints and working within them, as you say, may be the most [designerly 00:44:23] of mental traits.

Daniel Stillman:

We are sadly at our closing. It's a delight. I would like to ask you what haven't I asked you that I should ask you? What remains unsaid that ought to be said about your work and some of the things we've talked about?

Kat Vellos:

There's so many things, Dan. I could seriously talk to you for hours.

Daniel Stillman:

Ditto.

Kat Vellos:

Well, one thing that we didn't talk about, and I'll just briefly touch on it, is to say if there is anybody listening who has a curiosity about this, about learning how to be a better friend or learning how to cultivate more connection in your life intentionally, I would say go for it. Whether you read my book or other books that are out there or you take a class or a workshop, the benefit is not just for you, the benefit is also for each person that you then get to interact with and befriend. And the usefulness of learning how to feel more comfortable and capable in these kinds of interactions is that it doesn't just change, oh, your friendship with Mary or your friendship with Bob or whatever; it will also change the other areas of your life.

Kat Vellos:

In the book Friends by Robin Dunbar, famous psychologist who came up with Dunbar's number, he categorizes all types of relationships as a type of friendship. When I read the book, I was fascinated by this. Even family he counts as a type of friend. And when you think about how to be a better friend, what you realize then is the potential is you have the chance to transform and improve your connections in all areas of your life, whether it's siblings or your partner or colleagues or strangers because they're all some type... They're on some kind of spectrum of friendship, and you have the ability to impact them in all areas of your life.

Kat Vellos:

If this is something that you're curious about or you're interested in, even if you're not having a "friendship problem," still do it because it's kind of like if you take a class in communication skills and you get better at communicating, guess what; you're probably going to be a better communicator in every area of your life. It's not only at work that that will matter. And so I would say the benefit there is honestly a completely holistic one, so go for it. And if anybody wants to keep up with me and the work I'm doing, I'm on the internet, I'm easy to find. As I mentioned-

Daniel Stillman:

You're on the internet?

Kat Vellos:

I am.

Daniel Stillman:

What? Right now.

Kat Vellos:

I'm out there. I'm in the computer.

Daniel Stillman:

You're in the computer right now.

Kat Vellos:

Inside the computer. As you mentioned, I do keynote talks and leadership talks and certainly collaborate with companies and associations on bringing some of these skills and awarenesses to your staff or your leadership teams or your association community; all of these things, I'm here to serve, here to speak, to collaborate, to create experiences together. Find me. I'm at katvellos.com, or weshouldgettogether.com, I'm on Twitter, I'm on Instagram posting my doodles. Find me. Let's do the thing.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I think that is a great place to end. Kat, thanks for being in conversation with me today. It was delightful.

Kat Vellos:

Same, Dan, so delightful. Thanks for having me.

Daniel Stillman:

We'll call scene and-

Kat Vellos:

Scene.

The Conversation Factory Book Club: Sand Talk by Tyson Yunkaporta

Season_Five_Image_Stack_Book-club_TY.jpg

The Conversation Factory book club is an experiment I’ve been running for a few months now. I’m experimenting with deeper conversations and collaborations with the subscribers of the Conversation Factory Insiders group as well as working to go deeper with some of the ideas that have been shared on the Podcast.

This is the first prototype, that I ran a few months back with two Alums of the Facilitation Masterclass, Meredith England and Jenn Hayslett. I won’t say more about them - they introduce themselves at the *end* of the episode... I like the idea of them just being trusted friends to you, because they are trusted friends to me!

If you haven’t listened to the episode where I interview Tyson Yunkaporta, the author of Sand Talk, about how Indigenous thinking can (and will) save the world, I think you can still enjoy this episode...even if you haven’t read the book...although I think you should!

As Tyson says in his book:

“There are a lot of opportunities for sustainable innovation through the dialogue of Indigenous and non-Indigenous ways of living...the problem with this communication so far has been asymmetry - when power relations are so skewed that most communication is one way, there is not much opportunity for the brackish waters of hybridity to stew up something exciting.”

This is a powerful image, to have a real, two-way conversation, as equals, between modern and indigenous ways of thinking, and to allow something new to emerge from the turbid, brackish waters…This conversation is hopefully another positive step in that direction.

This conversation is a Yarn, in the Aboriginal sense of the word. As Tyson taught me, Yarning is the sharing of anecdotes, stories, and experiences from the lived reality of the participants. It’s the way that Aboriginal communities connect, learn and decide together. 

And actual Sand Talk is a part of Yarning. Sand Talk, the book, is grounded in a series of drawings, drawn, literally, on the ground, in the Sand.

Sand Talk, in another, more literal interpretation, is visual thinking as a grounding for a conversation. This kind of talk is something that I think is missing in nearly every kind of meeting...saying, "Can I draw this for you? This is what I am seeing. This is the way I am seeing what you are talking about right now.” ...and looking at those pictures of the world, together.

Most meetings are just a bunch of air talk instead of Sand Talk, and I would literally love more Sand Talk in more meetings.

That’s my rant for now. I hope you enjoy this conversation. 

If you're interested in supporting the podcast and potentially joining us for one of these book club conversations, subscribe to the Conversation Factory insider! In September we’re gathering to read and connect with past podcast guest Adam Kahane, to talk about his new book, Facilitating Breakthrough. It’s going to be awesome.

LINKS, QUOTES, NOTES, AND RESOURCES

Sand Talk, by Tyson Yunkaporta

Tyson Yunkaporta on The Conversation Factory

Jenn's Quotes from Sand Talk:

"In her kinship system every three generations there is a reset in which your grandparents’ parents are classified as your children, an eternal cycle of renewal." (p. 38)

"Perhaps the desire to create closed systems and keep time going in a straight line is the reason for Second Peoples’ obsession with creating fences, walls, borders, great divides, and great barriers." (p 46)

"The end point of a yarn is a set of understandings, values, and directions shared by all members of the group in a loose consensus that is inclusive of diverse points of view." (P. 115)

Daniel's Quotes from Sand Talk:

“You can’t push people to share knowledge...you just accept what they think you’re ready for…” P. 41

“There are a lot of opportunities for sustainable innovation through the dialogue of Indiginous and non-Indiginous ways of living...the problem with this communication so far has been asymmetry - when power relations are so skewed that most communication is one way, there is not much opportunity for the brackish waters of hybridity to stew up something exciting.”

"...human cognition is rooted in navigation, spatial thinking and relatedness...all bound up in a place and a story."

Minute 2

"If people are laughing, they are learning. True learning is a joy because it is an act of creation." I sat with that for a long time. And I also really felt moved and a lot of questioning came up for me in terms of his writing about public education as indoctrination, as how to... The historical chapter, really looking at how public education is meant to create sameness and homogeneity and looking at it as this Germanic, oppressive structure. So a lot of questioning around that that I'm really sitting with. I think that's enough for now.

Minute 4

So, probably an important thing that I feel like I need to say about myself is I'm Australian, and so reading Tyson's book feels, that kind of deeply connecting for me to where I live and to my place, but also there's so much pain and horror and disconnection around how indigenous people have been treated for hundreds of years here in Australia, and so just letting that be the backdrop to my reading. And I guess, and just really bringing a desire, just at a really personal level, for I guess what a friend of mine invited me into years ago where he was like, "Oh. You white people think that you can't experience being on country." He's like, "Of course you can experience being on country. Why would you stay disconnected to that?" Yeah. So it felt like a real invitation for me for this book.

Minute 6

Something that I keep, keep coming back to is the way he talks about, I guess, the qualities or the features of an agent of sustainability is what he talks about. So he paints this picture of a person who needs to be, the connectedness, the diversify, interact, and adapt. And they're those four words, people give you four words, four questions and it's like, "Oh, great. That's easy." But I've just been really mulling over that over the last couple of days about, what does that... How can I take on those qualities? How can I bring those ways of being into the systems that I'm working in? And specifically because I work in sustainability and so I'm just really interested in that thread that he's bringing through this about what's our role in the world.

Minute 11

Daniel Stillman:

Embodied cognition is something that we've been doing for as long as we are people, just being notched on a bone to count higher than we can count with our brains, we put half of our brain into the objects that we use. And so I feel like Tyson's book really helped me, it was very reassuring to see, I think sometimes we think traditional thinking is very woo-woo, pseudo-spiritual. And he talks about this as just performative. Blowing on a didgeridoo and doing a dance and making textiles, as if that's being indigenous. And he's like, "No, it's thinking deeply, it's connecting, it's dealing with complexity, it's thinking about where we've come from and where we're going, it's being a steward of the land."

Minute 15

And then there's this great bit where he says, "I use many terms that I don't particularly like, such as the dreaming," just because basically it helps people understand because you're reading it in English. And he says, "Because in any case, it's almost impossible to speak in English without them, unless you want to say, super rational, inter-dimensional ontology, endogenous, custodial, ritual complexes." I was like, okay so that's the beginning of the idea of what the dreaming is.

Minute 26

The kinship mind is a way of looking, it's not the only way, and certainly "Western thinking" is not cyclical, it is 100% linear, and the dialogue between cyclical and linear is, and this is one of the things that I think I took from Tyson's book as well is, there hasn't been a true two-way dialogue between these first people's and second people's ways of thinking and being, and that's what he's really trying to offer and is a true conversation where, can Aboriginal people finally, truly benefit from a modern system and not have it be abusive to them? And can the modern system learn, really, really learn better ways of being to transform the system that we are all living in? Because it doesn't work for a lot of people, and it's certainly not sustainable.

Minute 30

I had a sticky note also around yarning protocols. It has protocols of active listening, mutual respect, and building on what others have said, rather than openly contradicting or debating. There's no firm protocol of one person speaking at a time. The back and forth yarning style neutralizes the unpleasant phenomenon that occurs in many conversations, meetings, and dialogues that occur of grandstanding and waffling while the rest of the group drowns in boredom. Monologues are rare in Aboriginal culture, unless a senior person is telling a long story or an angry person is airing grievances.

I mean, it's just, the primary mode of communication in yarns in narrative, the sharing of anecdotes, stories, and experiences from the lived reality of the participants. And the actual Sand Talk as part of it. And this is something that I think is missing in most, in every kind of meeting, is the visual grounding of the conversation and saying like, "Can I draw this for you? This is what I am seeing. This is the way I am seeing what I am talking about right now and stepping away..." Literally, most meetings are just a bunch of air talk instead of Sand Talk, and I would literally love more Sand Talk in more meetings.

Minute 35

And I guess it just reminded me again, which is something that I'm reminded of constantly, of just the usefulness of creating those shared physical and visual representations of what it unlocks for people, of what it makes possible. And because it makes it easier also for people to disagree, because they're looking at it and they're like, "But those two things don't fit together for me, so why have you put them together?" Or like, I'll draw an arrow between two things and they're like, "Well..." And it will bring up a tension that previously will feel like a relational tension or a conceptual tension that they can't speak, but it's like, they can verbalize what they disagree with, which.... Yeah. I'm just reminded of that, and just, yeah, how we put those lines in the sand.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Daniel Stillman:

This is me making my editing job easier everybody. Welcome to the Conversation Factory Book Club tape one, or two, depending on how you decide to count things. All right. We talked about just doing a Round Robin, so let's go alphabetically, which seems a totally reasonable way to do it. Jenn, that means you get to go first. Let's just take a couple minutes and talk about the questions we were sitting with. As we were reading Sand Talk, what did we notice about ourselves? What did you bring to this? And what is it doing to you? How is it changing your story and how are you taking it into your work?

Jenn Hayslett:

Thanks, Daniel. All big questions. And I think I'll start with the question that Meredith posed as we were beginning to talk about how was I as a reader in approaching this very different, non-linear book that is purposefully non-linear, and that the author, Tyson Yunkaporta, did I say that correctly do you think? Yeah? Is trying to-

Daniel Stillman:

I think so.

Jenn Hayslett:

... introduce his different way of thinking, or not just his, but an Aboriginal, his cultural way of thinking. And so there's a lot of weaving that happens and I had to really do a lot of self-talk around not wanting it to be linear, allowing myself to be woven into the circular motions of the story and of the text. And so I just really noticed that.

Jenn Hayslett:

I also did a tremendous amount of underlining and stars and hearts and yeah, things that I just felt very connected to and "if people are laughing, they are learning. True learning is a joy because it is an act of creation."

Jenn Hayslett:

I sat with that for a long time. And I also really felt moved and a lot of questioning came up for me in terms of his writing about public education as indoctrination, as how to... The historical chapter, really looking at how public education is meant to create sameness and homogeneity and looking at it as this Germanic, oppressive structure. So a lot of questioning around that that I'm really sitting with. I think that's enough for now.

Daniel Stillman:

Okay. That's good. Thank you for that, Jenn. And Meredith, I guess the same for you?

Meredith England:

So, probably an important thing that I feel like I need to say about myself is I'm Australian, and so reading Tyson's book feels, that kind of deeply connecting for me to where I live and to my place, but also there's so much pain and horror and disconnection around how indigenous people have been treated for hundreds of years here in Australia, and so just letting that be the backdrop to my reading. And I guess, and just really bringing a desire, just at a really personal level, for I guess what a friend of mine invited me into years ago where he was like, "Oh. You white people think that you can't experience being on country." He's like, "Of course you can experience being on country. Why would you stay disconnected to that?" Yeah. So it felt like a real invitation for me for this book.

Meredith England:

So, some of the stuff, a lot of the stuff that really sat with me with this book was very physical stuff in the way that he talks about, the physical stories that he tells. I love the hand movement, the hands at the beginning where he's like, "Here is your world and I'm looking at it in this way." And so I'm just constantly reminded of that as I read it. And the way he talks about... He says, "I made an ax to store my understandings." And so the way that in each chapter he has a visual, which I really connect to. I find that just even for memory, for being able, something I can loop back to that suddenly has all of this meaning and that I can add meaning to it.

Meredith England:

And the way that he almost protects his thinking, or he protects and grows his thinking through making, so making an ax, making a shield, making a fishing boomerang. It just felt so... I found that just so energizing actually how he was talking about that. And really... And super inspiring as well, so that just really struck me as things that we can do with our bodies and with our hands that are just so connected to actually deepening what we're thinking about.

Meredith England:

Something that I keep, keep coming back to is the way he talks about, I guess, the qualities or the features of an agent of sustainability is what he talks about. So he paints this picture of a person who needs to be, the connectedness, the diversify, interact, and adapt. And they're those four words, people give you four words, four questions and it's like, "Oh, great. That's easy." But I've just been really mulling over that over the last couple of days about, what does that... How can I take on those qualities? How can I bring those ways of being into the systems that I'm working in? And specifically because I work in sustainability and so I'm just really interested in that thread that he's bringing through this about what's our role in the world.

Meredith England:

And he talks about custodianship and for me, the idea of the theme of stewardship is something that has just completely shaped my life, and particularly my career, and that's just how I think about life is like, what am I stewarding? And so, yeah, just really connected with some of the ways that he was talking about being an agent of sustainability.

Daniel Stillman:

There are so many things I want to pull. All the things that I want to talk about, I'm going to make a list of them, because I don't know if you can hear me scribing away while you talk about stuff, and I captured the circular versus linear thinking from you, Jenn, true learning is an act of creation. I had an old professional who used to say the same thing, "If they're laughing, they're learning." And it's just like, truth is true. These are just timeless, this is the human essence.

Daniel Stillman:

In terms of what I noticed about myself as I was reading it, even though I'm not an Australian, and I appreciate you bringing that up, Meredith, this feeling of it's triggering to face the colonial past that we are all beneficiaries of. The whole world is recovering from this giant blow that's been inflicted on the whole world. And it was kind of mind blowing, because Tyson's own story, I know, is complex. Some people would question his bonafides as a true Aboriginal person, because he's adopted on one side and I think this question of, who gets to say they're what? When this group of people has been systematically pulled away from their past and their history is like, what a head turner that is, to be, "Oh no, you can't demonstrate that you have an unbroken lineage." It's like, "Well, who could?"

Jenn Hayslett:

No one. And he really articulates that.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. And so just sitting with that head fake of like, wow, it is just so hard to sit in this moment with the pain that's been done and then, how do we countenance and deal with that fact? And as you said, Jenn, can I even use the term yarning? Is that appropriate when Tyson is trying to provide an opportunity for all of us to absorb and to be in dialogue with this other way of thinking. And so you talk about circular versus linear being in the land versus being all in our heads.

Daniel Stillman:

I mean, one of the drawings I drew, the same one you drew, Jenn, I got to hold it really, really close, the interplay between the real and the metaphorical between practice and reflection and the embodiment of cognition, which as Tyson said, this is something I really got from, it's like our entire brains, our entire ways of being come from being here in a real world and navigating a place and a space and being in a relationship with others, navigating complexity.

Daniel Stillman:

Embodied cognition is something that we've been doing for as long as we are people, just putting notches on a bone to count higher than we can count with our brains, we put half of our brain into the objects that we use. And so I feel like Tyson's book really helped me, it was very reassuring to see, I think sometimes we think traditional thinking is very woo-woo, pseudo-spiritual. And he talks about this as just performative. Blowing on a didgeridoo and doing a dance and making textiles, as if that's being indigenous. And he's like, "No, it's thinking deeply, it's connecting, it's dealing with complexity, it's thinking about where we've come from and where we're going, it's being a steward of the land."

Daniel Stillman:

And so the idea that I was not reading this book thinking that complexity theory would play so thoroughly and deeply and that embodied cognition would play so deeply and thoroughly. And that the idea of being indigenous and being connected to a land, Meredith, you and I were having a conversation just before this about, how do you get people to process data and make meaning of it? And it's like, they have to find their way, they have to become oriented and navigated and rooted in a space, which is very hard to do, it's a very complex thing. So those are all the things I mean, I think Tyson spun my head around many, many of those things.

Jenn Hayslett:

And the peace that in the list of things that you were talking about, that is more complex thinking and groundedness. The piece that also figures prominently is this idea of just being and noticing and observing pattern and in order to really, deeply observe it and watch and notice all of the pieces to be able to predict what's going to happen and know when the ants are going to come out of the nest, that that takes deep knowledge and knowing that is not just based upon being in a place and observation, but also being open to those who've come before you and really receiving the knowledge with respect.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Meredith England:

Yeah. There was something, I loved the story that he tells about that, about the young boy standing on the beach who is disengaged from the activity that they're trying to do and he's basically, "Well, the sand moves here and it goes here and we're all fucked."

Jenn Hayslett:

Totally.

Meredith England:

And what I liked about it, I mean as you picked up on Jenn, and I won't have good words for it, but I really like how Tyson... Well, no, I was going to say he plays with time, he doesn't play with time, he basically says, "You have to think about time and space differently." And there's a particular thing that he wrote, so the idea of a dreaming, I have never understood what that meant, and I guess he's given me a new way of thinking about it. For Australian children, we get told stories about the dreaming of the rainbow serpent, and it's this idea, Daniel, of what you were talking about of this Aboriginal spirituality and stories of creation, but they're really old and they're made up and a bit weird.

Meredith England:

That's just to be honest, that's just how I experience them. And then there's this great bit where he says, "I use many terms that I don't particularly like, such as the dreaming," just because basically it helps people understand because you're reading it in English. And he says, "Because in any case, it's almost impossible to speak in English without them, unless you want to say, super rational, inter-dimensional ontology, endogenous, custodial, ritual complexes." I was like, "Oh." [crosstalk 00:15:40] so that's what the beginning is the idea of what the dreaming is.

Meredith England:

And just so, because for me particular, picking up what you were saying Jenn, the idea of a dreaming and windscreen wipers having a dreaming and mobile phones have a dreaming, and the bed that I slept on last night has a dreaming, feels like this invitation into spacial connections and time connections and history connections that we most often don't think about, don't really want to think about, and think don't have relevance because we're like, "Oh, onward and forward and whatever's coming next will be better that what came behind."

Meredith England:

That was something that really is messing with me a lot is this connection to time and time and history and the presence of it. I don't know. I'm not explaining it very well, but just the total non-linearity of time.

Daniel Stillman:

Okay. So this is great, and so Jenn, I want to respect that you did some pre-work and I actually think we can go through, because one of the things that you highlighted in your notes, I think relates to this, and it's the kinship system where every three generations there's a reset in which your grandparents' parents are classified as your children. And that was just like a, "What?"

Jenn Hayslett:

I know.

Daniel Stillman:

[crosstalk 00:17:05] side of the head you're like, "Oh my god." And I think this non-linearity of time and the cyclicality of kinship and to say, "What are we doing here to ourselves and to our future children grandparents?"

Jenn Hayslett:

Yeah. I mean, I'm heading into the grandma stage. I mean, my children are not ready, I'm in the age where that's an appropriate thing to be thinking about, and-

Daniel Stillman:

Right. But you're not putting pressure on them, just to be clear?

Jenn Hayslett:

No pressure.

Daniel Stillman:

If it happens, that would be great.

Jenn Hayslett:

Yeah. So, I experience that quote in a very different place and watching my parents age and that piece that this is set up in this system as a way for deep respect and knowing and fabric of care. Right? And just who knows if that actually is where it goes and I want to know more about how it plays out in the culture or originally played out, right? Because the culture is now not as rich because of the colonial impact, shouldn't say not as rich, but not as strong potentially. If there's a rebuilding.

Jenn Hayslett:

But to me what that quote says is that we are part in our families and in our communities of this cycle and we need to clarify and honor and have it in our bones that we are our grandparents' parents are classified as our children in a cycle of renewal. It's beautiful.

Daniel Stillman:

Meredith, I kind of connect this to, when you were talking about being an agent of sustainability, there's this idea that Tyson talks about and I'm very sensitive to this, this idea of going to this place to extract wisdom in the way that you go to the jungle to extract molecules, like, "Oh, let's find out what the Aboriginal doctors are giving and they'll take that molecule, versus understanding its relationship. And I feel like what Jenn's talking about, being deeply aware of your place in the cycle of life, is part of the... I really struggle with this idea of what a custodial... Why do we get to be a custodial species? But I feel like it's like, you notice, you are a person who notices what is going on in the world, which is why you do the work you do. You work in sustainability because you are aware of it and you can't not do it. You're currently a custodial species.

Meredith England:

Yes. But I guess... I think that we all are. For me, that almost feels like whether you think of it as accidental or designed, that's almost, if you look around you, it just is what we are, in that given what we have become as humans, what we have evolved into, we interact with landscapes, with other species, with each other in ways that other species don't and so for me that almost just feels descriptive, rather than even... What's the word I'm looking for? It's just describing what is, rather than describing some new understanding of it.

Meredith England:

I'm like, I don't know, for me, it's one of those base things where you could ask me why and I would just say, "Because it is." Why? Because it is. That's one of my baseline things. And I think and interestingly for me, and this feels kind of tricky, the very deeply held idea of stewardship, the history of that for me comes from my historical Christian faith, which I now don't hold, but that thread of stewardship, that completely shapes how I am, that's how I think about being a mum is like, I'm a steward of my children, I'm not...

Meredith England:

And that's literally primarily how I think about it. And so there's a... Yeah. In some ways, so the idea of being custodial, the idea of being stewards, it feels really deep for me, but I can't describe it, or I find it quite hard to unpack, because I'm like, "Well, it's just, of course." I was just describing a phenomenon more than anything else, but I think when you bring kinship and time and space and these threads of connection to it, then its starts to really, for me, that starts to really expand.

Meredith England:

And even there are lots of things, particularly in the climate change movement that are very much about trying to get people to think about time in different ways, so that they will make different decisions. So, trying to get politicians to think about their grandchildren and their grandchildren's grandchildren, and this is making me wonder like, what does it mean if we, as you say Jenn, this structural way of thinking about kinship over time and the relationships over time, what does that start to do to how we think about where we came from, and now what we do? Yeah, I guess-

Jenn Hayslett:

Yeah. I very much wish he were here, because I really want to understand more about how that kinship system plays out, what does that really look like in terms of family connection and support and is this is metaphorical, or are we talking about the bloodline family and the direct descendants? Or is it metaphorical to look at all generations? And... Yeah, this idea of a system and the classification and I'm not sure, again, he probably is choosing that word because there's no perfect word, but is there a more formal structure and does this get recorded?

Jenn Hayslett:

My guess is not, based upon other things he's said, but I wonder. I'm wondering, Meredith, do you know much about the kinship system in this-

Meredith England:

No.

Jenn Hayslett:

No.

Daniel Stillman:

And if Tyson were here, I would just, Meredith and I were talking, we had another conversation before this, my interview with Tyson is going to be launching shortly, it's really hard to get a straight answer from him on anything, so if he was here-

Meredith England:

Okay. Even if he was here, you probably wouldn't get a good answer.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. You might not get the-

Jenn Hayslett:

Right, because there's no straight path.

Daniel Stillman:

Because there's no straight path. I do think it is literal. For him, it is not figurative, it's literal. But I also think all of the lenses he offers in the book are lenses. The kinship mind is a way of looking, it's not the only way, and certainly "Western thinking" is not cyclical, it is 100% linear, and the dialogue between cyclical and linear is, and this is one of the things that I think I took from Tyson's book as well is, there hasn't been a true two-way dialogue between these first people's and second people's ways of thinking and being, and that's what he's really trying to offer and is a true conversation where, can Aboriginal people finally, truly benefit from a modern system and not have it be abusive to them? And can the modern system learn, really, really learn better ways of being to transform the system that we are all living in? Because it doesn't work for a lot of people, and it's certainly not sustainable.

Daniel Stillman:

I feel like, I want to make sure we talk about yarning, Jenn, and I don't know, Meredith, this was like, for me, the idea that there was an entire other philosophy of dialogue, dialoguing, that was, there's the traditional idea of the talking stick, which is in the [inaudible 00:27:21] tradition, it's not in the Australian Aboriginal tradition, it is non-linear, there is no front and back, there's no sides in a yarn, there's no stage, there's no talking stick, there's no beginning and end. It's just sharing narratives and laughing and maybe you're making food while you're doing it, or you're weaving, or you're not.

Daniel Stillman:

It was very, I know, Jenn, you'd captured a quote about this, "The endpoint of a yarn is a set of understandings, values, and directions shared by all members of a group in a loose consensus that is inclusive of diverse points of view," which I thought was like, this is what everybody comes to every facilitation training I've ever done. It's like, "How do I get a group of people to get aligned enough to move forward together together, really?"

Jenn Hayslett:

Yeah. This to me, is so beautiful and elusive and that's why I captured it inside of a yellow star in my image, that there's this lightness and energy around this idea for me that I am very excited about. This idea of, "a set of understandings, values, and directions, shared by all members of the group." Now, to me, there's also inclusive of diverse points of view. Now, how is it that people feel that their values are being honored? Loose consensus? What is loose consensus? Does one person feel that the group is not moving forward in the way that they wish, but they're willing to acquiesce? Or is there just the fabric of enjoyment and pleasure that moves us forward? The fabric of our shared energy and humanity? So, definitely interested in learning more.

Daniel Stillman:

I have opened up to, because I'm so glad you included a page number, because I had a sticky note also around yarning protocols. It has protocols of active listening, mutual respect, and building on what others have said, rather than openly contradicting or debating. There's no firm protocol of one person speaking at a time. The back and forth yarning style neutralizes the unpleasant phenomenon that occurs in many conversations, meetings, and dialogues that occur of grandstanding and waffling while the rest of the group drowns in boredom. Monologues are rare in Aboriginal culture, unless a senior person is telling a long story or an angry person is airing grievances.

Daniel Stillman:

I mean, it's just, the primary mode of communication in yarns in narrative, the sharing of anecdotes, stories, and experiences from the lived reality of the participants. And the actual Sand Talk as part of it. And this is something that I think is missing in most, in every kind of meeting, is the visual grounding of the conversation and saying like, "Can I draw this for you? This is what I am seeing. This is the way I am seeing what I am talking about right now and stepping away..." Literally, most meetings are just a bunch of air talk instead of Sand Talk, and I would literally love more Sand Talk in more meetings.

Daniel Stillman:

I will now stop grandstanding and airing my grievances. Meredith, do you have any... I mean, I assume that the yarning protocols hit you as well, because this is what you do.

Meredith England:

So I'm only halfway through, and I don't think that I've got to that bit which is devastating, this is the... I'm totally breaKing the rules of book club, which is turning up at book club having only read half the book, so I'm really sorry.

Daniel Stillman:

But the first half is so good.

Meredith England:

The first half is so good. I'm like, have to read everything twice and this book is taking me so long to read.

Jenn Hayslett:

I still have a third left too, Meredith.

Daniel Stillman:

I have like 10 more pages that I have gotten stuck on.

Jenn Hayslett:

And it's so delicious and I-

Daniel Stillman:

We're all coming clean.

Jenn Hayslett:

Yeah. And I don't think, he would have so appreciate that, that we are talking and diving in and in it and experiencing it without needing to be linear and getting to the end, right? We're processing. we're in it.

Daniel Stillman:

Meredith, since you've got your book there, what's the part that you've gotten stuck on that you need to go over multiple times? What's something you feel like you actually had to read twice? I'm very curious to know.

Meredith England:

Yeah, yeah. So, no, I will answer that question, before I do, I'm actually really-

Daniel Stillman:

Okay.

Meredith England:

Well no, because I'm interested by what you were talking about about the Sand Talk and Air Talk. And a conversation that I was in yesterday, which was the first face to face conversation that a team that I am in had had for obviously over a year, we're all able to get in a room together down here in Melbourne. And I had my tiny little notebook and so I was scribbling notes in my book, and we're planning, we were basically conceiving and planning about 12 months' worth of work and my notebook was just getting a little bit small and I couldn't find a bigger piece of paper.

Meredith England:

And so there was a whiteboard behind me, and so I started doodling on it, just because, and we had Miro, we had two Miro screens on one side of the wall, and then there was just an empty whiteboard, and so I started doodling literally because I just needed a bigger piece of paper. And so I'd stand up and I'd doodle a bit, and then sit down and then stand up and doodle a bit, and sit down. And then by the end of it, and this wasn't about... It wasn't a great doodle or anything of what I was mapping out, but it did eventually, particular towards the end of the conversation, it enabled a different conversation.

Meredith England:

And there were words and pictures on it and stuff like that, but it made it possible for people to conceive of three previously unconnected, or quite siloed pieces of work, and just to think about it in a different way. And I guess it just reminded me again, which is something that I'm reminded of constantly, of just the usefulness of creating those shared physical and visual representations of what it unlocks for people, of what it makes possible. And because it makes easier also for people to disagree, because they're looking at it and they're like, "But those two things done fit together for me, so why have you put them together?" Or like, I'll draw an arrow between two things and they're like, "Well..." And it will bring up a tension that previously will feel like a relational tension or a conceptual tension that they can't speak, but it's like, they can verbalize what they disagree with, which.... Yeah. I'm just reminded of that, and just, yeah, how we put those lines in the sand.

Meredith England:

So the stuff that I am really, I keep reading and it's in different parts of the book, is the idea of the spaces in between. So, it comes up in a... And yeah, so it comes up in a couple of different places where he talks about sky country and the Greek mistake of dead matter and how actually, finally scientists are starting to realize that all of the stuff that we have called empty space for a really long time, they're calling it dark matter, which doesn't really help us understand more about what it is, but it's certainly not dead and it's certainly not nothing.

Meredith England:

And then he also, he talks about, I've never heard smoke and the smoking ceremonies and stuff being talked about in this way, I probably lost it now. So in the chapter where he talks about ghosts and spirit, and... I'm trying to find it. He specifically talks about smoke is not earth and it's not air, and it's used in this way. The smoke is liminal, neither earth nor air, but part of both, and it moves across the same spaces in between as shadow spirits do, sending them on their way.

Meredith England:

So he's talking about smoke and that situation of, and I love that whole story that he tells about being in the writer's retreat and the agony that he feels of even writing about it really struck me of like, when do you say things? When do you write those stories down? But yeah, I'm really noodling on the idea of the spaces in between, which for me is the spaces between people, the landscape spaces where I think, in my work sometimes, we get fixated on the from-to, and I'm not going to the idea, the metaphor of journey necessarily, but what's the space that we are inhabiting in both of those places and in the in between? And it also just makes me reflect on the spaces between and the liminal spaces in time as well and connecting back to the kinship idea that you were talking about, Jenn.

Meredith England:

So, I have no, and maybe not surprisingly, I'm totally grasping on this one because there is nothing to hold onto. He-

Jenn Hayslett:

He relates back to... I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Meredith England:

Oh no, just one last thing. He talks about how important the spaces are in between in the way that he talks about being an agent of sustainability, and so there's a, I'm trying to remember the language that he... When he talks about interaction and the energy and sprit of communication to power the system, that felt like he was very much talking about the spaces in between, and my son is also... Sorry, I'm just drawing together like 15 different thoughts that feel connected to me, my son at the moment is studying a bit of physics in science and he's fascinated by the, I'm going to get, Daniel help me out here, the Law of Energy that says that energy never goes away. What's that one called?

Daniel Stillman:

It's the Law of Conservation of energy.

Meredith England:

Yeah. And so he's constantly talking to me about how anything I do is never useless, which I love, and so there's something for me in this idea of the flow of energy in the in between spaces, that it's never wasted, it doesn't... And I will stop there. Those are all the things on my table.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, so Jenn, you had captured a diagram that I had captured too, which is exactly the part you're talking about, Meredith, the spirit and land connection, and this is, he also talks about it as abstract and concrete, thinking and doing, and the connection between them. The smoke, I'd forgotten that the smoke was part of this. Those are those lines and its liminal thinking, which is embedded in this way of thinking. Or this was my version of it, Jenn, I'd drawn this [inaudible 00:39:58] metaphor and abstraction, real connected to the land, and the practice loop between it and how embodied cognition helps with that process.

Daniel Stillman:

That to me is so one of the things that's really, I mean, maybe it's confirming something that I believe that I'm passionate about, but we are smoke, Meredith. Your job, what you are doing, making that smokiness, trying to concretize that process of thinking, it's hard, it's hard to do.

Jenn Hayslett:

And bringing it back to the human species and how we translate that. And I love how you're talking about the spaces in between. It feels to me like, when he's talking about just being present and aware and tuned in and the being rather than the doing, or the knowing, that a big piece of that, it's so interesting that he talks about the gut, right? That if we're too much in our brains, there you talked about the embodiment, if we're too much in our brains and not enough in our spirit and our soul and our gut literally, and paying attention to the gut brain, the gut knowing, that allows us to feel the spaces in between things, to hear the ants, to feel them, even if we can't see them, that this is beyond seeing. And that flow of energy and patterning is a deep knowing.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Jenn Hayslett:

And it's continuous, there's no end, there's no one seer or elder who holds all.

Meredith England:

The ongoing pattern finding and pattern recognition. There's respect for those who have history and knowledge or hierarchy, but that that continues to move, which I think, so for me, is when he talks about the romanticism and the desecration of Aboriginal culture as cute and stuck in time, that really hit home for me, particularly as someone who lives in this place where that's what we've done to it.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Well, I'm looking at the clock and I want to take care of us and the conversation and make sure we have enough time for a check out. And you two haven't actually introduced yourselves, which I feel like people will be like, "Who are these people who are talking?" And I'll take that somehow and bring it to the beginning of the conversation. So, can we first check out with whatever you want to check out with. And then I'll thank you for your time, and then you can introduce yourselves. We'll start totally backwards. In whatever order you'd like to, Meredith, what are you checking out with from this conversation?

Meredith England:

I'm going to check out with the [enu 00:43:33] and the dangers of greater than, less than thinking, and just horrors that greater than, less than thinking and narcissism brings to the world. He uses that as this framing right at the beginning that enu just brought chaos by bringing greater than, less than thinking. And yeah. I'll check out with that.

Jenn Hayslett:

I'll check out with something related, a quote on page three. "The war between good and evil is in reality an imposition of stupidity and simplicity over wisdom and complexity." Just that simple being and knowing is not uncomplex. Being present for complexity.

Daniel Stillman:

I love that. Being present for complexity is such a great idea. It's like, "I'm here for the complexity." I think one thing I hadn't really thought about, Meredith, that I want to check out with is this smoke thing, which I think I was like, "Okay, he's just being weird and spiritualistic," and the idea that there's this liminal connection between abstraction and reality, between spirit and space, between thinking and doing, it is smoky, it is ineffable, and it is hard to contain it, but we also in invoking smoke and bringing smoke in to the process, Leonardo da Vinci was this whole idea was, "Can you draw smoke?" Being with smokiness which is just the hardest thing to do. So I want to, I don't know how to explore that, but I think that's something interesting to explore.

Daniel Stillman:

Thank you both so much for making time for this conversation and I think is a really... I really believe the subtitle of the book, that indigenous thinking can save the world, because what we've got is not necessarily taking us in the right direction, so rethinking what we're doing is worth doing. So, thank you, both of you.

Meredith England:

Thank you, Daniel, for organizing this. So lovely to be able-

Jenn Hayslett:

For holding this face.

Daniel Stillman:

It's the least I can do. All right. And scene. Meredith, can you introduce yourself to the world?

Meredith England:

Sure. So, I'm Meredith England. I live in Australia. I am a conversation designer and facilitator working in the spaces where big organizations come together to talk about hard things and how to take action on climate change.

Daniel Stillman:

Really well said. I always struggle with what to say at parties, so well done. Jenn, if you could do the same. Welcome aboard.

Jenn Hayslett:

Sure. I'm Jenn Hayslett. I live in Vermont in the United States. I'm also a facilitator and trainer. I primarily work with executive directors and development directors in non-profit organizations, helping them ask for what matters and bringing really important support to their work. So I'm working in the non-profit space.

Daniel Stillman:

I'm really glad you both joined for this conversation, and Meredith your thing that this book is not done with us yet, I think, is really, really true. I look forward to reading the transcript of this conversation and the interview with Tyson will be out soon so you'll be able to take a look at that one too.

Jenn Hayslett:

Excellent.

Daniel Stillman:

There's a lot of wisdom to mine from this universe that those of us who are on the non-indigenous, second people side of the conversation can absorb a lot more and listen more thoughtfully. I want to be respectful of both of your times, because I know it's slowly lightening where Meredith is.

Meredith England:

It is. The sun's coming up.

Daniel Stillman:

Her day is about to begin, and for Jenn and I, it's ending. So, is there anything that remains unsaid that should be said? Or do you both feel complete? What do we need to say to be complete?

Meredith England:

Just thank you guys so much-

Jenn Hayslett:

I want to appreciate... [crosstalk 00:48:47].

Meredith England:

Oh, you go, Jenn.

Jenn Hayslett:

I want to appreciate Tyson for starting this conversation, and we're continuing the yarn.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Meredith, any last unsaid to be said for you?

Meredith England:

Just thanks for having this conversation and threading our responses and reactions and thoughts and questions and unsaid things into something that, for me, takes it a bit further so that I can keep the conversation going with this book.

Daniel Stillman:

And now you get to read the second half of the book. This is so interesting.

Jenn Hayslett:

I know. Can we talk again?

Meredith England:

Oh my goodness, there's so much to come.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh my god.

Meredith England:

Awesome.

Daniel Stillman:

Well that's perfect. Thank you so much both of you.

Jenn Hayslett:

Yeah, thank you Daniel.

Meredith England:

Thank you very much.

Jenn Hayslett:

And thank you, Meredith.

Meredith England:

Thanks Jenn. Bye-bye.

Jenn Hayslett:

See you.

Doing vs Experiencing Design Thinking

Season_Five_Image_Stack_JL.jpg

My guest is Jeanne Liedtka, Professor at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business and an absolute rockstar of Design Thinking. She’s the author of (most recently) Experiencing Design and joins me this episode to talk about getting started with Design Thinking and some pitfalls that can happen along the way as you move yourself and your organization towards not just doing design thinking but experiencing it - the road to mastery, moving past the surface level with Design Thinking.

Jeanne’s latest book Experiencing Design is organized around a powerful framework that separates Doing vs. Experiencing vs. Becoming. This frame clarifies the transformational journey of an individual as they engage more deeply with Design Thinking. 

If you want to deepen and expand your understanding of Design Thinking past the Stanford Design School Hexagons, I highly recommend Jeanne’s books. Her 2011 book, Designing for Growth, co-authored with Tim Ogilvy, was a crucial moment in my introduction to the power and breadth of Design Thinking.

Jeanne and I have both had this experience with folks we’ve worked with, and maybe you have had it happen to you: you take a workshop and a lightbulb clicks on in your head... You find a new way of working that you see limitless potential in, that you want to implement and share with others.

People say, "I wish my team, my organisation, could work this way. Where can I start?" 

And when you bring the tools and tips back to work, something falls flat…transforming how we work together is non-trivial. It’s not just about the tools - the doing. It’s about the mindsets - the experiencing and becoming.

Jeanne and I talk about getting started with the tools of Design Thinking, some of the pitfalls that happen along the way, and how learning in action is a really fundamental and challenging shift both for the individual innovator and also for the organisation as a whole.

Many people who I train in these new ways of working say their primary block is that others are not doing it too, that *everyone* isn’t trained in these tools. And while I’d love to train the whole organization, it’s not always possible, or even wise. My advice is usually, "Start really, really small, and do it in ways that no one can tell you no. Ask for forgiveness instead of permission." 

The ROI of DT

Jeanne and I also talk about the real ROI on DT. Organizations focus on the visible ROI of Design Thinking - what we will see- first the outputs, the templates, the workshops, and then the innovation they hope for - moving the needle in the business.

But the real transformational aspect of Design Thinking is the way people are changed by the activities - what they experience and what they become. (check out the show notes for images of Jeanne’s Iceberg model of the ROI of DT)

Design Thinking is, of course, doing activities like gathering data, identifying insights, establishing design criteria, generating ideas, prototyping, and experimenting...but each of them results in the individual person experiencing sense-making, alignment, and emergence - some of the real gold in Design Thinking.

And all the while, they are becoming more empathetic and confident, collaborative, comfortable with co-creation and difference, able to bring ideas to life, resilient, and adaptive. This is the more deep, more durable transformation that is possible with Design Thinking...this is the real ROI of DT.

MVC: Minimum Viable Competencies

One of Jeanne's really profound contributions in the book is the idea of "minimum viable competencies": the things we can look for in the people that we are trying to transform and bring on board to this new way of working. Can they listen to understand? Can they separate facts from interpretations of the facts? Are they comfortable with ambiguity? Can they respect other viewpoints? Check out Jeanne’s book for a comprehensive list of MVC and a survey to help you benchmark your organization’s skills.

Jeanne and I also dive into how Design Thinking catalyzes organizational change at the conversational level. For example, in the Emergence phase, she talks about thinking broadly about who you invite to the conversation, and she highlights requisite variety: the idea that the diversity of people in the conversation should match the complexity of the conversation, of the challenge we’re hoping to solve. 

Refer back to my interview with Professor and Conversational Cybernetics expert Paul Pangaro for a deeper dive into requisite variety and how it applies to conversation dynamics. Also check out my interview with Jason Cyr, a Design Executive at Cisco, where he shares similar reflections on diversity and coalition building in driving a Design Thinking transformation.

We also talked about how Design Thinking has a lot of tools, a lot of doings, that help with upfront discovery and testing, but when it comes to learning in action and alignment folks find it challenging to find turn-taking structures that help scaffold the process - in other words, they need facilitation skills: structures to help our conversations be productive: listening non-defensively to critique, exploring disconfirming data with curiosity, accepting imperfect data and moving on... these are not Design Thinking tools, these are conversation design tools. This is where DT bleeds into leadership and self-management.

Another point from our conversation that is really important is that different people have different experiences throughout the arc of the design thinking process. Jeanne has this wonderful diagram in her book about how the different DISC profiles of influencer, analyst, driver, and supporter will have different emotional arcs as they go through the Design Thinking process from beginning to end. I think it's really, really important to understand that we need to have empathy with all of our collaborators. We may have a great time with the upfront part of the process, like discovery, and have a really hard time during prototyping and testing. We need a diverse group of collaborators so that we can draw on their perspectives and balance our experience with theirs. 

It's important to push against our own biases and to continuously ask, "What kind of diversity is needed for this challenge?" For that, I highly recommend you listen to my conversation with Dr. Lesley-Ann Noel, who I spoke with earlier this year about Decolonizing Design Thinking. It's a really powerful conversation. 

It was a great pleasure to be able to sit down and talk with Jeanne Liedtka, and I hope you enjoy the conversation as much as I did!

LINKS, QUOTES, NOTES, AND RESOURCES

Jeanne's Website
Why Design Thinking Works
Jeanne's books

The Iceberg of DT ROI: from Jeanne’s interview with Mural: https://www.mural.co/roi

I love Jeanne's Iceberg of Design Thinking, which clarifies and visualizes the ROI of Design Thinking. 

At the top, we see the tangible outcomes of innovation and organisational velocity. Underneath, below the line, we see people's ways of thinking and talking. So there are changes of perception and changes at the conversational level: this is where people are becoming different and changing their mindsets.

DesignThinkingIceberg.png
DTImpactMeasuring.png

Minute 3

You can ask people to change their behaviors all you want, but until you teach them a new tool that helps them do that, then your odds of success aren't too high.

Minute 12

If you're always worried about, am I doing it right? Am I getting right? Is this a quality output? It's totally counterproductive and you completely get in your own way. So a lot of my role as an educator is to lessen their anxiety, to get them to trust me, to get them to try the tools out, to get them to accept the imperfection and be shoved along to the next question even though they don't really feel like they've answered the first question the way they should. To help them come out the other end with something worthwhile. If you accomplish that, they will go back and do it again. If you fail to get them through the whole process, producing something worthwhile, then they may fall in love with the idea of doing ethnography or brainstorming with post-it notes or stuff, but you're not really materially changing their behavior.

Minute 14

There's two groups of people that I am usually very optimistic about giving Design Thinking a meaningful try. One is the volunteers, the people like you said, who are just waiting to fall in love with it. Someone said, not long ago, I've been carrying a lock around my whole life and Design Thinking was the key. Those people are going to do it and they're going to love it and stay with you. The other group are people who are desperate to solve problems; who've already tried all the other ways, who have to try something new if they really want to solve this problem. Those are the other people who are willing to invest in trying Design Thinking.

Minute 21

We focus Design Thinking on the products we are producing for others. So we think Design Thinking is mostly about an output for others, but it starts with ourselves and working on ourselves. And I think what we've come to believe through this research is you are not going to achieve the truly transformational impact that Design Thinking is capable of, unless innovators themselves change on the journey.

One manager we talked to said that in order to do this well, you had to be able to call your own baby ugly. And I just loved that phrasing because it captures it. It's how do you, having engaged, then detach? Or maybe a different way to think about it is how do you remain passionate and engaged around making someone's life better while detaching yourself from any particular solution to get there?

Minute 34

So visualization is the other piece, right? So we've got the user-driven ethnographic deep understanding piece. We've got the conversational rules piece, then we've got the visualization piece. And the three of those together make a form of collaboration possible. It wasn't possible with just dialogue. It wasn't possible with just the search conferences. Just brainstorming or just ethnography was never going to produce it either. It's this coming together, this gestalt of design all coming together and that's what's really unique about it. It's the kind of accelerating effect that they have on each other when they work together well that I think is so amazing about it. But you need the whole thing. It's not like you can't use pieces of it, sure you can. But transformation, I think, requires that you buy the whole package and commit to work through.

MORE ABOUT JEANNE

Jeanne M. Liedtka is a faculty member at the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business and former chief learning officer at United Technologies Corporation, where she was responsible for overseeing all activities associated with corporate learning and development for the Fortune 50 corporation, including executive education, career development processes, employer-sponsored education and learning portal and web-based activities.

At Darden, where she formerly served as associate dean of the MBA program and as executive director of the Batten Institute, Jeanne works with both MBAs and executives in the areas of Design Thinking, innovation and leading growth. Her passion is exploring how organizations can engage employees at every level in thinking creatively about the design of powerful futures.

Jeanne's current research focuses on design-led innovation in the government and social sector, as does her forthcoming book, Designing for the Greater Good. Her previous books include: The Catalyst; How You Can Lead Extraordinary Growth (winner of the Business Week best innovation books of 2009); Designing for Growth: A Design Thinking Tool Kit for Managers (winner of the 1800 CEO READ best management book of 2011) and its accompanying field guide, The Designing for Growth Field Book: A Step by Step Guide; The Physics of Business Growth: Mindsets, System and Process; and Solving Business Problems with Design Thinking: Ten Stories of What Works.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Daniel Stiillman:

Jeanne Liedtka welcome to the Conversation Factory. Thanks for making time for this. I know you've had a long day.

Jeanne Liedtka:

It's great to be here.

Daniel Stiillman:

Thank you. It's kind of you to say. Okay. So let's take the wide lens first, since that's the Design Thinking way. Can you tell me about your journey into experiencing design in a high sketch? How did you get to this point? When did you fall in love with Design Thinking?

Jeanne Liedtka:

Yeah. Well-

Daniel Stiillman:

What was your meet cute?

Jeanne Liedtka:

The story goes back a while, I started down the path of... I was a strategist of BCG is where I worked after my MBA and my PhD is in strategy and I was always interested in strategic planning, which is an unusual thing to be interested in, most people aren't. But I always struggled for a way to help leaders understand how important the role of strategic planning was, and that it was really about enacting a vision of a different future. So it wasn't about filling out pieces of paper and things like that, it was about envisioning and sharing this new world that could be.

Jeanne Liedtka:

So I looked around for ways to teach it and I pretty quickly hit on architecture and the metaphor of designing. I have the advantage of being here at the University of Virginia, where the main grounds as we call them was designed by Thomas Jefferson to be an academical village. And it's a beautiful story of design. He had a vision of education that was education for democracy rather than the prevailing pattern of education for monarchy. And so he designed this whole thing. Physically the village sits on a green and looks like a village, but the subjects he had people study, the kinds of faculty he hired, the honor system he put in place, all of this was part of this beautiful meta design of which the outcome would be the kinds of behaviors he was trying to encourage.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yeah. Creating the conditions.

Jeanne Liedtka:

Yeah, that was a model for me. So for a while, when I had students, whether they were executives or MBAs, and we were talking about strategic planning, I would take them to the lawn and we would walk around and talk about Jefferson's vision and how he made that vision real. And then we would talk about how they as leaders were architects of a space, but it's not bricks and mortar, it's culture and systems and process and all those other kinds of things. So I spent a lot of time talking about architecture as a metaphor for a long time. But you can only do so much with a metaphor. You run out pretty quickly once everybody gets it. And there wasn't a lot that architects did specifically that was all that helpful.

Jeanne Liedtka:

But then Design Thinking started to get talked about, and I can't even remember... I was already following the design world, but as I started to explore Design Thinking, I thought, well, now wait a minute. This really allows us to move designing from metaphor to toolkit and toolkits are what people need. And to call Design Thinking a toolkit is a massive oversimplification, but at its best, it offers tools. And those are the kinds of things that people need to change their behaviors. That's my belief. You can ask people to change their behaviors all you want, but until you teach them a new tool that helps them do that, then your odds of success aren't too high. So I started paying attention to Design Thinking. I immediately fell in love with it. I think in part because there are the people who need Design Thinking and the people who don't. People who are intuitive design-

Daniel Stiillman:

It isn't for everybody?

Jeanne Liedtka:

It is for everybody but people get at it very different ways. So for designers and for leaders of innovation and like the managers we've studied who were very good at organic growth, they don't need a process. They almost don't call it anything. It's just intuitive. It's the way they behave. But there's this other whole group of people of whom I am one; my undergraduate is in accounting, raised in a very linear way. I'm quite concerned about change, somewhere along the line to borrow Carol Dweck's notion of a fixed mind-set. We learned that being right and being smart were the same thing. And so we're imprinted with all of these disabilities that are ill suited for a world of innovation. And what Design Thinking does is it gives me a set of behaviors I can copy so that I can begin to do what the intuitives can do just by nature.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yeah.

Jeanne Liedtka:

And I think it personally appealed to me because I was one of the people who really needed it. And I think like anything else, it's hard to teach something you're intuitively good at because you don't understand where people go wrong. But not having been good at it, I was just like amazed by it but troubled that designers didn't seem to be able to talk to us analytic types. And so I looked for a long time, I wanted to teach it to the MBAs, I looked for a long time; I couldn't find any materials that I felt like translated this incredibly powerful thing I could see into things that were accessible for the people I was teaching. So that's when I wrote the Designing for Growth book with Tim Ogilvie and we had the advantage that Tim's a designer and an engineer.

Jeanne Liedtka:

So he straddles the line between linear thinkers and design thinkers. And he has a wonderful visual sense himself. Whereas I'm a writer, I'm all about the printed word. And so I could write and Tim could visualize, and it was a good combination, I think. And it appeared at a moment when people needed what it offered. That kind of bridging, that translation device. And I was really off and running. And since then, I've spent the last 10 years just trying to understand more about why it works and how it works and how it shows up and in particular, how to help non-designers appreciate and acquire the amazing competency set around Design Thinking.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yeah. It's quite a journey. And I actually think I was at a launch party in New York. Was it 2011? When did that book...

Jeanne Liedtka:

2011, was the Designing for Growth book.

Daniel Stiillman:

So I have a copy of it hiding in my house and I'll just say from my own experience as a designer, who was like, "Oh,..." I learned about Design Thinking after design school. And I was like, "Man, if I can learn this stuff, everyone should probably know this." And I think a lot of people think, oh, Design Thinking is a five phase methodology with a bunch of hexagons. And what I loved about that book that you and Tim put together was the questions, the phases as questions, what is, what if, what wows, what works? I'm like, these are just good questions. And summarizing the Design Thinking process as a series of meditations, introspections conversations to have, I still like to blow people's minds who think it's hexagons with your model, that it's a series of questions [crosstalk 00:07:43] or a double diamond.

Daniel Stiillman:

Now Design Thinking is obviously gone through waves. You've been through all of them, cycles of boom and bust. And I want to talk about the lens of the experience you and I have both had of somebody coming to a workshop, a Design Thinking workshop, and they go, "Oh my God." They light up. They're like, "This is it." They have the experience that you had, they have the experience I had and they go, "Everyone should do this." My mother tells a story of how she and her friend made a batch of crackers and they came out so well, they literally just handed them out on the subway. This was of course the '60s in New York and so you could do that thing. And they were like, "These are amazing." And people would be like, "Okay." And they're like, "Oh my God, these are really good." When you taste something delicious, you want other people to taste it.

Jeanne Liedtka:

Exactly.

Daniel Stiillman:

And usually what happens is I find they hit a wall. They don't know where to start. They don't know how to... It's like they've gone through the hero's journey and there's the rejection of the prize of the boon on the other side where people haven't had the experience they've had, they don't know how to teach people or on-board them. They don't know how to teach them the tools or take them through the process. And they want everyone to have a common language. They want everyone to work in this way. And I guess one of my questions for you is what advice do you have for these people at the beginning of, because there's still people in the beginning of their Design Thinking journey. Those of us who are haggard wizened, hardened professionals on it, there are people who are still like, "Oh my God, this is amazing." What do you say to those people who are just getting that spark of Design Thinking? What should they watch out for look out for think about as they start to go on their journey?

Jeanne Liedtka:

Well, I think there's lots of levels of good stuff that Design Thinking can do. Even if you do Design Thinking badly, I think it's better than not doing it at all for most managers. Now, that's not true if you're being paid to design something really expensive and stuff. But for most people that are adding Design Thinking to an existing, largely analytical toolkit, I see very little downside. Because they don't think they're designers and they're not going to go up and try it and outlive their skillset.

Jeanne Liedtka:

And even one interview with someone that you learn something about is better than none at all, so I'm very comfortable with this idea that some of it is good and you should just get in there and try it. On the other hand, what we all worry about in organizations in particular is the Design Thinking loses its legitimacy, because people think you can all get all the great benefits in one day hackathons.

Daniel Stiillman:

Right. What, you can't? You can't do Design Thinking? It's not a process that you do end to end in a fixed period of time, every time?

Jeanne Liedtka:

No. You can get the wow that you were talking about earlier in a one day hackathon. And that's what they're good for. I think they're good for whetting people's appetites, but the reality of it is, when you're taking analytically trained people and introducing them to a decision process and toolkit that is so different than what we currently work with. You need to give them a lot more structure and a lot more digestion time and coaching and all that stuff to really affect their day to day practice. Sure, they can go off while they're in class and do some theoretical case and come up with stuff.

Jeanne Liedtka:

But if you want people to go back to work and actually use it, then you need to give them a lot of help. Now, it doesn't have to be expensive help. One of the things that I've really been excited about is the ability to teach Design Thinking online in a really scalable and inexpensive way. So a lot of other stuff we say, "Well you have got to fly to Charlottesville, Virginia and spend $8,000 and we'll teach you how to be a great leader or a strategic thinker."

Daniel Stiillman:

Sure.

Jeanne Liedtka:

Design Thinking now you have to commit to a class that may run eight or 10 weeks and you have to pick a project to work on and you have to do it consistently. But what I can tell those people is if you stay with me-

Daniel Stiillman:

Yes.

Jeanne Liedtka:

You do the work, at the end you will have produced something you can be proud of. And it gives me a thrill to be able to say that, but this is what I do with the MBAs, because I think in some ways, anxiety is the biggest obstacle to fully experiencing the power of Design Thinking.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yeah, I think one of the things... I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Jeanne Liedtka:

No. I was going to say so if you're always worried about, am I doing it right? Am I getting right? Is this a quality output? It's totally counterproductive and you completely get in your own way. So a lot of my role as an educator is to lessen their anxiety, to get them to trust me, to get them to try the tools out, to get them to accept the imperfection and be shoved along to the next question even though they don't really feel like they've answered the first question the way they should. To help them come out the other end with something worthwhile. If you accomplish that, they will go back and do it again. If you fail to get them through the whole process, producing something worthwhile, then they may fall in love with the idea of doing ethnography or brainstorming with post-it notes or stuff, but you're not really materially changing their behavior.

Daniel Stiillman:

I think the thing that I've noticed, and maybe you've experienced this too, is that people already have jobs that occupy pretty much 100 to 110% of their time. And Design Thinking shows up as a new way of working that seems to add another job that they're supposed to do. Innovation and Design Thinking and all these other new practices wind up feeling like another five or 10% of what they're doing instead of organizations finding a way to reduce or integrate what they're doing. And I see that as a real challenge where people want to practice it, but they just don't know how to literally find the time. They're like, "Well, how do I do it? When do I do it?" Because it's just on top of everything else.

Jeanne Liedtka:

Yeah. And I have a bias on this, I think, Design Thinking should be taught in projects and it should be taught in projects that people choose themselves out of their own world that they would do anyway.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yeah.

Jeanne Liedtka:

There's two groups of people that I am usually very optimistic with about giving Design Thinking a meaningful trial. One is the volunteers, the people like you said, who are just waiting to fall in love with it. It's that someone's said not long ago, I've been carrying a lock around my whole life and Design Thinking was the key. Those people are going to do it and they're going to love it and stay with you. The other group are people who are desperate to solve problems; who've already tried all the other ways, who have to try something new if they really want to solve this problem. Those are the other people who are willing to invest in trying Design Thinking.

Jeanne Liedtka:

But again, you have to make it something that they need to do anyway. You have to make it safe for them to do. You have to layer on the cognitive complexity so that it's accessible and you don't overwhelm them with too much at one time. So you have to introduce them carefully, but I think that's really what we've spent like 13 years doing now, trying to figure out how to make the process better. And we started off with those four questions and 10 tools that was the Designing for Growth book. And we pretty quickly discovered trying to actually teach it to people, that that wasn't enough, because they could use the tools, but they didn't know how to string the tools together and they could ask the questions, but they didn't know how to transition from one question to another. So I could ask what it is and go off and do a bunch of ethnography, but then they didn't understand how to pull that into ideation.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yes.

Jeanne Liedtka:

So then we started looking at the intersections of the four questions and adding structure to help people. So we added the design criteria between what is, and what if, because the design criteria took everything you got learned, forced you to prioritize it and distill it down to a short set of qualities of what your idea needed to accomplish. And then we transitioned into coming up with ideas and people could do it because they clearly were able to pull the learning in real shape. Then between ideation and testing, we created this napkin pitch because again, people would have a billion ideas. They wouldn't begin to know how to test them or which ones to test. And so we introduced this notion, well think about first of all, how you'd execute it? What are the assumptions you're making? What are the assumptions you're making about the value? Why should the organization want it? And parsed it off into this simple little thing.

Jeanne Liedtka:

So that was really round two where we dealt with the intersections. Then we figured out nobody knew what to do at the front end. So the people were asking what if, but they were completely defining problems that Design Thinking wasn't suited for, or they were designing wicked problems. I get very frustrated with all this talk about Design Thinking is for wicked problems. So people think they need to tackle world hunger with it.

Daniel Stiillman:

Right.

Jeanne Liedtka:

And the reality is nobody ever safely learned by starting with tackling the wicked problem. So you need to help people define a problem in their world that they can safely attempt Design Thinking on without too much visibility and risk to themselves, but that is meaningful enough that it matters that you solve it.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yeah. It's a very sweet spot of not triggering, but significant.

Jeanne Liedtka:

So the selection of the project is absolutely critical. So we ended up building a bunch of stuff in the front end that was like, well, how to scope a problem, how to know whether you had the right problem and then how to be the problem into the research plan. All of this stuff that happened before you actually went out to the field to gather data. So now we have 15 steps for gods' sake and I'm cognizant of how ridiculous it is to have 15 steps to do something creative. The reality is people don't need 15 steps after they've done it a couple of times, but the first time through those steps really happen, really are needed.

Jeanne Liedtka:

And then in the last batch of learning where we had a process and a system, we were shoving people through and it felt kind of right; the question was how to deepen it. What were we using? Where was the travel through the questions and the steps at all? Where were we still losing people? And we started reading the journals we'd been collecting. So as part of my teaching of Design Thinking of the MBAs in particular for 10 years, I've asked them to journal on a weekly basis about their experiences as we go through process. I also at different points in time would have them pulse their level of comfort at each week. We've given them some diagnostic instruments like the disc to help sort all this out.

Jeanne Liedtka:

So what we did for this book is we stepped back and just went really deep about this personal journey individuals were on and tried to mind that level of data, through ways to deepen their learning. And what we realized pretty quickly was it wasn't about the tools they were being taught, it was about the experience they were having. And so the question shifted from how to better teach the tools to how to deepen the experience of the learning at each stage, which interacts with the tools. But really what it produces is somebody who's different as a person, not somebody who's just developed this set of skills. So, it's very deep work, but it's driven by this fairly self-evident obvious work of trying to learn how to master these skills.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yeah. So two things I just want to maybe double set or highlight in what you were talking about is the importance of the spaces between the phases and coaching or facilitative leadership to push people through these phases, even when they don't feel like they're necessarily ready for the next one. This is where learning an action really comes into place. And I want to make sure we make some time to talk about that. But first I feel like it's worth talking about the diagram.

Jeanne Liedtka:

Yeah.

Daniel Stiillman:

There's two phases of this, where there's the doing of the thing with the tool, what somebody is experiencing and what the shift is internally that they experience at each phase. And I do think this is a really interesting aspect of an insight in your book because I don't think many people think about the changes that happen on the individual level, how Design Thinking changes how they approach the world.

Jeanne Liedtka:

Exactly. We focus Design Thinking on the products we are producing for others. So we think Design Thinking is mostly about an output for others, but it starts with ourselves and working on ourselves. And I think what we've come to believe through this research is you are not going to achieve the truly transformational impact that Design Thinking is capable of, unless innovators themselves change on the journey.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yes.

Jeanne Liedtka:

And what's interesting too, is we talk about Design Thinking this massive lump of stuff that is quite discreet. So when you go through the Design Thinking process, in some ways you can position immersion and experimentation at opposite ends, learning and action. In immersion, we're telling everybody you're supposed to be emotionally engaged. You're supposed to value the subjective, all this stuff. Then we get to experimentation learning and action, we're saying, "Okay, now you've got to detach. You got to be objective. You've got to look for confirming data." It's completely opposite behaviors that the same process is asking for. And so often, if you don't make that explicit, you just confuse the hell out of people.

Daniel Stiillman:

This is emotional agility that you're talking about, Jeanne. This diagram of the different disc profiles and what they experienced through the journey of Design Thinking, I think says we will all be experiencing joy and pain at different times. And just to acknowledge that our experience is going to be different. I want to zoom in if we can, because I loved the iceberg diagram. I think a lot of people come to Design Thinking because they want the ROI. They want innovation. They want organizational agility. And underneath the line of the iceberg are ways that people see and changes in the conversation and I don't know if that is mind-set changes because I don't think many people realize the sloshing around and disruption to the power structures that will happen.

Daniel Stiillman:

Specifically, I want to talk about the minimum viable competencies in learning in action and a quite a few... Because it seems like on the conversational level, the idea of needing to be right, what you talked about, we're all paid to be smart versus willing to be wrong. I'm a creator and I love my ideas and I'm emotionally attached to them versus I'm in a scientist or an investor, or I'm empathic to the person I'm solving for. I want all the proof versus I'm willing to accept enough to move forward into my hypothesis. I find these are tremendously challenging at the atomic scale of the conversation in an organization, needing to be right and needing proof are fundamental. And I don't think anybody starts on their Design Thinking journey thinking, "Oh, let's blow up authoritative thinking and de-center ourselves from the conversation."

Jeanne Liedtka:

Yeah. I do think that the whole back end of Design Thinking, the testing things is it's the real opportunity area for educators now. Most people fall in love with the process during the immersion. They're all nervous. I always joke that I have these MBAs who think they could run a giant corporation a day after graduation, but when I tell them to go, they have to go to the supermarket and interview a person, they fall apart. They're like, "Oh my God, I can't do that. That's not what I signed up for." They have this fear-

Daniel Stiillman:

Talking to strangers.

Jeanne Liedtka:

Exactly. Yeah, "I don't mind texting them, can I just text the questions to them? Do I actually have to see them?" But once they do it, a goodly percentage of them, it opens up their work. They really see the power. There's none of those good feelings in testing for the most part. The front end is about opening up new opportunities and creating possibilities. The backend is about finding out what doesn't work and stop doing it. And we are able to help learners a lot less on the backend. The kind of structure and tools that we're able to use with people on the front end, we don't have for the back end.

Jeanne Liedtka:

So in some ways I think the backend is harder to begin with. It's more universal because it isn't just Design Thinking that requires that you be good at hypothesis driven thinking, if you're trying to do agile, if you're trying to do lean start up, if you're trying to do a whole bunch of stuff, even without the front end of Design Thinking, you still have to learn how to design and run experiments. And people are generally terrible at it. Even smart, quantitatively oriented people are pretty terrible at it. They design experiments, they give them the answers that they wanted.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yeah. You talk about fighting bias. And I feel like we should address briefly that Design Thinking can help fight bias, but it also can totally play into it.

Jeanne Liedtka:

Absolutely. One manager we talked to said that in order to do this well, you had to be able to call your own baby ugly.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yeah.

Jeanne Liedtka:

And I just loved that at phrasing because it captures it. It's how do you, having engaged, then detach? Or maybe a different way to think about it is how do you remain passionate and engaged around making someone's life better while detaching yourself from any particular solution to get there?

Daniel Stiillman:

Yes. How do we do that Jeanne?

Jeanne Liedtka:

I'll put you through that. Other than by recognizing... I mean, this is a problem that doesn't belong to Design Thinking what Kahneman-Tversky, when did they start to publish about this? In the '40s or the '50s. Hypothesis, confirmation bias, probably the most well-recognized bias that's out there. We confirm what we want to believe. And so awareness becomes huge. To me, if there's a couple of threads that show up everywhere in Design Thinking, one is conversation, that it's always about conversation. Whether it's conversation with who I'm designing for, conversation with the people I'm designing with, conversation with myself. It's all about how do we structure more productive conversations in across difference and in times of threat.

Daniel Stiillman:

And as you say, Design Thinking, doesn't actually have specific tools aside from when I think about alignment and sense-making where the group dynamics are implied in affinity clustering, but they're not specifically called out. You talk about learning together through dialogue, and then turn-taking structures and listening non-defensively to critique exploring disconfirming data with curiosity. This is at the conversational level, but as you talk about in the book, Design Thinking has something to say about it. Design Thinking disrupts older patterns of conversation, but it doesn't actually... How can Design Thinking help at the conversational level changing the way that we make meaning together?

Jeanne Liedtka:

Yeah. Well, I think there's always in the background, this context of, is there something, is there with designed biggie. For instance, didn't we already know about brainstorming? Didn't we already know about ethnography? We certainly already knew about all this stuff that we're making part of it. Dialogue, how long has that been around? Since Socrates or something?

Daniel Stiillman:

Yes. That's true.

Jeanne Liedtka:

So what's amazing to me about Design Thinking is the way it comes together and these pieces accelerate the impact of the other pieces. And so dialogue to me and here you could go back to Peter Senge and systems thinking. He basically said everything you need to say about Design Thinking back when he wrote The Fifth Discipline, only nobody could do it. The [inaudible 00:30:00] was too hard. So even people who got it know they should be doing it. The ladder of inquiry and all that stuff; it was more than most people can actually handle. And so the simplicity of Design Thinking, saying, "Okay, there's these things..."

Jeanne Liedtka:

First of all, there's turn taking. So everybody has to go around the table and take a turn. Second there's the no debate rule, which is if you find yourself defending something and listening to argue, rather than listening to understand, stop talking about that and talk about something else and come back to that later. There's things like, think about the diversity in your group; do you have requisite variety? The group composition has to match the nature of the problem. I mean there's visualization which is-

Daniel Stiillman:

Can we just pause on that very briefly, because most people don't... I actually had Paul Pangaro on my podcast way back in season one. This is a concept from cybernetics that many people are not familiar with. And I was so overjoyed to see you talk about this, the idea of a group of people as complex as the problem. That is who you need to invite into the challenge.

Jeanne Liedtka:

To me the two-

Daniel Stiillman:

Diversity of what are we inviting into the conversation as you said.

Jeanne Liedtka:

In the [inaudible 00:31:13], right? And I mean, of course we tend to go to one extreme or the other in my experience with people. I work with museums and social service organizations, they basically want to invite everybody into the conversation, everybody. And businesses want to go off and have a retreat with only the senior executives in McKinsey.

Daniel Stiillman:

Right.

Jeanne Liedtka:

And the reality of it is every problem drives a different kind of conversation and a different group. And you kind of have to work backwards from the problem as to who should be in the conversation. And so we have this kind of the last bastion of executive privilege is strategy, for instance so you don't invite anybody into that. And then at the other extreme is what I think of as the kumbaya effect, where we think all we have to do is put all these people who are different in the room and ask them to talk and good things will happen, which is absolutely not true.

Jeanne Liedtka:

Somewhere in the middle are what some people have called these micro structures, where you structure the conversation and you control the conversation. You don't control the people, you don't control the content of what they talk about; what you control is the structure of the conversation. And I mean, we can go back to, well, the UN calls it the democratic dialogue, is their phrase for it. We used to have search committees or search... What is it? It was searches that was kind of community organizing. In architecture, we had the Duany Plater-Zyberk kind of put everybody together for a week and design a whole town of the charrette. So it's been called many things and it's floated around for a long time. But it's really only when you couple it with designs immersive front end.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yeah.

Jeanne Liedtka:

Because you can't let people let go of their own parochial perspectives unless you give them something more powerful to latch onto. But the front end of Design Thinking says is, look, here's what we're all going to latch onto; we're going to all commit to this person we're designing for, and we're going to design what they want and need given the current reality of their lives. And that's what we're going to align around. And out of that comes emergence, which is our ability to work together across difference to come up with higher order solutions that no one of us could ever had.

Daniel Stiillman:

So I want to give two shout outs. One is if, I'll share it with you and for people listening, I had Leslie and Noel on my podcast at the beginning of the season, she talks about decolonizing Design Thinking. And this question of who do we invite in the conversation? Which direction is the conversation going? Are we helping the other, or is the other here, who controls that dialogue? And the other is I don't know if you've read Sand Talk by Tyson Yunkaporta. He talks about aboriginal ways of thinking and making and talking.

Daniel Stiillman:

And I used to always talk to teams about air talk and he talks about sand talk. His book is drawing on the ground, is like a fundamentally ancient way of dialoguing. And I think what Design Thinking does to change the conversation is, well, we're not just going to go talk to a bunch of people, but we're going to make a persona. And we're going to sit around the fire of the persona and meditate on that and look at it. We're going to look at the journey map together. It puts the conversation in another place, it takes it outside of our heads.

Jeanne Liedtka:

My own head. Exactly. So visualization is the other piece, right? So we've got the user-driven ethnographic deep understanding piece. We've got the conversational rules piece, then we've got the visualization piece. And the three of those together make a form of collaboration possible. It wasn't possible with just dialogue. It wasn't possible with just the search conferences. Just brainstorming or just ethnography was never going to produce it either. It's this coming together, this gestalt of design all coming together and that's what's really unique about it. It's the kind of accelerating effect that they have on each other when they work together well that I think is so amazing about it. But you need the whole thing. I mean, [crosstalk 00:35:24]-

Daniel Stiillman:

Yeah, it's a cycle.

Jeanne Liedtka:

It's not like you can't use pieces of it, sure you can. But transformation, I think requires that you buy the whole package and commit to work through.

Daniel Stiillman:

As a consultant I perfectly agree with you that they have to buy the whole pa... They can't just buy the first part, you have to get the whole thing. I think it would be remiss of us to not talk about the minimum viable competencies holistically, because I think one thing that's interesting is many people think of Design Thinking as a tool kit that they can acquire without changing who they are. And what you're showing in this self-reflective tool is building our own personal development plan based on my own perception of, am I listening to understand? Do I observe versus interpret? How am I with my comfort of ambiguity? Can I engage in co-creation? Do I build on the ideas of others? And being very clear about the inner growth I want to engage in. I get to choose which of these minimum viable competencies I want to grow in. And I've been teaching Design Thinking for a long time. I feel like the inner aspect of connecting it to a personal growth plan is profound. I don't see it integrated often.

Jeanne Liedtka:

I don't know if you've ever tried to read Heidegger, I've tried and failed. But one of the things he talks about that has been enormously influential for me is this notion of the withheld. And it's this idea that we all have a better higher version of ourselves inside. But then we share it very selectively, mostly just with our family and friends and things like that. We rarely invite people to bring it into the workplace. And you can't insist on it. You basically create the conditions that invite someone to share their withheld, right?

Jeanne Liedtka:

And to me, that's a lot of the magic of this. I mean, it's very similar to Theory U, [inaudible 00:37:30] work. It's this notion of the future is inside of us; we just have to get it out. And we need to figure out how to lose all these dysfunctional kind of competitive habits and things like that, that prevent us really tapping into the richness that a diversity of perspective brings. But people need to know what specific behaviors to change. So for instance, you can send someone out and say, "Now, go out and do [inaudible 00:38:05]." And you can read all about anthropologists and all that.

Jeanne Liedtka:

But the reality of it is you've got to work on their listening skills. There's a very specific set of fields. You listen differently in order to do this work well. And what I would have often been frustrated about is that it's all this vague abstract kind of stuff with Design Thinking. And the reality of it is if you want to make anything measurable, if you want to be able to demonstrate increases from competency, if you want to connect, for instance, people's individual learning with organizational goals and strategies and all that kind of stuff, you need observable behaviors. You can't assess someone's mindset. You don't have access, I mean over time may be.

Daniel Stiillman:

No it's hidden as you say.

Jeanne Liedtka:

We have translated to things that are specific and that I can observe in other people as well. But one of the things I'm really excited about that we experimented a little with in my MBA class this year was the 360 version of that instrument. So I can make a self-assessment, I can decide where I want to work and what matters to me; I can pick a couple of things, and then I can get feedback with people who are working really closely with me to give me the kind of reality check on am I seeing a version of me that no one else is? Am I diluted?

Daniel Stiillman:

Right. Am I respecting other people's viewpoints? You tell me whether I'm respecting your viewpoints or not.

Jeanne Liedtka:

And we all know that many of the people who are most active in teaching this stuff are the ones who don't practice it. So you need to [crosstalk 00:39:48] again.

Daniel Stiillman:

I try.

Jeanne Liedtka:

Yeah, exactly. We try. I mean, I have to say one of the things I find interesting these days is I've gained a lot of self-awareness around, for instance, my personality type and I'm a driver, so I always want action. I want to go, go, go. I kind of run over people who don't agree with me, that's kind of stuff I got. I said now, after all these years of self-awareness, I now realize that I'm doing that, but I still do it. I just feel poopy for it. So when somebody [crosstalk 00:40:23]-

Daniel Stiillman:

That's a step.

Jeanne Liedtka:

I've always substituted guilt for lack of awareness, but it is a step. Because once you got to get people to jail and to recognize that what they're doing is wrong before they have any incentive to do what's right.

Daniel Stiillman:

They have to see the gap.

Jeanne Liedtka:

But you can't say to someone here, "Just go do better ethnography." You can say to them, "How are you listening? Are you listening through your own solution?" So in the diaries of the students, you can see it. Their awareness that they're listening through their own solution. It's really profound when they realize to what extent they're doing that.

Daniel Stiillman:

And just to highlight the importance of creating space. When you talk about designing the conversation, enforcing the boundary and defining the space for this type of internal reflection, to have the conversation with other people and to make it specific so that it can be practical and fruitful is profound. We're running low on time together. I'd love for you to just reflect for a moment, since we're talking about the importance of reflection, what haven't I asked you? What's important to say that hasn't been said, and are there any ahas that you want to check out with from this conversation?

Jeanne Liedtka:

As an educator, one of the things that's wonderful for me is that coaching really makes a difference. The teaching really makes a difference. Leadership really makes a difference. I mean in strategy, I was raised as a strategist where you basically want the McDonald's model, which is you want to build all the intelligence into the system because human beings are unreliable. And you can do that in a lot of things. You cannot do that in innovation because you can't do that and create new worlds. So what's special about this is that every individual can make a difference. I mean, I love how small scale Design Thinking is. That's one of the reasons why it's so subversive.

Jeanne Liedtka:

I talk to teachers and teachers are rule followers generally, and they're waiting to be given permission by the school superintendent or something to go off and do these new behaviors. But I can say to them, "Look, go into your class tomorrow and just turn some of this stuff. Try just focusing on making the lives of the 20 kids that are looking at you better and learning richer." You don't need anybody's permission to do that. You don't need a lot of money to do that. You don't need to be a smarter, better person to do that. You just need to do stuff like listen differently and try and see how they see the world. And allow them to test your ideas and allow them to be the decision maker, what works for them and what doesn't.

Jeanne Liedtka:

These are really simple things that you can bring to people. And in a world that's so complex with so many wicked problems where we so often feel like it's out of control and there's nothing we can do about it. The fact that you can give people back a confidence in their ability to control part of their world; even if it's a little part, that's really important to me, that's really critical and I think we all need that now. So the needs that Design Thinking fulfills are much bigger than just innovation or a better product, or...

Jeanne Liedtka:

Even things like building trust, I think they're giving us faith and hope that we can act and we can make a difference and we can make people's lives better and that just feels good. I think I worry... A lot of times when you're implementing stuff in business organizations, you're really fighting a tide. I mean, shareholder value never made anybody feel better other than the shareholder who was getting money at the end of it.

Daniel Stiillman:

I know it briefly then.

Jeanne Liedtka:

But Design Thinking feels good. And at a grassroots level, a lot of people just want to keep doing it. So it makes me more optimistic because we know organizational change is incredibly hard.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yes.

Jeanne Liedtka:

And I don't like to spend a lot of time telling people how their organizational culture needs to change in order to support this because nobody controls that, it just makes them feel powerless and it's incredibly difficult work to do. You can go off tomorrow and you can listen differently and you can shift the conversation in the small world you live in. And in the long-term those small shifts can make a huge difference. And so I think that's a subversive element I've always loved.

Jeanne Liedtka:

As a child of the Woodstock Generation, I inherently distrust authority and I don't have a lot of faith in reforming bureaucracies in large organizations. But I do have a lot of faith in individual people and in their innate desire to help other people and to better control their own world and find meaning in their worlds something that people like Dan Pink have been talking about for a long time. And I think Design Thinking as simple as it is, it can bring a lot of those kinds of profound things to people where it works.

Daniel Stiillman:

Thank you for that. The idea of forgiveness over permission; I remember the first time somebody said that to me, it is profound. It is hard to think about bucking the system and pushing back. But at the conversational level, you can have power over the conversation, power to invite people or disinvite them to a meeting, but the power to actually silence someone, we have the ability to express ourselves in the conversation. It may not make you very popular to ask why or who is this for, and what is the value of this to the end customer? And all of the questions that Design Thinking asks us to ask, we can ask in the moment on the conversational level.

Jeanne Liedtka:

And you know the trouble I have with the permission versus forgiveness stuff; the whole point of experimentation is when you blow it, you don't have to ask permission because nobody even noticed. So much of the benefit of Design Thinking is as risk manager. I mean, it's treated as this airy berry thing, but it's a risk management tool. It teaches us how to fail cheaply and quickly so that nobody else does notice. So you don't need to ask either permission or forgiveness, you just learn and you move on. And I think that's a really important aspect of Design Thinking that we're done just saying, look, embrace your failure. We're saying, make your failure insignificant in which case yeah, sure I'll embrace insignificant failure. Nobody wants to embrace visible giant embarrassing failure.

Daniel Stiillman:

A prototype in people's minds is often a pilot. Whereas what you're talking about is something so small, trying something so small, the tiny domino that it's like, "Oh, I learn something," but no one else... I call it failing cheaply quickly and quiet.

Jeanne Liedtka:

Yes. Exactly. And we don't even think of that. We've been so ingrained to think big. I mean, Design Thinking is about thinking as small as possible. The possibility you envision maybe big, but the risks you take, we want to keep as small as possible. It's the way entrepreneurs have to early on or aren't bank robbed by lots of money and so I think there's a lot of struggle team. There's a lot of depth to all this Design Thinking stuff. It's so much more than a bundle of tools, but it is those tools that make possible everything else. They're the drivers of the experience. Now, my belief is you can't get really good at the tools unless you have a deep experience of that part of Design Thinking, but you also can't have the deep experience unless you're trying hard with the tools. So it's a very symbiotic relationship I think.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yeah. Doing, experiencing and becoming there's a virtuous cycle. We really should check out, Jeanne Liedtka people should go on the internet to find you where they should buy your multiple books. I'll provide links to all of them but is there one place you'd like to make sure that people go on the internet to learn more about all things, Jeanne Liedtka?

Jeanne Liedtka:

Well of course I've created a website like everybody else that is just like jeanneliedtka.com. And I've tried to put everything on that, the educational piece, the writing piece, all of those together. The nice part of having a really weird name is that there's hardly anybody else on the internet that you can confuse with me. So in fact I'm pretty easy to find and the university is good at creating web pages and all of that kind of stuff. So, I'm all over the place out there, trying to [inaudible 00:49:52] that's probably harder. But I often think that we suffer from plenty, not scarcity. And so having a place to start and it kind of contained world to explore, I think can be really important in a world where we have too much information not true.

Daniel Stiillman:

Yes. That's completely fair. And lesson learned on Design Thinking I agree. It's giving people a slice of the elephant rather than the whole one. So I'll direct people to that. Jeanne, thank you so much for writing the book, I think people should read it. It is an important perspective on this thing that some people think they know everything about. And some people aren't at the beginning of their journey of, but I think both people can learn a lot from what you've written. So thanks for your time.

Jeanne Liedtka:

Oh, and thank you for asking me great questions Daniel.

Daniel Stiillman:

That's my job. Well, we'll call Singh. I know we're at time...

Coaching Executive Mindsets

I am obsessed with culture, change and transformation…and always puzzling over how it really happens.

One thing I know for sure: Forcing change, telling people to change, doesn’t make it happen.

I think there are two ways to profoundly facilitate change. One is:

💫 ASKING PEOPLE QUESTIONS THAT SHIFT THE CONVERSATION.

When I talk about Conversational Leadership in my book, Good Talk, this is what I mean: We can transform how other people think, not by telling them how or what to think, but by framing and fostering a new conversation.

The other way is by:

💥FACILITATING EXPERIENCES THAT FOSTER AN “AHA” MOMENT.

This means, for me, asking a series of questions, and making space for conversations that bring people into a new mode of thinking - the other side of an “a-ha”.

This is why I love to say "an experience is worth a thousand slides" We can throw a thousand slides at a group and never see the shift we want to foster.

Recently, my friend Jeff Gothelf did a lovely write-up of an experience I led for one of his clients, one of my favorite exercises: The vase and flowers game. It's always thrilling to see one's impact through someone else's eyes. My reflections and his reflections are both linked here.

Back in May, I offered a free workshop to subscribers to my Conversation Factory Insiders group walking through this exercise and a few others. I'd love to have you join that conversation...we meet every month to learn and grow together!

I’m so grateful Jeff came on the show to reflect on his journey, how key partnerships and relationships have been essential to his success, and to share some of the most powerful questions he asks leaders to shift their mindsets and thinking.

LINKS, QUOTES, NOTES, AND RESOURCES

Forever Employable by Jeff Gothelf

Becoming Forever Employable

How to Inspire Creativity and Innovation with One Simple Prompt by Jeff Gothelf

"Intuitive UI" is Not a Feature by Jeff Gothelf

The Big Lie of Strategic Planning by Roger L. Martin

 

Minute 7

There's something really powerful about having an accountability partner, right? There's the sense, especially if you're self-employed, or a consultant, or a freelancer that you've got to do it all by yourself.

And you don't. But, if you can find someone who can function, not only as a friend, but as a colleague and as an accountability partner, it makes a tremendous amount of difference. It really starts to force you to challenge your own thinking. And frankly, just to commit to certain things that you would probably have let drag on forever. And so it's super powerful.

Minute 14

For me, I've found that in my teaching, it's been a series of prompt questions that prompt them to think differently. So for example, one of the big questions I ask these days, especially when I'm talking about objectives and key results, because organizations are so focused on output to get them thinking about outcome. One of the big, most powerful prompt questions I ask is. "What will people be doing differently when we deliver the app, the service, the feature?" Whatever it is, because they never think about that, right? There's such a fixation on delivery that, just prompting them to think about the next thing. Okay, what happens then? What will people be doing differently if we do a great job?

Minute 17

And so with this traditional top-down thinking where it's like, "Well, I'm the boss. And so I have the answers." Will just make a vase to hold flowers and people will get as creative as they can. But at the end of the day, it's going to be a container that holds water and flowers.

It might be decorated. It might be hexagonal. It might be round. Right? But nevertheless, it's going to all be sort of variations on a theme. As soon as you say, "Come up with a way to experience flowers." Boom. Right? You've taken off the constraints. You said, look, our goal is to get people, to have this type of amazing experience, figure out the best way to do that. And so there's a couple of things that happen there. Number one is you've sort of taken the blinders off and you've expanded the space for people to come up with ideas and they will do it.

Minute 28

And one of my favorite pair of questions that comes from Roger Martin, legendary business professor and author. And he wrote an article in Harvard Business Review in 2014, called the Big Lie of Strategic Planning. In that article, he boils down product strategy into two questions. Where will you play? And how will you win? Right? And to me, those are fantastic prompts for any team, including a design team, right? Where will you play? What's the market segment? What's the target audience? What problem you're solving for them, right? Why would they care? And then how will you win? And I guarantee you, if an executive gave you those two questions and you came back with "intuitive UI," they would puke on that. And rightfully so.

Minute 34

It's the same reason why I wrote the book, right? I wrote the book not just to share my story, but because I believe this is the future of professional development and career. I believe that taking control of the narrative, telling your story, owning your brand, and then creating a reality where you are continuously attracting opportunities towards you is the future of careers and career growth. And I know there's a ton of people who want to do this. They face a tremendous amount of obstacles sometimes self-imposed, sometimes not.

And so the hypothesis here is that I can create a community of like motivated individuals, where they can find feedback for their work, accountability to get their content done and published, and mutual amplification where they can kind of help each other out. And so, in a sense, it's a self perpetuating cycle of folks growing together, helping each other, and essentially taking steps together towards becoming forever employable.

MORE ABOUT JEFF

Jeff helps organizations build better products and executives build the cultures that build better products. He is the co-author of the award-winning book Lean UX and the Harvard Business Review Press book Sense & Respond.

Starting off as a software designer, Jeff now works as a coach, consultant and keynote speaker helping companies bridge the gaps between business agility, digital transformation, product management and human-centered design.

Most recently Jeff co-founded Sense & Respond Press, a publishing house for practical business books for busy executives. His most recent book, Forever Employable, was published in June 2020.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Daniel Stillman:

Hey Jeff, thanks for making the time for this conversation. Welcome to the Conversation Factory.

Jeff Gothelf:

My pleasure Daniel. It's nice to be producing conversation in the factory, manufacturing conversation.

Daniel Stillman:

I know, I feel like there should be a sound of the hammer on the anvil.

Jeff Gothelf:

Right. Machinery and the backgrounds churning out conversations.

Daniel Stillman:

That was by the way, one of the first logos I made for the Conversation Factory, was an Anvil and a hammer. And then it was a factory with voice bubble clouds. And then my friend was like, "Are you trying to say that the conversations are pollution that comes out of [crosstalk 00:00:38], got to work on that visual metaphor." And so we did. So Jeff, you require no introduction, but if people are completely unaware of who you are and why you're important, can we put you in context?

Jeff Gothelf:

Yeah, I'm important because I fathered, and parent two amazing girls.

Daniel Stillman:

Love it.

Jeff Gothelf:

That's why I'm important, with my wife, of course, not by myself. Couldn't have done any of that stuff without her. Professionally, I co-wrote a book called Lean UX with Josh Seiden. In fact, I co-wrote that book three times with John Seiden, once in 2013, once in 2016, and once again, in 2021, this is our third edition, which is very exciting. It will be out later this year. I've worked as a designer and a product manager and a team leader and over the last decade or so. I've been working as a coach, a consultant, a keynote speaker, and a trainer teaching companies, how to build great products and teaching leaders, how to build the cultures that build great products. And that's kind of how I spend most of my time these days, although in recent days. Just from the comfort of my home office, more so than anywhere else.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. And we're going to talk a lot about the leaders and culture thing, but first I want to take a step back because I think what you and Josh have is very special. Maybe it's just me, if you've ever watched Lord of the Rings.

Jeff Gothelf:

I have.

Daniel Stillman:

One of the things I love about Lord of the Rings is just guys crying together. They're just like, "We're here. That was hard. I love you. Let's keep going." And it gets me every time I think guys need more friends, men need men friends, and you and Josh have something really special. You are deep collaborators.

Jeff Gothelf:

Yeah. We've been working together for 12 years. I think I met him in 2008. That's roughly what we estimate to be. In New York city in some design leadership, networking thing. And then I ended up on stage at various events with panels and things like that and I was like, "There's that guy again." Every time I looked to my left or to my right, I was like, "There's that guy again." And it worked really well, and we worked both well.

Jeff Gothelf:

The reason why we work well together besides just sort of just getting along generally speaking. I think there's a couple of things. One is we have complimentary qualities, like a yin and yang as opposed to sort of identical quality. So for example, I am, "Well, let's just jump out of the airplane and figure it out." Right? And Josh is like, "Before we jumped out of the airplane, can we just like, at least look and see what we're flying over?"

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Jeff Gothelf:

Right? "Is it land, is it sea?"

Daniel Stillman:

Does it have a rip cord? Is it attached to a parachute?

Jeff Gothelf:

Right. Is there a parachute.

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Jeff Gothelf:

And the nice thing about that, there's a lot of that tension both in our professional relationship because I'm eager to ship stuff and he slows me down a little bit, which is good, it comes out better. But then I also sort of, he would sit on it forever and never ship it if it wasn't for me. Right? So it's, I pull him out of the airplane with me at some point, let's just ship it and see what happens. That's hugely helpful. Hugely helpful because it allows us to not only get stuff out into the world, but get stuff out into the world that is a decent quality. Right? And I think that goes a long way.

Jeff Gothelf:

The other aspect, I think that's really helpful in our relationship is we are super comfortable and look, it takes time to get there, let's be honest. But we're super comfortable being very honest about situations that arise in our dealings together that one of us deems as unfair, or unfair I guess, it's never dishonest, but it's more like "Hey, listen, I did a ton of work on this thing. Right? And I really think that I should get a slightly bigger cut of the thing." For example. I have no issues being like, "Okay, I did most of the work on this." Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Jeff Gothelf:

And he'd be like, "Yeah, you did, and that's okay." Right? Or that type of thing. The other day, perfect example of this. We teach together all the time.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Jeff Gothelf:

And so sometimes he wins the work and sometimes I win the work, but we always bring the other end to teach the course because we built the course together. The videos are both of us, that type of thing. Recently I closed a particularly demanding client. And it took a long time to bring the client over the finish line, lots of procurement, lots of big company, procurement stuff to go through it again. Normally, I don't even think twice, I'm like, "It's a 50/50 split." That type of thing. But the other day I was like, "Look, Hey, I brought this client over the finish line." I was like, "This one was work." It was like, I reeled this one, this was a big one. Right? Like I reeled this one in for a while.

Jeff Gothelf:

And three hours later, a nice bottle of Mezcal shows up at my door. Right? Literally three hours later. Right? It's stuff like that, that that has really helped us be super successful together. And I think generally we like each other, we get along and we have similar interests and we're both like steely Dan, which is, I don't know if that's a good or bad thing, but it's the truth.

Daniel Stillman:

I mean, the ties that bind.

Jeff Gothelf:

Right.

Daniel Stillman:

I think what's interesting about this and I'll just highlight this. When we think about culture, this kind of powerful, paired relationship and give and take, yin and yang of let's launch, let's check is a really important and powerful polarity. And I think it's really great that you have it in your work. And I feel like everyone should look for that in their work.

Jeff Gothelf:

There's something really powerful about having an accountability partner, right? There's the sense, especially if you're self-employed, or a consultant, or a freelancer that you've got to do it all by yourself.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Jeff Gothelf:

And you don't. But, if you can find someone who can function, not only as a friend, but as a colleague and as an accountability partner, it makes a tremendous amount of difference. It really starts to force you to challenge your own thinking. And frankly, just to commit to certain things that you would probably have let drag on forever. And so it's super powerful.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. I just want to celebrate that. And so my own experience of coming into that relationship was electrifying. When Josh called me and said, "Hey, we would love for you to do a set piece." You wrote the blockbuster Design Thinking, Lean and Agile, medium posts that became a book. And I was really glad to... Even though, design thinking is not the core of what I do anymore. I was like, I'll be honest. I'll just say this out loud. You guys threw money at me. You're like, "This is what we know it costs, and come and do this thing." And it made it very possible for me to jump in with both feet and take your attitude of like, "Oh, so we did some slides. Okay, what do we need?" Like, "Oh, here's my favorite thing." And just be part of that party with you too, is really easy to enter into that.

Jeff Gothelf:

Lovely, that's great to hear. Look, I think there's another aspect of the success we've had together is that we know where we're good, and we know where we're less good. And we know where others are better than us. There's ego. I mean, there's ego and everything, but there's not so much ego that we can't say, look, I could stumble my way through a design thinking workshop and Josh could do the same, but Daniel's good at this. And he's done this a lot, and he's better than us. So let's bring him in. Everybody wins.

Daniel Stillman:

It was fun. So here's the thing I want to roll back because Lean UX, and I don't think this is a great secret, but sense and respond was a sense and respond to people saying Lean UX. We want our bosses to be reading, thinking, being part of this conversation and sense and respond was like, "Here, CEO's read this." And so the main reason why I wanted to have this conversation with you was if we're trying to create these cultures of learning and excellence in these most important ideas in innovation of design thinking, lean and agile, how do we get the executive leadership team, the senior managers to think differently? And my theory is an experience is worth a thousand slides, right? We can sit with them and say, "Here's all the slides and here's all the case studies." but there's an opportunity to get in the room with them and to give them an eye-opening experience that changes how they think.

Jeff Gothelf:

Yeah. Look, to me, that's the most powerful thing that you can do. I think that there is a mix though, right? There's a little bit of a case to be made, and it's not a big case, and it's not a complicated case because I've had these conversations with executives. The case being, you are in the software business so Sense and Respond, the book, the first half of the book makes the case that you're in the software business, right? That's how you scale. That's how you compete. Technologies would drive success these days.

Jeff Gothelf:

And then very, very quickly to make the case. That's that says, "Look, here are what the top performing tech companies, here's what they are capable of right now." It's such a powerful, say for example, Amazon ships code to production every second, right? Every second, when we wrote Sense and Respond, it was every 11.6 seconds. Today, it's every second, right? That is such a powerful statistic and it typically terrifies an executive, right? Because they know how long their organization takes to get new ideas out into market.

Jeff Gothelf:

And so saying, "Look, you can't manage your business in this old-school way when you're competing with organizations." Everyone has the same capabilities available to them today, to be able to get ideas into market as quickly as you can create them, right? As quickly as you can. And so that plus the experience then of saying, "Look, come into the room with the customers, come watch them use the thing." Just anything at all should in theory, motivate some kind.

Daniel Stillman:

I don't know if you can hear the subtle sigh in Jeff's voice, where it should, and so facts are one way to wake people up, like giving them that like it's every second and then there're feelings.

Jeff Gothelf:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel Stillman:

Which is, watch the customer feel their pain. And then hopefully they get some insights out of that. And I guess I'm a big proponent of, and I've seen these discussions in some of the communities that you and I are part of. Like, I used to play blank game with these folks to teach them about this. How do I teach this blank concept to people now? And I don't know, what are some of your favorite ways of getting groups of people to open up their eyes to a way of thinking that's important to you?

Jeff Gothelf:

For me, it's less about games. I don't know that I've ever successfully incorporated games into. I mean, I've done it a couple times, done what you might call it, that Pictionary game with Post-it notes where you draw the picture and then you write on top of it-

Daniel Stillman:

Oh, visual telephone?

Jeff Gothelf:

Yeah. Visual telephone. That's what it's called. Yeah. I forgot what it was called.

Daniel Stillman:

It's hard to play online, but possible.

Jeff Gothelf:

Yes. That's a great one for showing how handoffs and how communication mutates through series of handoffs. For me, I've found that in my teaching, it's been a series of prompt questions that prompt them to think differently. So for example, one of the big questions I ask these days, especially when I'm talking about objectives and key results, because organizations are so focused on output to get them thinking about outcome. One of the big, most powerful prompt questions I ask is. "What will people be doing differently when we deliver the app, the service, the feature?" Whatever it is, because they never think about that, right? There's such a fixation on delivery that, just prompting them to think about the next thing. Okay, what happens then? What will people be doing differently if we do a great job?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Jeff Gothelf:

Right? And then, okay. Then what are people doing today, right? And where's that gap and why does that gap exist? And so you're sort of leading them down this path. I do it with questions, less so with games, but that to me, those are the kinds of prompts that at least open up new ways of thinking about the work.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Finding a really, really directed question. And I feel like there's sometimes it's the logical sequencing of the question where you say, you don't just say, what will people be doing differently? You start with, what do you want? What are you going to make and dot, dot, dot, let's think about the real impact, let's not leave that out.

Jeff Gothelf:

Yes, exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

The reason I wanted to have this conversation with you is because it was really eye-opening for me and always really nice that the vase and flower exercise resonated with you and seemed to reveal some deeper truth about the questions of design, and what are we designing. Capital D design versus lowercase D design. And I want to peel apart some of those layers with you in this conversation, what did the, the question of, are we making a vase versus a way of experiencing flowers open up for you? What was surprising about it to you?

Jeff Gothelf:

Yeah. It's amazing to me having seen her in action a few times now, how powerful, again, a simple prompt, right? The change in the prompt can make people think about this and it showcases the power of creative, like how much creativity lies in an organization. Right? And how much creativity do you unleash simply by changing the prompt?

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Jeff Gothelf:

Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Jeff Gothelf:

And so with this traditional top-down thinking where it's like, "Well, I'm the boss. And so I have the answers." Will just make a vase to hold flowers and people will get as creative as they can. But at the end of the day, it's going to be, a container that holds water and flowers

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Jeff Gothelf:

It might, it might be decorated. It might be hexagonal. It might be round. Right? But nevertheless, it's going to all be sort of variations on a theme. As soon as you say, "Come up with a way to experience flowers." Boom. Right? You've taken off the constraints. You said, look, our goal is to get people, to have this type of amazing experience, figure out the best way to do that. And so there's a couple of things that happen there. Number one is you've sort of taken the blinders off and you've expanded the space for people to come up with ideas and they will do it. Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Jeff Gothelf:

You made it safe and okay for them to do this. And so they will do it. That to me is amazing. The variety and diversity of ideas that come up are incredible. Right? You can eat the flowers, you can make them digital. People will come up with a thousand different ways to do this. And then it always brings us back to this continuous learning and improvement and agility conversation. So, we've got creativity, we've got innovation. And then it brings it home because it says, "Okay, great. We had 50 people in the room. We have 50 different ways to experience flowers, which one is the best one?" Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Jeff Gothelf:

And how do you know? And that again comes back to that prompt. What will people be doing differently if we give them the ideal way to experience flowers?

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Jeff Gothelf:

And so, to me, it's such a powerful shift in thinking. It not only changes kind of what the teams do, but it actually explicitly creates the safe space for creativity to take place, which does not exist with, make me a vase.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes. Yeah. I feel like what I've seen and some of the cultures that I've practiced it in, people do it. And they say, "We are told, we are given so many just do projects. Just go do blank." But then they find out there's much more behind the request. And so doing this exercise with the executive leadership teams, I've been prototyping this recently, it gives me an opportunity to say, "This is what your people are doing. They're telling us, they think you're asking for them for questions over here on the vase side. And I believe you probably have a whole host of ways you can ask them for what you really want. Sometimes it's okay to say, "Yeah. Give me a hexagonal vase that holds flowers, but probably what you need most of the time is, I wanted to find the outcome, not the output. I want the experience, not the object."

Daniel Stillman:

I think for me personally, I think in terms of changing a culture of an organization to be more human centered, I noticed when people draw a vase, is it's a vase. Sometimes there are flowers, mostly not. When you draw a way of experiencing flowers, there are people there's action. There's emotion. There is life. There is an experience. And it's like, what's a vast foR? A vase is for experiencing flowers, but we don't picture the person. And we don't picture the emotion. And that to me is that's one of the uh-huh that I like to give people is like, "This is what we are really trying to do. The outcome is the human experience.

Jeff Gothelf:

Yeah. That's a really great observation actually, that you see they actually put the people into the creation, right? Like you, you see faces, and bodies, and eyes, and things.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. It tickled me that you were like, "This says something about design." What does design mean to you? What's important about, and why do you value design? What's important about design?

Jeff Gothelf:

It's interesting. Everybody suffers at the hands of bad design. And everybody knows when they come across it, everyone's frustrated by it. Just the simple things, perfect example, right? So I've got a smart TV and that smart TV-

Daniel Stillman:

So smart.

Jeff Gothelf:

Right. The smartest TV. And that smart TV runs all the streaming services. Right? We've got Netflix, and Amazon, and HBO, and Disney. We've got all the streaming services. I have one remote control for the TV, right? The remote control literally functions differently for every single one of the streaming services. Right? And to be clear, it works best in Netflix. Right? When Netflix is the service that's running now, everything's sort of, the universal remote works, how you'd expect it to work. Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Jeff Gothelf:

With prime, it's a disaster. with Disney, you have to exit the service once you've selected a movie that you don't want to see to come back to the top. Right? That's designed, right? That's thinking about the experience, right? We sit down in the evening right now and we're like, "Hey, should we watch Amazon, Disney or Netflix?" I'd say at least half the time we choose Netflix, just because it works better. Right? Everything just is easier to use from every perspective. It just makes it more compelling to use the service. To me, that's design.

Jeff Gothelf:

You've not only solve the problem for me. You're not only providing some kind of an experience for me, but you've thought through how to make it as efficient, as simple, and in the right cases, delightful for me to use that service. And the net result is outcomes, right? The net result is out of three services, 50% of the time we choose Netflix. And then 50% of the time, which is the other two, one of the other two. So they're sharing a percentage, right? And that's incredibly powerful. That's what it means to me.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, and I think with the implication that I'm hearing there is in the context of this exercise, experience, we can say you're a technology company, and that is true, but we are also, everybody is an experienced company. Andy Pauline's is not here, so we have to say it for us, right? Everything that you think is a product is probably a service, because people experience your product over time. People experience your product in a larger context. Even of what you make is pants, people still see it on the rack. Look at it, look at the tag, reverse it. And you've seen this, right? Sometimes you can't read what's on the tag.

Jeff Gothelf:

Right.

Daniel Stillman:

Another company, the tag and you're like, "This tag is a journey. I've been transported into the world of Gore-Tex by this tag." Gore-Tex tags are amazing. They designed the hell out of their tags. They've made it an experience. And I think to me, this is the soul of design. Design implies an experience for a person that we are designing for. And if we're not thinking about them, what are we doing here?

Jeff Gothelf:

I recently wrote a blog post called Intuitive UI is Not a Feature.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Jeff Gothelf:

And like many of my blog posts, they're born out of some recent client-based frustration, right? Where inevitably I've been doing a lot of products work lately and a lot of products strategy work with some clients. I've been challenging the clients to write good product strategy work. And literally, I'd say at least half, if not three quarters of the product strategy work that I've done recently, has at some points come back from the client with a declaration that they will win the market with an intuitive UI.

Jeff Gothelf:

And I'm like, "You've said nothing." Right? "You literally said nothing" Because I guarantee you, you're not going to set out to build an unintuitive UI. Right? "You're not telling me a thing. You haven't done the work. You're not going to deliberately build an unintuitive UI." It's not to say there aren't crappy lies out there. There's a ton.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes, but they're not doing it on purpose.

Jeff Gothelf:

But they're not doing it on purpose. Right? And so this idea of intuitive UI is an abdication of design leadership, frankly, and design work. And it's risk to good design actually making it into the final product. Right? I would much rather have you bring an opinion that says, "We are going to win the market by having one click shopping." Right? At the very least you've got, you've got a sense of what that looks like. Right? We are going to have the shortest possible mortgage application form, something along those lines, right?

Jeff Gothelf:

That is a far more compelling product strategy than intuitive UI and that's design work. Right? That's you doing the design work to say traditionally, mortgage applications are 17,000 steps long and people inevitably drop out, 98% of people drop out before they complete it. Right? So we're going to solve that problem.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Jeff Gothelf:

Right? You're not going to solve that problem with an intuitive UI. You're going to do design work. You're going to do research work, and you're going to determine, right? What the optimum number of questions that you need to ask to make that a successful process. And again, it may not be the shortest possible process, because people might be like, "Well, I only answer three questions. You're going to give me a mortgage based on three questions?" Right? Somehow the legendary IDO Betty Brocker story, right? Like when they made the cake mix. They're like, "Wait, I don't add an egg. I don't do anything." And so now you've got to add egg-

Daniel Stillman:

So it's nothing.

Jeff Gothelf:

Right. But now that you have to add an egg, it's a much more legitimate product, right? That's design work, that's research work. And to me, it manifests in how you define the problem that you're solving and your hypothesis for solving it.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. And to me, I think this question of vase, which is a product, a commodity, a go-do in a way of experiencing flowers, which is experience, diverse thinking, being intentional about what we are, as executives giving them the eye-opening experience that they can ask better prompts of their communities, their employees, their teams, their organizations on purpose. That's their job.

Jeff Gothelf:

Yeah. Right. And look, if you're an executive and someone hands, your product where it says, intuitive UI, you give that back to that person. Right? But that's your job. Your job is to recognize that they're not actually saying anything. Right? And again, to me, I love like when it comes to this kind of stuff, sometimes, believe it or not, sometimes some of the best prompts for design thinking come from non-designers, right?

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah.

Jeff Gothelf:

And one of my favorite pair of questions that comes from Roger Martin, legendary business professor and author. And he wrote an article in Harvard Business Review in 2014, called the Big Lie of Strategic Planning. In that article, he boils down product strategy into two questions. Where will you play? And how will you win? Right? And to me, those are fantastic prompts for any team, including a design team, right? Where will you play? What's the market segment? What's the target audience? What problem you're solving for them, right? Why would they care? And then how will you win? And I guarantee you, if an executive gave you those two questions and you came back with intuitive UI, they would puke on that. And rightfully so.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, the problem is, its incomplete thinking. So, to the prompt you asked earlier is like, "So that what?" An intuitive UI, so that people can do blank in order to accomplish blank. It's just like, "I'm giving you a vase." It's like, "So what?". "So that I can put flowers into it and it's hexagonal, so it can fit into corners. And that's how we're going to win because our vases fit into corners."

Jeff Gothelf:

Right.

Daniel Stillman:

Cool. Great. Now I can tell you thought a little bit more deeply about what you think this thing is and what you think it does.

Jeff Gothelf:

Yeah. And it's amazing right there. All these things come together, right? We've got all these different design thinking and jobs to be done, and OKR, and all kinds of things.

Daniel Stillman:

I know. Jobs to be done just snuck in there. Right. I think it's-

Jeff Gothelf:

Yeah. Exactly. There's a guy named Bob Moesta. Bob Moesta, he was an associate of Clayton Christensen and he's one of the big jobs to be done, authors and advocates. And there's a story. I think, again, as a HBR. I read a lot of HBR. I think it was an HBR as well. And where he talks about how there were these builders who were building new townhouses and they were struggling to sell them. And they couldn't figure out why, because the townhouse had everything in it, big ceilings, multiple bathrooms and hot tubs in the master suite. And so Bob and his team came in and they were trying to figure out what the job to be done for these home buyers were. And what was interesting was the communities that were being built, were for older folks.

Jeff Gothelf:

And these older folks come with furniture. Furniture they've had with them for a long time, especially these dining room sets. And they were kind of big. I used to drag these things around too, I believe believing when I was younger. These big dining room sets and they didn't fit into the living rooms of these new construction town homes. And so the target audience, the job to be done, was not only to buy a new home, but to buy a new home that actually allowed them to bring in the furniture that made it feel like a true a home for themselves. And they couldn't because the living rooms were too small for these sort of old school, giant dining room sets.

Jeff Gothelf:

And so again, it's a design conversation. It's a research conversation. It's a customer centered design thinking conversation, like jobs to be done. It's about understanding what you're solving for and how you're going to solve for it.

Daniel Stillman:

Yeah. Well, I feel like we only have a little bit of time left, so I want to make a, it may sound like a needle scratching across a record sound that some kids won't even know about.

Jeff Gothelf:

You may be asking yourself, how I found out, how I got here?

Daniel Stillman:

But I think all the questions you're asking yourself about the community building for forever employable, all will revolve around these same questions. And I also imagine that Money Networks is like that townhouse, right? Where you're like, "Why can't I do blank? I want to be able to do blank with these people. They bought it. They've built a software product that enables you to do certain things and not others." And you are not trying to build a vase, you're trying to build a way of experiencing flowers. You want people to come together and have real conversations about their professional growth. And you have to do it through technology.

Jeff Gothelf:

Yeah.

Daniel Stillman:

So I'm just curious, to me, I think community building is something that everybody needs to work on. We were talking about this in our check-in on Monday, building community for ourselves in all sorts of different ways and also building community for others that we benefit from in various ways. Like I have a community facilitation, Friday, and I learn from the safe space that I've created for these folks. I learned from them every time they try something new and it pushes my edge and I have a group of people I can prototype with.

Jeff Gothelf:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Daniel Stillman:

Why are you building this community? Why go to all of the effort? I will share with you a Twitter thread that talks about how these types of communities that you and I are both trying to build are the hardest things to build, bar none.

Jeff Gothelf:

Yeah. It's the same reason why I wrote the book, right? I wrote the book not just to share my story, but because I believe this is the future of professional development and career. I believe that taking control of the narrative, telling your story, owning your brand, and then creating a reality where you are continuously attracting opportunities towards you is the future of careers and career growth. And I know there's a ton of people who want to do this. They face a tremendous amount of obstacles sometimes self-imposed, sometimes not.

Jeff Gothelf:

And so the hypothesis here is that I can create a community of like motivated individuals, where they can find feedback for their work, accountability to get their content done and published, and mutual amplification where they can kind of help each other out. And so, in a sense, it's a self perpetuating cycle of folks growing together, helping each other, and essentially taking steps together towards becoming forever employable.

Jeff Gothelf:

So I don't have to do this by myself, right? I don't have to do this alone. I have someone I can bounce an idea off of. I have someone who will help me amplify this. I don't have to beg the community for retweets. People just kind of do this because that's what we do for each other here. That's my hope, is that people find inspiration. They find that accountability to get the work done, they find feedback for their work, so that it gets better. And then ultimately some support for getting the word out.

Daniel Stillman:

It's really interesting. One of the phrases you just used is one of Dave Gray's way of defining culture, the way things are done around here, right? What are some of the challenges you feel like you're facing as you establish norms, and culture, and language around this, inside of this group of people?

Jeff Gothelf:

It's going to be tough. It's going to be interesting because for people who aren't used to blogging every week, for people who aren't used to tweeting every day, for people who aren't used to being on stage in front of others, there is a tremendous amount wrapped up in each one of these ideas that they want to put out there. And so, if I'm new to this and I come in, and join the community. And I share a piece and the community rips it apart, and then I share another piece and community rips that apart, I'm out of here, right? I'm not getting any value out of this.

Jeff Gothelf:

There's a real risk in the challenge is to build a safe space where people can feel comfortable sharing, but also somehow miraculously are really good at critique. That part is part of it is still missing for me, like how they will miraculously all get good at critique and feedback. There are certainly rules of the road, right? No one has any dumb ideas, et cetera. That to me is a big challenge here.

Daniel Stillman:

Oh my God, it's a universal challenge. I literally just posted, because actually this came up in our conversation on Monday, the ending of Ratatouille where I'd actually know this it's Peter O'Toole is the voice of the critic. And he-

Jeff Gothelf:

Anton Ego.

Daniel Stillman:

Anton Ego. And it's a wonderful quote about how the job of the critic is easy, but that we all have to become friends of the new. And I posted a section of the video and I tagged... I don't know if you've read Aaron Irizarry and Adam Connor's book called Discussing Design. I had them on the podcast a couple of years ago. I think it's so important to have a culture of critique and to have a framework around critique. I'm always a big fan of Rose, Thorn, Bud, because you said, "Hey, here's what I like. Here's what I don't like. And here's some potential that I see." Having a framework, I mean, you didn't ask me for advice. I'm giving you some anyway.

Jeff Gothelf:

No. It's good. Thank you.

Daniel Stillman:

Adam and Aaron were the whole book about it because the big myth they were trying to bust was like, "oh, critique is not just fancy feedback. It's being really intentional about the..." I mean, what I'm using my language, it's designing the conversation to say, "Here's what I was trying to solve. Here's the type of feedback I need back. Don't tell me about the colors." Right? And this is where I feel you've probably taught this a hundred times inside of organizations. I know.

Jeff Gothelf:

Sure.

Daniel Stillman:

Being intentional about how we ask for help is nontrivial.

Jeff Gothelf:

It's not. It's not, I hope and I have expectations and we'll see how it goes.

Daniel Stillman:

I think you're also like to bring it back to our first conversation. It's almost like you're hoping to create more Josh, Jeff pairs.

Jeff Gothelf:

Yeah. That would be amazing. If people could find their sort of their yang. Right?

Daniel Stillman:

Right.

Jeff Gothelf:

Into their yang or whatever it is. Right? That would be amazing. To me, that would be a tremendous success that people can start to build those kinds of groups and do that. That's what I hope. And it's going to take some stirring and amplification from us as well, but I'm optimistic.

Daniel Stillman:

That's awesome. Okay. So my new final questions are, what are your uh-huh's from this conversation? What are you taking out from this conversation?

Jeff Gothelf:

That's a good question, actually. My uh-huh's are that framing your requests with good prompts is key to getting the answers that you want and for opening up new perspectives.

Daniel Stillman:

Yes.

Jeff Gothelf:

And I think the other benefit of framing the questions correctly is that you actually create the safe space for the best possible answers to emerge. I think that's a thing that permeates everything that we've talked about here today. So those are the two biggest takeaways for me.

Daniel Stillman:

It does. You connected it all. That's amazing. I agree with you. That's a big uh-huh for me as well. It is our job to dial in, to ask for the conversation we want to have. And I think that's true from an executive in the middle of an organization, and also inside or outside, it's okay to ask for what you want and to frame it up, how you need. And then you can get what you need.

Jeff Gothelf:

Yes. Exactly.

Daniel Stillman:

Is there anything I didn't ask you about that I should've asked you about?

Jeff Gothelf:

No, I think it folks want to join the community. They can go to becoming.foreveremployable.com and that's about it really. That's all good stuff.

Daniel Stillman:

Well, I like the becoming. That's nice, because there's foreveremployable and now there's becoming.

Jeff Gothelf:

Yes. If you go to foreveremployable.com, you'll find everything about the book. And if you go to becoming.foreveremployable.com, you will go to the mighty network.

Daniel Stillman:

That was my last, last question, which is where should people go on the internet to find you? So I'm glad we addressed that.

Jeff Gothelf:

Super easy. Jeffgothelf.com, foreveremployable.com or LinkedIn. Lots of activity there these days.

Daniel Stillman:

Jeff, thanks for making the time to have this conversation with me. A lot of great things that we unpacked. So I'm glad you made the time.

Jeff Gothelf:

Yeah, this was great. Thanks so much. I really enjoyed it.

Daniel Stillman:

End scene.

Jeff Gothelf:

Excellent. And wipe.