Paul: 0:08

Welcome to Employing Differences, a conversation about exploring the collaborative space between individuals.

Karen: 0:15

I'm Karen Gimnig.

Paul: 0:16

And I'm Paul Tevis.

Karen: 0:18

Each week we start with a question and see where it takes us. This week's question is,"What do I do with the part that's mine?"

Paul: 0:28

Karen, what the heck does that mean?

Karen: 0:31

I think it refers to where our culture, I think brings us when we enter a collaborative space, and we bring a piece of ourselves, we bring some work that we've done, we bring ideas that we've done, we bring, we bring, you know, a vision or a plan or a mission, but we bring this piece that ours because we've done it, and it belongs to us, or ours because we hold it deeply in our hearts, or there's lots of ways that they're that it's mine. But I arrived with this piece that's mine into a project that I want to be collaborative, that is a team project that that's where I'm going with it. And so I thought it was worth perhaps exploring today, what do we do with the part that's mine when I enter into a thing that's ours?

Paul: 1:23

Yeah. Yeah the Mine and Ours, and and also part of that the Yours, right? It's like, how do we relate to those things, because when we come into collaboration, like usually, it's because we're intending that it be ours, but not always, and not all of it. And negotiating what that means. We often don't have good language around that, or we don't have good habits around being able to really talk through what it is we intend with this. And it's very natural that we become really attached to things that we have put energy into, or that we care deeply about. We see this a lot with anytime someone founds or create something. I work a lot with folks in startups. You have the early either the founders or the people who are early employees who care very, very deeply about the way things should be done and is it going to succeed And is it going to fail and all of these various different things. They sometimes have difficulty collaborating around those things and taking those things that were theirs and making them belong to the group. That gets in the way of sometimes of their goals of the things that they want.

Karen: 2:46

Yeah, yeah. And you mentioned not having the language for it. I think it's worse than that. We don't even have the internal understanding, which goes with that. But I think we often fail to ask the question, is this something that I want to keep being mine? Is this something that I want to belong to the group? In that founder's case, it's maybe easy to describe it or to point out that. Is this my identity that I'm holding as my identity? Or is this a group identity that I want the group to hold or group work or group whatever. And I think that the first step really is to sort through that. And most of the time, that is not work that somebody can do alone. I think it's actually really tough to sit in a room by yourself and think about well,"Is this mine? Or is this ours? Or where do I want it to be?" And so in the end, although it is sort of deep personal work, and often a founder or someone has enough power in an organization that in the end, it will be what they want, that is the thing that happens, but that what actually needs to happen to get there is for the group to engage in a fairly deep, fairly vulnerable conversation about what are the things and who do they belong to? Is it mine? Is it yours? Is it ours?

Paul: 4:16

Right. And it's not monolithic. They're often like,"I am willing to bring these things and have other people take them." I want other people to sometimes it's not even I don't want this to be ours. I want this to be yours. Please, please go someone deal with this right? But it's like okay, I'm willing to own that together we're gonna figure out what is the sales process look like or we're gonna figure out together we're going to own collectively how we're going to do development. We're going to own collectively how we're going to develop systems for this that the other and I want a piece I want to be part of that, right. But also I may really want to hold tightly to the vision, right or to the the standards for particular levels of quality, because I because maybe I recognize I can't right now, let that be an Our thing. I, maybe maybe someday, but for now, maybe it's just best, you know that I hold that. And the clearer I am about that, the less I'm going to send weird mixed signals to other people.

Karen: 5:18

And I think one of the things that gets revealed in

this kind of process is: 5:21

Are the people that we have together the right people? Because if in fact, the vision is not on the table to be shifted, then we really only want people in the room who are on board with that vision. And, and I think sometimes we get into such a collaborative mindset that we say, "Well, everybody has to have a input or a say, or a voice in this." And sometimes everybody doesn't include like you got to be clear about who everybody is, and what really is on the table, and what really isn't. And then once you've done that, then then the trust thing shows up, and the things that you've said are Ours, that means really letting go.

Paul: 6:11

So what happens when you thought you wanted it to be Ours? And you discover that, that actually, it's still Mine?

Karen: 6:17

Hmm. Well, so So the question is, do you discover that it is still Yours? Or do you discover that you want it to still be Yours?

Paul: 6:26

I've seen both. Yes.

Karen: 6:30

So that is still Yours, but you want it to be Ours, then I think you got to get really willing to have that conversation with your group that there's a lot of like, "Why is it still mine?" I think one of the things that can be going on there is that others are afraid. So others are in the place of "But it's yours, I'm not taking it, it's yours." And so it, it might be that I'm holding it too tightly. It might be that others don't feel authorized to take it. And I sat with a group at one point with a founder and the rest of the team and said, "So the thing that has to happen here is that you, the founder, have built this thing that it's practically a child, like this thing is absolutely precious and dear to you. And in order for it to become the thing that you actually want it to be, you have to take pieces of that and hand it to all of them, knowing that some of them are going to get dropped, broken or otherwise damaged. Not might, but will, and that's going to be horrible." And then I look at the rest of the group and say,"And he really wants to do that, like I've talked to him, I know. He really, really wants to do that. And it's gonna be hard. So what he needs is for you to go take it, they need you to go grab those things, and wrench them away from him, and go handle them and be willing to just stand up and step into that role." And being able to just as an outsider, say those two pieces to each other created permission for both to sort of say, on the one hand, "I'm only I know I'm holding on too tightly, I want to let go. But I but yeah," and then the other side to be saying, like," I know, I understand that you want to hold it, but you need to give it to me."

Paul: 8:17

Some of the work that I do in my executive coaching work, working with leaders who they have this thing that I keep saying they want to give up and then they discover that they are sending they have these behaviors that anytime somebody tries to take the thing, they pull it right back. They don't see it or they don't recognize it, and everyone on their team could tell you exactly what they do. But then they're "Of course saying, Well, nobody on my team wants to take this, like they're not stepping up. They're not showing initiative." And it's like, well, when they do what does that look like? Getting into the behavioral pieces around that can be really eye opening. And, and so it's one of the real advantages to working with a coach. Sometimes, if you're actually like you were talking about being able to coach live in the room, where it's like when this person starts do this thing, and they try to give it away, and they're still holding it tightly, being able to see it and go, "That thing we talked about, you're doing it again.""Oh, you're right!" Right, because we often don't recognize how we are continuing to hold tightly to things that we are trying to give away. And it's not until we can recognize those and slowly shift those behaviors and be able to tell the people on our teams, "So when that when I do this thing remind me of this conversation" or "When this thing happens again, help me because it's hard for me. I'm having to learn a new behavior as I'm getting this and I need you to help me do that. And I promise you will not get in trouble if you do that." Because of the power dynamic in play here.

Karen: 9:48

Yeah, yeah. And having code words for that makes a difference. And I want to not drop the other piece, which was that I tried to give it to the group or the group tried to take it, but actually what I'm realizing is I want it.I want to hold it. And I think then you've got some discernment to do about, if I hold it, can I still have the rest of what I want? Can I hold it and have the project still be ours? Because sometimes you can. Sometimes there's a piece that you can say, "Yep, you know, folks, this piece I just didn't really want to hold on to." And you can even get consent around that. I mean, it can even be a collaborative choice that a person gets a piece. It doesn't even have to be a piece that was always there as it can be a decision of the group. Or it can be like in the case of a founder, who has disproportionate power in the group where they claim it. But if you get to that point, I'm be very aware of the synergies between having like what's happening in the dynamic between having a piece that I hold tightly and other pieces that are ours. Is that getting into a tangle? iIs the piece that I'm holding, in fact, having a domino effect so that I end up holding all of it and the others are not? Or is there resentment in the rest of the group in some way. Is this a power-over kind of dynamic that's interrupting the collaborative space that we want. And if it turns out that none of that's true, then you probably can continue to hold it, and be super transparent about it. Do not pretend that it's shared, donot pretend that other people can have influence on it. You just have to get like you gotta own that. This one I'm just holding on to, and you aren't going to get a voice in that. Because this one I'm holding? And I think if you can do that... That's the deal if you work here is I'm holding this one. And if that's interfering with your work in some other way, tell me about that. But otherwise, this is just mine. And I think most of the time that will work.

Paul: 11:52

Yeah. When you are clear about what kind of the non-negotiables are, what the rules of the game are, then people can decide whether or not they want to play.People can opt in or out to that. It's a thing that I see a lot with groups, because I've been involved with and now I'm being involved with the founding of a bunch of different communities of practice and community groups and things like that, where it feels like everything is up for grabs, and up and negotiation at the beginning. And sometimes that's true. And sometimes it's not. But the clearer you are about what is not, the more people have the opportunity to say, "Oh, yeah, no, I want in on that," or "No, I really want out." Purpose is a big thing about that for me, where it's like, I want to be super clear, this is the purpose of the group. It exists to do this thing. This is how we will know that it is achieving that. How we go about doing it, I'm totally open to. But what I want is for people to say, "Yes, I want to be part of a group that has that as its purpose" or not. Like that is the part that those are the those are the rules of engagement here. So the more clear you are about what are the things that are held tightly, that are that are yours, that you're holding on to, the more it puts people at choice about about that. When it's muddy, it gets problematic.

Karen: 13:19

Yeah. And I think just to take that one step further, when it's muddy early on which it almost always is by the way, because we just want people to join us and we want people to get involved, so we leave it muddy one of the things that happens is that will sort itself out. At some point, usually the mission, we'll get really clear that there is a difference of opinion about what it is we're actually trying to do here. And when that happens, it may be the founder who is no longer aligned with the mission of the group. The thing to do at that point is not to try to force a group that's not aligned to come to alignment. The thing is to look around and go, "Okay, where is there a group and a mission that match?" and let that move forward with success. And maybe that just means I'm not in this group anymore, which by the way, I've done that in a group, I founded. Just for the record, I know what that feels like, and it's hard. But that group is going on to finish the thing that they wanted to do together, and it's a great thing, it's just not my thing. So yay, them. And I'm free to go with the lessons that I learned from all of that and start for the thing I want to do. Or maybe there would be a case where there were two or three other people aligned with the mission that I had in mind and and you become two groups and you figure out how to divide up the resources so that two groups can happen. But as painful as that splitting or some people call it birthing can be it's really essential. So so what you said which is be clear about mission, gather the people who are absolutely aligned with mission, don't try to pull people in who aren't. And then when you don't do that as almost all of us don't do that well and you get to the point where you're like,"Ugh, we're all invested in this thing, except we're all invested in different things," there's something really beautiful about saying, "Okay, what's the thing that can happen out of the resources here?" and those that aren't part of that need to get out of the way and let it.

Paul: 15:20

And to briefly echo something you said earlier, a key to this is really understanding yourself a lot. I had this situation where most of the things that I do right is because I've done them wrong previously. So that whole thing about purpose, I've learned that from getting things wrong. But one of the things that I did a number of years ago with a colleague of mine is we realized we wanted to start a particular local community of practice. And we recognized we were both really good starters. We were not carry/follow-through/maintainers. So when we we literally came up with the mission statement, the idea for and the mission statement for this group while we were on a walk, came back in wrote the mission statement out and started the group. And it began with our desire for us to have a self-sustaining community. Because we recognized we were not going to be the people who could continue to carry it on. So we needed from the get-go to start to build that. And, what's great is that group still exists. Neither of us are involved in running it anymore. We have not been involved with with it for a number of years. I've come back to it a couple of times. And it's great, it's fun, because they're like, "Oh, and Paul's here, he's one of the people who founded this group!" I get to have that, and to see that it has carried on has been wonderful. But that only happened because we knew those things about ourselves, that we were not going to be the people who six years down the line could still be running it.

Karen: 16:51

And in fact, it's extremely rare for a person who can start a group to be the same person who can run it. But that's probably a topic for another day.

Paul: 17:00

Almost certainly.

Karen: 17:02

I think that's gonna do it for this time. Until next time, I'm Karen Gimnig.

Paul: 17:07

And I'm Paul Tevis. And this has been Employing Differences.