Employing Differences, Episode 150: Can’t we make it perfect?

Paul: 0:07

Welcome to Employing about exploring the collaborative space between individuals.

Karen: 0:13

I'm Karen Gimnig.

Paul: 0:14

And I'm Paul Tevis.

Karen: 0:16

Each episode, we start with a us. This week's question is can we make it perfect?

Paul: 0:25

For those of you who listened to the show. One of the things that we talk about is something that Karen and I really believe in, a lot, in working in complex problems, and in relational spaces, which is this idea of'we're going to come up with something that's good enough to try and safe enough to move forward with'. That it's okay to start with something that isn't perfect and that will evolve it as we go. This is something that shows up in a lot of different spaces that we work in. Shows up in a lot of the technology work that I do. But the idea of evolutionary architectures and emergent design, it shows up in Sociocracy, it shows up in a lot of different spaces. And it is also an idea that Karen and I have found, that some people are deeply uncomfortable with. That there is sometimes resistance in a group to moving forward with an idea that is'not perfect', for lack of a better term. And so what we want to talk about today is when you're working with a group, where part of the group is ready to move forward with a solution, that they plan to evolve over time. That, "We're going to get started with this, then we're going to learn something from it, and we're going to improve it as we go. When we think that it's safe enough to proceed." When you've got part of the group that's ready to move forward in that way. And some part of the group that is not. That is resistant to this idea of an evolutionary solution, that seems to be insisting on having the perfect solution. The sort of 'final draft version' of it be the first thing that you implement. How can you make progress in those spaces? That's what we want to dig into here today.

Karen: 2:07

Yeah, I see this a lot. And I, I do think we need to just acknowledge up front that there's nothing wrong with any one of these approaches. But there is a really important piece about naming where we are and noticing that it's different. And the people who want to get things working really well before we dive in, there are reasons for that and there's value for that. There are times that we, "Well, let's just get moving." And if we just get moving, we're going to be broken down by the side of the road in half a mile. And there are times when doing 15 engine checks is going to mean that we don't ever get progressed down the road. And so valuing sort of both instincts, but being able to talk about 'where are we with that?' Because what I see happen a lot is, the groups I work with are pretty committed to hearing each other, to taking time for consensus, all that kind of thing. And the way I see this most often go sideways is that the majority of the group has had all the conversation they want to have about a thing, and most of the broad strokes are agreed, but that some of the detail work or some elements or some particular pieces are not there yet. And particularly with groups that are in early days- I work a lot with cohousing groups and they're often trying to set policy or make decisions before they have moved in together. So they're trying to make it all work, describing an environment none of them has ever lived in before. And, you know, hopefully they consult with other cohousing communities on different things, but ultimately the data just isn't there. And so to have folks saying "No, but we have to, you know, plan for this eventuality". And that hypothetical problem, and what results in that, what ends up being happening, I think is something I call process fatigue. Which is the people who are ready to move on or just "I'm done". I don't, like, "I don't care. You can have whatever you want or I'm out of the group because I didn't sign up for sitting in meetings all day, every day" or, you know, various ways it shows up. Or they just quietly disappear from process. So we don't want that to happen. And we also don't want to move so quickly that we miss things that we could have predicted, would be important. And so I think what we're really aiming here is a discernment. And for me, the first piece really is for each individual to do a little soul searching and say, "Where do I land on this spectrum?" "Am I a person who tends to want to get everything really right, think and do lots and lots of thinking and talking and researching and whatever my way on that end?" Or, "Am I a person that tends to want to just move? Why do we have to talk about anything? Let's just get going." And if you're in one of those extremes, stretch toward the middle. Either side, stretch toward the middle. And so it helps a lot to just identify 'where am I relative to others in the group'.

Paul: 5:15

There's an exercise that I any of these polarities, any of these tensions. Where we tend to fall someplace along some particular spectrum. So if we're thinking about this one in terms of evolutionary design versus versus strong design up front, anticipating problems versus responding to them when they, when they emerge, that kind of thing. If we think about that on the spectrum, what sometimes I'll do with the group is I will ask them, when I notice that this tension is really starting to hinder their ability to make progress. One is, name it and just- say, it seems like this is a deeper perspective where people tend to- I've done this before where I physically ask people to stand, you know, in a different space or put themselves on a line on a Miro board or something like that. And then the important part is, I actually ask people, "What do you appreciate about the perspective that the people at the other end of the spectrum bring?" "What do you value about that perspective?" Not 'what do you value about your own?'."What do you value about the perspective that you tend not to bring?" And creating a dialogue around those different perspectives. One, it helps people. When the people they normally disagree with say good things about them, right? Like when you have, you have part of your viewpoint validated by someone who normally argues with you, that's really useful. But it also forces you to recognize "Where am I potentially getting in the way of the group making progress because I'm not making room for that other perspective?" And I feel that those two things together often help people to move towards the middle on that. Or towards a spot that is more useful to the group in this particular moment.

Karen: 7:04

I love that exercise, and I do And I love the piece about asking people to articulate the other viewpoint, and appreciate the other perspective. Because the reality is, as much as it would be easier to be in a group of people who all think exactly like me, that would make my life way smoother, it wouldn't result in as good a product. It wouldn't result in as rich in experience. It wouldn't result in what we actually want. So being able to recognize "I'm not good at that and I don't have to be good at that, but I sure do appreciate even the people who are good at things that constrain me and that frustrate me", that can be a really good thing. So I love that piece. And then I think- I'm going to throw in the word discernment here, which I think is super important. And I think in general, when we say "Hey, let's agree on a process", the likelihood is that we try to pin it down and make it perfect more than is actually useful. That the time that we spend trying to navigate, it often gets down to wordsmithing. It often gets, you know, that kind of thing. It's a safety thing. It's a fear thing of "I'm afraid that if it doesn't get written down, these people that I know and like, and have always been good to me, will suddenly start treating me badly, if we don't have it in the process that they can't." That kind of thing. And we don't articulate that thinking. But I, I find that's often the underlying piece. And so I'm going to encourage groups to start with shorter documents, smaller processes, fewer steps. Like, try the simplest thing that could imaginably work if everyone was perfectly behaved. And then if chaos erupts, see what you need to add that that's probably going to be smoother, faster, more efficient and less frustrating. Than trying to add steps to accommodate every hypothetical problem that could come up.

Paul: 9:07

And I do think that it is are the- I mean, they're hypothetical, but what are the problems, that the people who are not willing to move forward with this yet, are actually concerned about happening? Like, what are the concerns and reservations that make them feel like this isn't safe enough to move forward with? Because oftentimes those don't get acknowledged. And a thing we often ask around with- so for example, I, in the software world, it's like I was working with a team once. I've probably told this story before where it's like,"Hey, we're they're coming up with a solution to do this thing." And somebody says,"Well, how will this scale when we have tens of thousands of users?" And that wasn't the person saying "We can't move forward with this design", but it was saying, "I don't think we can move forward until we address that because we know that this is hypothetical, but it will show up in about 6 to 9 months if this process is successful. So we need to at least think about that and carry that concern forward." And that's something that I have seen some groups do very well, where once people have an opportunity, people object to the current solution, who say"This isn't good enough to move forward with." Sometimes they just need to say what it is they're afraid is going to happen. And you're right, fear is a big part about this. And fear is useful! Like, we need to listen to that fear and help it inform what we're moving forward with. And so once we can put that out there and say, "This is a thing I'm concerned about happening," that's something that then the group can say, "You're right, the current way we're thinking about this doesn't address that. So we need to be on the lookout for it as we go." And carrying that list of unaddressed concerns with us, is one thing that I have seen in groups be a way for people who have concerns about evolutionary processes, will move forward with it. It's a thing that I often ask about, in groups when we're talking about having support, for a particular decision. One level of support is "I have no reservations with this at all. I'm good to move forward." But another level is "I have reservations, but I trust that we can address them as we go forward. And here's what those reservations are." And being able to be at that level of support for anything is very, very useful. And that's different than "I have reservations, that until they are addressed, I can't support it and I don't think we can move forward with." And so I think we need to give people some gradations there in being able to say "I have concerns", but still be able to express support. Provided that the group is able to say, "You're right, those are legit concerns. We do need to keep them in mind and we will need to address them as we go."

Karen: 11:54

Yeah. And you used the next which I think is huge here, which is 'trust'. That one of the reasons that people get caught in "I need to make it perfect before I could agree to it", is because they carry, probably from past experiences- quite possibly, even past experiences with this organization, by the way! The experience of "I said okay. And then I lost control. Then I no longer had control of it. Then my concerns were dismissed thereafter." "We'd said we'd try it. I could live with trying it, but then it never came back up again. It never got reviewed." You know, retrospectives didn't happen depending on what the process is, that kind of thing. And the trust really falls down. And most of us arrive in an organization with a certain amount of that experience behind us and the fear associated with it. And so I think one of the things that helps us through this is to be really diligent about honoring what we've said we're going to do. If we say we're going to review it, then we need to. And those innovators who are saying, "Let's just move ahead and be iterative about it", it's funny how often they use that argument to move forward. And then when someone else says, "Okay, I think it's time to iterate again. No, no, no, we love it this way!" Like, and then they become the stability people. And so just that, that ability that when somebody says, "Hey, I don't think this is working. I have some evidence now, that we didn't have before, that we should look at this again. If you don't honor that, then the next round, you're going to get caught. And then we'd have to make it perfect before we can agree to it." So really actively building that trust through the kinds of communications, Paul, that you were talking about, of really listening, and validating, and honoring. And even if we're saying "We don't think we should deal with that concern right now, we agree that it's a concern and it matters."

Paul: 13:50

So to track where we've been when there's tension in a group. Between the part of the group that wants to iterate and evolve, and get forward and move along. And a group that really doesn't feel what the group is working with is sufficient to do that with yet. That wants to make it better, that wants to make it maybe perfect. How do you work with that? And what are things you can do? One of the things we talked about is recognizing that we all live along some sort of continuum with regards to those desires. And that our natural tendencies with those things, and recognizing where we stand on the continuum. And then also being able to articulate what it is we appreciate about the other viewpoints along that continuum. The places where we don't tend to stand, that when we can build that level of appreciation for the viewpoint of others. That's one of those places where we can actually employ the differences that live between us, that we can take advantage of the fact that we work in groups where we aren't all the same. And so getting those things out on the table, building the positivity, the appreciation, the acknowledgement there. Also, recognizing that concerns about moving forward with something, in an evolutionary way, are rooted in a fear of something, and a concern about something happening. And so the more the group is able to acknowledge what those are, that those are legitimate. And provide some reassurance that even though this particular proposal might not address them, that there is something that the group is going to be on the lookout for. That they're actually going to figure out how to address those as they go along and acknowledge those that that can sometimes be enough. Sometimes you do need to modify your existing ways, or your proposal for how you're going to do something to address those. But sometimes it's enough to just say "You're right, this doesn't address that yet and we will be looking out for it as we go along." And finally, if you really want people to trust that you're going to follow an evolutionary process with this thing, you need to do that. It's understandable if you don't have a good track record in this organization, in this team, or wherever it is, for coming back and revisiting things and iterating on and improving them and taking advantage of what you've learned. If you don't have a good track record for that, then it shouldn't be surprising that people want things to be better before you get started. Because there may be a very real concern. This is the one crack you get at this whole thing. So if you're actually going to propose an evolutionary iterative solution to something, you need to hold to that agreement. And really do what it is that you say you're going to do in order for people to be okay with being on board with it.

Karen: 16:29

That's going to do it for us Until next time, I'm Karen Gimnig.

Paul: 16:33

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