Book: Collaborating with the Enemy: How to Work with People You Don’t Agree with or Like or Trust; Adam Kahane

Why this book?

See answer in the Foreword section below.

My reading of the book

I read each chapter making notes as I read.

At the end of each chapter, I set myself some application questions (that are usable by others) and answered those questions.

I posted my notes with my questions and my answers at the end of each chapter in the Workplace by Facebook community of learners that I am community manager for.

I then posted the full set of notes as this blog post.

My overall assessment and response to the book

This was an inspiring, encouraging and challenging read.

Lots of inspiring stories of how the author's methodology emerged from practical experience including how the author was deeply challenged and his thinking changed in seemingly intractable high stakes situations.

This for me gives a foundation for how to build productive collaborative relationships from the outset as well as to address situations with challenges now. 

This content would be useful wider reading for those who concentrate more on the "technical" aspects of collaboration in terms of tools, platforms etc. For me this is the classic split of soft skills and hard (technical) skills.

Lots of my detailed learning from the book can be seen in the Q&A sections below for each chapter of the book.

Language is key and I will practice saying the following in the relevant situations:-

1. Downloading - the truth is ...
2. Debating - in my opinion ...
3. Dialoguing - in my experience ...
4. Presencing - what I am noticing here and now is ...

I will also look closely at my work as a project manager in times when things are "stuck" to take the 2 views of (1) observing from the outside, what people are doing and what they need to do and (2) from my participator viewpoint, what am I doing and what I need to do for the project to get unstuck. The key learning for me here was am I co-creating enough and am I focusing on myself enough.

Again with this book, I am challenge again to do more self-reflection about how I operate and the impact I have on others.

I am still on the look out for specific content relating to collaborative working in the knowledge management / worker realm and working IRL/virtually to do that.

Foreword (Peter Block)

Book Club Questions

Q1: Why are you reading this book?
A1: This is the February 2020 book from my Year of Reading 2020 list in which I stated my reasons for reading this book as:-

1. Collaboration is a frequently-used word in business-speak these days.
2. I wanted to read about this subject to hear someone else’s take on this subject.
3. The emphasis in the book title of what sort of people you need to be able to work with was intriguing.

Q2: Do you experience transformation when reading books? Why? Why not?
A2: Often. Books shift my thinking and then my behaviour when I start to put into practice what I have read and learned. This mainly happens with non-fiction but can also happen with fiction when it describes the human condition.

Q3: What resources would you recommend to others on the subject of collaboration?
A3:I am light on resource recommendations for this subject but some that came immediately to mind are-

1. Collaborative Working - The Institute for Government (pdf)
2. The Science of Distributed Collaboration; Paul Leonardi (video)
3. Google Docs: Collaboration Tools (video)
4. Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools, and Techniques That Succeed; Deborah L. Duarte and Nancy Tennant Snyder (book) 
5. The Collaboration Contract (web resource) via this talk 
6. Google Docs: Taking Collaboration Beyond Real Time (Cloud Next '19) (video) - found while answering this question!)

Q4: "Underlying the book is an unnamed spiritual dimension. It uses the language of Power and Love, the title of another of Adam's books. This language evokes aspects of collaboration that hold a place for mystery. For things unknowable, impossible to define."
What was your response to these words from the book?
A4: I am a spiritual person with a Christian worldview. The Foreword writer may be putting it a bit strong but I am definitely open for spiritual things happening - this might include e.g. serendipity but also close working relationships that are significantly deeper than just good, productive working relationships. Also more than happy for work to be emotional - we are not robots.

My Notes From The Book

(interested to see Peter Block writing this section as his "Community: The Sense of Belonging" was one of my 2019 reads and was very helpful and practical)

a shift in thinking is the essence of transformation

basis of renewed faith

core of great leadership

usually slow and without us realising

once in a while we get lucky & our mind shifts simply by reading a book

book is really an annotation on the title

the title tells us what we need to do ... and gets harder as the title continues

to make these acts doable is the essence of the book

esp relevant in these days!

the world is polarising us and making us hangout with people like us

the book offers a way of thinking & action that can create what seems like an impossible future by inviting all sides of a q into 1 room, esp when they do not agree with, like or trust each other

the author has put his thinking into practice

the world has been changed by his efforts

elements that have shifted my thinking:-

1. I believed collaborating was first choice but book shows that there are several first choices:-
1. imposing our view on others
2. forcing compliance when possible
3. do all we can to get our own way
4. adapt to the world
1. make compromises
2. minimise differences
3. go along to get along
5. the approach applies whenever we are forced or ready to try something really new
2. my work has been with people who wanted to come together for a shared goal and if they did not want to then what is the point of coming together but the book says this is exactly the time to come together
3. culture makes us want to dominate and be superior to others - us trying to get other people to change
1. group of elite people who know what is best
2. we think we can problem solve into the future & hold people accountable to delivering the solution
4. today's complex problems need different approach
5. idea of stretch collaboration as an alternative to current dominant thinking re how progress is achieved
1. the idea of creating an alternative future without reaching major agreements
2. bringing people with divergent intentions into a room where task is not to negotiate or develop action steps but just to agree that something needs to change 

in stretch collaboration, dialogue is not the main concern - major tenets:-

1. we have to affirm legitimacy / value of every stance & each of its advocates
2. the way forward is experientially learning together - all have an opinion, only by trying things together will we see which will work in our situation
3. place attention on consciousness of ourselves and the people working to achieve collaboration
1.  consciousness meaning to be present in a new way, able to notice what is occurring in world rather than trying to impact it, we are all equal players in that world

important book due to its ideas but also because written with humility & an acceptance of our humanity

insightful stories as well as the theory

book has an unnamed spiritual dimension - evokes aspects of collaboration that hold a placed for mystery

change in  a group most likely to happen when there is recognition of our equal capacity to exercise power and to love, both at same time, with the same people

the book is a call for wholeness

invites us to include in our thinking the possibility of enemies having a useful place in our longing for a different future

also have to inquire into ourselves, individually, as conscious, learning, mistake-making humans; accepting, in face of our goodwill, we can lose trust, agreement, affection for people & still move action forward

the book is one form of the politics we have been waiting for - a reachable way for power, love, neighbourliness to reshape our collective lives

Preface

Book Club Questions

Q1: Say something about the kinds of people you have worked with that are different from yourself.
A1: Lots of experience working with all kinds of people from different disciplines including e.g. those who do not plan, those who are more creative, those who hate being interrupted when they are doing their work, those with different political views, those who are task-orientated, those who are people-orientated, differeny sexual orientation, those with different attitudes to work and ethics, those in small and large organisations, those into formal power structures and hierarchy, those into social power and self-managed teams, those who want to learn, those who do not, those who work to live and those who live to work, those in the public, private and third sectors, those who are ruthless and those who are team-orientated.

Q2: To what extent have you had to work with opponents / enemies and people who you did not like or trust.
A2: Often. We are all unique human beings with our specific idiosyncracies. All teams that I have ever worked in as a line structure or a project structure have always had people in that are different to me in many ways and vice versa.


Q3:What have you learned about getting things done with people who are unlike you? 
A3: It is a challenge. It is not always obvious what the differences are and it is invariably healthy to understand what they are sooner rather than later. I seek to flex how I work to accommodate them wherever possible and wherever work etc is not compromised. Increasingly learning that diversity in teams is more than helpful and often leads to better results.

Q4: What specific challenges with collaboration are you facing and hopeful that this book will help you address? 
A4: Hoping to learn new techniques to understand differences in people. Learning what collaboration really means and how to initiate, run and close collaborating teams down when the job has been done. I want to be increasingly effective in my collaboration and team leading and working efforts.

My Notes From The Book

past 25 years helping teams in various areas of society

with people committed to working with all kinds of people including people who were their opponents / enemies

when these collaborations succeeded, they produced inspiring breakthroughs
and when failed, disappointment & disillisionment

seen 1st hand how collaboration works and how it does not

wanted and did not want to work with some people

happy when worked, frustrated when it did not

the central challenge of collaboration is the same in both extraordinary & ordinary situations

how can we work together with diverse others including people we do not agree with or like or trust

book for all who wrestle with how to get things done with unlike others and all who need to make progress on their most important challenges not only with friends / colleagues but also with opponents and enemies

this book reports my lessons learned on how to do this

Introduction: How To Work With People You Don't Agree With Or Like Or Trust

Book Club Questions

Q1: The author describes the conventional view of collaboration. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
A1: This is the classical view of project management as I have experienced it and "done" it throughout my IT career to date. There are other smaller-scale collaborations that may be this does not apply to e.g. in collaborating to create content. On traditional projects, the characteristics listed would all apply but there would still be opportunity for personal preferences to be expressed and adopted as appropriate i.e. there is normally a meeting of minds.

Q2: The author describes an unconventional stretch view of collaboration. To what extent does this resonate with you?

A2: Resonates to the extent that I am aware that some people prefer this way of working rather than the traditional project management and that this may be a preferable way of working where the target destination is not clear from the outset. Reminded that GPS only really works when you have a destination to punch in and then wait for the instructions to come to follow. I am learning to appreciate wayfinding more (per Designing Your Life; Burnett and Evans). I would have a lot of work to do to work in this way as it is a fundamental mind shift in working practice.

Q3: Discuss the author's views on how we relate with our collaborators

A3: One immediate comment is that I wanted to write in my notes from the book "how we relate to our collaborators" ... this took me down the route of "us" and "them". The "with" seemed far more appropriate for team work despite it being jarring when I first read it. I am increasingly learning to embrace conflict and use it to get to better results.  Also aware that all team members from one or more organisations have competing objectives for themselves, their organisations and for the project at hand.

Q4: Discuss the author's views on how we advance our work.

A4: The design thinking process of prototyping is helpful here and I have learned more about this via Designing Your Life (Burnett, Evans) applying design thinking to your own life. A key issue for applying this new way of working is getting beyond fixed end dates which arguably go totally against this experimentation approach unless you timebox that type of work.

Q5: Discuss the author's views on how we participate in our situation.

A5: I do work this way as a team member and as a team/projet leader seeking to get all team members involved and by understanding and making clear what each team member's roles and responsibilities are on the team. I would love to have more opportunities to co-create with others.

Q6: What is your response to the idea of pluralising?

A6:  A great idea. My overall approach to project management is generic but each project is different and within my overall approach each project is a blank canvas when I and others start planning it.

Q7: Do you agree with the benefits of stretch collaboration as stated by the author at this point in your reading of the book?
A7: I can see that for a team this way of working would lead to these benefits but the team members would need to be clear that we were working in this way which is as per earlier comments a different way of working than  traditional ways. Sponsors of the work that we are doing in this way would need to also be signed up to this way of working to.

My Notes From The Book

all of us face the same basic challenge - trying to get something done that we think is crucial - means we need to work with others - including those we do not agree with, like or trust

collaboration seems both imperative and impossible

seems impossible because we misunderstand collaboration

conventional understanding:-

1. requires all of us to be one same team
2. headed in same direction
3. agree on what has to happen
4. make sure this happens
5. get people to do what needs to be done
6. collaboration can and must be under control
7. looks like a planning meeting

unconventional stretch collaboration:-

1. abandons assumption of control
2. gives up unrealistic fantasies of harmony, certainty & compliance 
3. embraces messy realities of discord, trial and error, &
4.  co-creation
5. looks like martial arts practice
6. enables us to get things done even in complex situations with people we do not agree with, like or trust

Two approaches to collaboration:-

1. how we relate with our collaborators
1. conventional: focus on the good/harmony of the team - 1 superior whole
2. stretch: embrace conflict & connection - multiple diverse holons
1. (dictionary) holon: something that is simultaneously a whole and a part
2. (book) wholes that are part of larger holes
2. how we advance our work
1. conventional: agree on the problem and the solution - 1 optimum plan
2. stretch: experiment our way forward - multiple emergent possibilities
3. how we participate in our situation
1. conventional: change what other people are doing - 1 paramount leader
2. stretch: step into the game - multiple co-creators

stretch is a challenge because each of the 3 requires us to do the opposite of what seems natural

often uncomfortable & frightening to plunge into complexity

require us to pluralise - move away from 1 way

getting things done in complex situations is never straightforward

stretching does not make work disappear - just enables us to do it with:-

1. less fear & distraction
2. more connection & awareness
3. better chance of doing it successfully

Collaboration Is Becoming More Necessary And More Difficult

Book Club Questions

Q1: Do you agree with the statement about the urge to form partnerships and collaborative arrangements is perhaps the oldest, strongest, most fundamental force in nature? Why? Why not?
A1: Never really thought about it. It is only very recently, personally, that I have looked increasingly to collaborate with others and seek that out especially for things outside of work e.g. learning. Does history not speak of "survival of the fittest" which is all about power, domination and defeating people so the winner is the top dog. Re the animal kingdom, I can think of examples of pack animals and those that solo hunt.

Q2: To what extent are you "guilty" of the enemyfying syndrome?
A1: Definitely at times but always seeking for win-win which is  challenge when there is no obvious win for the other party especially when their collaboration with you is simply part of their job and they can do that willingly and enthusiasically or begrudgingly.

Q3: What other words do you use about others that are not in the book?
"Them", "they", "hard work", "a challenge", "it is a battle", "us and them", "not team players", "they are not corporate players".

Q4: Discuss the 2 dictionary definitions of collaboration. Were you aware of these 2 meanings before you read this chapter?
A4: The negative definition has come to mind very occasionally but I now realise that this is fascinating. Wondering whether this is a trigger for me using a new word! But as always with me, definitions and common understanding of the words we use are critical for people working together. I am also aware that "collaboration" means different things to different people. May be by the end of reading this book, I should have my go-to definition. What is ironic about this issus is that for many senior leaders "social media" has negative connotations and for some time now I have been using the term "collaboration platform" as a more helpful term when I talk to anyone about Workplace by Facebook, Slack, etc. Even "working with" is open to interpretation but is  good starting off point for a definition that I am completely happy with.

Q5: Three reasons for us saying that we can;t work with these people are listed in the chapter - we don't want to, we are not able to, we don't need to. What other reasons do you give or can you think of?
A5: They are not available, it will take too long to get them up to speed, they will be negative, they always go off at a tangent, they are not like us, they do not approach things like we do, they do not think like us.

Q6: Three reasons for us needing to work with other people are listed in the chapter - we worry that we cannot avoid or defeat them, they have some skill or resource we need, we believe it is wrong to exclude them. What other reasons do you give or can you think of?
A6: We will get a better solution / outcome, this will help change the culture, this will help my personal development, we need different perspectives and approaches, this will help their personal development, this is a wider team goal/objective.

My Notes From The Book

urge to form partnerships, link up in collaborative arrangements perhaps oldest, strongest, most fundamental force in nature, no solitary, free-living creatures; every form of life dependent on other forms (Lewis Thomas)

collab is often imperative, usually a challenge

the more we need it, the more difficult we find it

"I could never work with those people!"

example from author of assignment where his clients ganged up on him saying he was doing a bad job, in response he wanted to quit the assignment and wanted the clients to disappear

The Enemyfying Syndrome

but in the example, he know he had to work with others, the project was important to him

others including those he did not like, trust or agree with

slipped into thinking of them as enemies

enemyfying: thinking and acting as if the people we are working with are enemies

differerent words for this in different contexts:-

• others
• rivals
• competitors
• opponents
• adversaries
• enemies

the enemies are always the others

we use the words sometimes thoughtfully or casually or habitually

"those" people

we see this all around us

enemyfying, vilifying & demonising pervade political discourse the world over and also at work and at home

I do this a lot - tell stories about how others are messing things up - often partially but not fully true or fair

seductive as implies we are OK and not responsible for the issues we are facing

this is a way to understand and deal with real differences - black and white

usually obscures rather than clarifies the challenges we face

what it does:-

1. amplifies conflicts
2. narrows the space for problem solving and creativity
3. distracts us, with unrealisable dreams of decisive victory, from the real work we need to do

The Central Challenge of Collaboration

enemyfying is at jeart of collab challenge

the more imp the issue and different the views, the more necessary and difficut the collab

challenge crystallised in 2 divtionary definitions of collaab:-

1. to work jointly with
2. co-operate traitorously with the enemy

the challenge is that to make progress we need to work with others but to avoid treachery we must not work with them

challenge becoming more acute - people more free and individualistic so more diverse, with more voice and less deference

volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity are growing

increasingly can ony get things done on our own or with friends

but more and more need to work with others to get things done and we find it more and more difficult

we must find a way to collab more effectively

what do we mean when we say we can't work with those people?

• we don't want to
• we are not able to
• we don't need to

fine if we can get things done that way but what if we need to work with those others?

1. we worry that we cannot avoid or defeat them
2. they have some skill or resource we need
3. we believe it is wrong to exclude them

how can we succeed?

2: Collaboration is not the only option

Book Club Questions

Q1: What is your immediate response to the 4 ways of dealing with a problematic situation - collaborating, forcing, adapting, exiting?

A1: Or of dealing with any situation ... These 4 would appear to be a comprehensive set of responses to such situations and a good list of 4 to categorise at a high level the kinds of responses we have available to us. Good too that they are pretty stark with forcing and existing sounding suitably negative!

Q2: Comment on the pairs of questions and your response to where the answers lead in your mind.

can we change the situation? Yes

can we effect this change unilaterally? Yes

Force (unilateral)

Viewed more positively, all such situations are opportunities to work with others and develop others to help them grow and you are in a good place to do that with these 2 answers!

can we change the situation? Yes

can we effect this change unilaterally? No

Collaborate (multilateral)

Viewed negatively, we have to do this as we do not have the power to achieve this ourselves. In this scenario we have the capability to be a part of the solution and we cannot do this on our own.

can we change the situation? No

can we bear this situation as it is? No

Exit (unilateral)

This smacks of abdication and flee-ing per fight or flee response. This may be an appropriate option but in real life situations I would want to assess and determine what ideally I would want to happen for the greater good of the organisation(s) and the sitiuation.

can we change the situation? No

can we bear this situation as it is? Yes

Adapt  (unilateral)

"Bear" is such a negative word. We should be thriving not bearing. If "bear" means no impact then fine but I would tend to suspect that this is not the case and that we need to do something to influence the situation, again for the greater good,

Q3: Think of some recent examples, when have you had to make decisions on whether to collaborate or not. How did you make your decision?

A3: Lots of the work I am doing in my current Working Out Loud Circle could be done with others. I could work with others more in my project and service management roles. In most cases I have to collaborate as I do not have the technical skills to do the work on the projects and service issues that I need to do.

Q4: Give some pros and cons of each option.

A4: 

1. collaborate:-
1. pros:-
1. the best answer
2. develops people
3. better answer
4. more commitment to the solution
5. most positive response   
2. cons:- 
1. takes longer
2. harder to do
3. competing priorities
4. competing requirements
2. force:-
1. pros:-
1. gets the job done rapidly
2. progress in the short term
2. cons:- 
1. causes grudges in the short and longer term
2. breakdown of trust
3. makes it harder to collaborate next term
4. becomes harder to work together on normal day job activities
3. adapt:-
1. pros:-  
1. can make progress
2. demonstrating flexibility
2. cons:- 
1. may not be best answer for the organisation
2. not an influential part of the solution
3. reactive not proactive
4. exit:-
1. pros:- 
1. no work to do
2. easier life
3. avoids conflict
2. cons:- 
1. may be completely the wrong answer
2. does not help the solution and may make it worse
3. may be satisfactory in short term but stores up issues that may get larger and more intractable in the long term

Q5: What went through your mind when looking at these options through the lens of power?

A5: Helpful lens. Need to use power appropriately and objectively for the greater good of the organisation. Some are positive and some are negative. Made me think about my own power and how much I have or do not have and if I use the power that I do have wisely. I can be guilty of conflict avoidance and delaying progress as a result. Defo want to be the kind of person who uses power wisely and positively and constructively.

Q6: How do you approach asking people to collaborate with you?

A6: By asking, by being positive, selling the benefits, explaining my position and what have I done to date, how they can help and what we both get out of it, empathising with their situation as far as I know it.

Q7: Describe whether or not you are a natural collaborator.

A7: Still quite rare that I collaborate with others as equal partners on a shared deliverable. I am actively looking to collaborate more in work and outside of work. I am currently the only person who does exactly what I do in my organisation.

My Notes From The Book

reference to The Art of War - conflict is inevitable but we can achieve our objectives without adding to the conflict, conflict rarely reaches the level of war

can't work out how to collaborate until understand when to collaborate

collab is but 1 of 4 ways to approach problematic situations and not always the best option

The Way Forward Is Unclear

example: child not keeping up with mortgage payments, how sort? 

typical: things not going as we want them, people not doing what we want them to do, several options, should we try to collab

"The Miraculous Option is That We Work Things Through Together"

author's intro to collab while doing scenario planning at Shell, South Africans decided to use scenarios for working to end apartheid and move to democracy, author provided method guidance - Mont Fleur Scenario Exercise (report; videos).

experience of doing that overturned the author's thinking about what was possible in the world and his own life

from that work - practical option & miraculous option - collaborating led to the latter option

quit job and moved to South Africa!

productive content output from then on via his lessons learned

Sustainable Food Lab work: reasons for some organisations not participating:-

1. prefer to work on sustainability for competitive advantage
2. wait to build up power to take part as equals
3. govt group wanted to be independent to avoid accusation of bias

these and more personal experiences led author to think his inability to work out his ordinary conflicts meant he was a fraud in guiding others to work out their extraordinary ones

There Are Three Alternatives To Collaboration

work in Thailand, concerns of civil war starting in 2013, output were 3 options:-

1. We Adapt
2. We Force
3. We Collaborate

led to Collaborate We Can movement, political events overtook this, led to variants of all 3 happening

ongoing discussions led author to archetypal framework for options available to Thais and all of us in dealing with challenging situations

Collaboration Must Be A Choice

4 responses to challenging situations in personal and organisational lives:-

1. collaborating
2. forcing
3. adapting
4. exiting

Four Ways To Deal With A Problematic Situation

can we change the situation? Yes

can we effect this change unilaterally? Yes

Force (unilateral)

can we change the situation? Yes

can we effect this change unilaterally? No

Collaborate (multilateral)

can we change the situation? No

can we bear this situation as it is? No

Exit (unilateral)

can we change the situation? No

can we bear this situation as it is? Yes

Adapt (unilateral)

we have to decide in each situation whether or not to collaborate - making the decision rationally, intuitively or habitually

we must have a clear understanding of opportunities and risks of each option

collaboration may help us find a more effective way forward and have a larger and more sustained impact on our situation

but may:-

1. produce too little or too slowly
2. lead to our compromising too much
3. lead us to be co-opted and beytraying what matters most to us

forcing is how many people operate habitually and naturally

adapting may help or not help us moving forward

exit through divorcing, quitting, walking away

typical cycle for authort with business partners:-

1. try adapting 
2. try collaborating
3. on to conflict when it was not working
4. try forcing

view these 4 choices through lens of power - we only choose to collaborate when it is best way to achieve our objectives i.e. when unilateral options of adapting and exiting are unpalatable and unilateral option of forcing is impossible

- we adapt or exit when others have more power so they can force the situation

- we force when we are more powerful

- we collaborate when balance of power is evenly matched and neither party can impose their will

takes 2 parties to decide to collaborate - the other party weighs up the situation like we do

we can sell collaboration by making things more attractive or less

we may decide to collaborate because of situation or due to our preference to be in collaboration, community and communion with others

not our only option so need to think clearheadedly about what option to choose

when we choose collaboration, next step is how do we do this successfully

3: Conventional, Constricted Collaboration is Becoming Obsolete

Book Club Questions

Q1: Say something about how you have been exposed to controlled collaboration. What did you learn?
A1: It is rare for me in a work situation to be able to pick and choose who I collaborate with. Most parties are fixed and people assignments are usually based on skills and availability. Reminded of a mentoring situation earlier in my career where we were simply assigned a senior manager with no discussion about "fit" unless there were massive issues later. I continue to want to explore collaborating with people more to do real things of benefit both inside and outside my paid employment life.

Q2: Do you think it is possible to address all stakeholder interests when an organisation is going through massive business transformation? Why? Why not?

A2: I believe this to be a real challenge. In some cases I have seen top down business transformation work amazingly well - e.g. Managing Extraordinary Customer Service programme in a UK utility transitioning from a monopoly supplier to full competition in the late 1990s. Amazing content, pre-session work, post-session work with each person/ team able to apply that to their own situation with internal and/or external supplier.
The challenge for me here is to identify a representative cross sample of all stakeholders and ensure that individual work is also undertaken for personal change to be desired and encouraged.

Q3: Where do you stand with regard to single, one best solution to a problem or opportunity however great or small?

A3: Depends on the nature of the problem or opportunity in terms of clarity of definition and the likely number of discrete solution. In IT land, we look to understand the business requirement and deliver to that requirement. There are usually multiple ways of delivering a solution.
I am increasingly taken with the idea of not having a clear end point when we start something so is not like GPS where you punch in a destination and off you are led. Rather, wayfinding where we take a first step and a next step where you just need to know where you are and where you want to go next.

Q4: "People do not dislike change, they dislike being changed". Discuss.
A4: I personally definitely prefer being involved in change efforts that impact me or even more generally. I love understanding business and change drivers and devising solutions to meet those drivers.

Q5: Summarise the author's original approach to conventional collaboration.

A5: The author describes a top-down approach ideally involving a team of experts, often external to the organisation who do some consultation with influential people in the organisation. That small group then agree a strategy and tactics to implement and then go forth and implement with the bulk of the organisation being led by the nose into that future.

Q6: What is your understanding of "wicked" problems? (feel free to search for a definition onlinel)

A6: "A wicked problem is a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. It refers to an idea or problem that can not be fixed, where there is no single solution to the problem." (Wikipedia definition)

Q7: Give 1 or more examples of "wicked" problems that you are experiencing including some rationale as to why they are "wicked".

A7: I suspect that most of the problems I could consider as "wicked" are not. Rather it is the people issues around defining and solving them that are the issue.

This is reminding me of "gravity problems" in Burnett and Evans' Designing Your Life. These are things that you cannot action as you have zero influence on them.

Q8: Was the picture of a group of blindfolded people individually describing the elephant helpful or unhelpful?

A8: Very helpful. A powerful reminder that each person in a "room" will have their own unique perspective and we would do well to understand each one when defining a problem or opportunity.

Q9: The author contends and concudes that conventional collaboration is obsolete. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
A9: Agreeing with the author that this approach is obsolete generally but remains an approach in very limited situations where the objective and solution is clear. I say that it would be shortsighted to use this approach and miss the opportunity of being more collaborative in a learning way to further develop people.

My Notes From The Book

our most common collaborating default mode is controlled - but in most complex + contentious contexts does not work

Constriction prevents movement

story of parents helping son/wife with mortgage payments for last time - son can't change so issue will recur, son tells wife parents treating him like a child, parents feel taken advantage of and disappointed - all retreat

Change management assumes control

story of a failed transformation - typical mistakes:-

1. all project convos focused on interests of org as a whole + not on different groups / individuals - all of whom would be impacted by the change - not just one whole to be optimised
2. CEO/consultants pushed single statement of problem, solution + plan - but situation too complex for "one" - 
1. need to co-create new options as work proceeded
2. they thought change mgt ment getting other people to change their values, thinking + actions - 
3. hierarchical assumption that higher people change lower people, makes everyone defensive - 
4. people do not dislike change, they dislike being changed
5. everyone needs to be open to learning + changing

"There is only one right answer"

all my training was to be an expert problem solver

then 1st heard "don't let the best be the enemy of the good" - surprised that there might be more than 1 correct answer

lots of assignments then to figure out optimim policy response

feedback that I was intelligent but arrogant

worked for Shell with scenario planning

basic steps on the back of my training:-

1. smart people think through problem + solution and then plan to execute
2. get the people in authority to agree the plan
3. authorities instruct people to execute the plan

The limitations of conventional collaboration

tried to make the 3-step model in collaborations and it did not work

what was successful was figuring out what to do as we went along

the model does not work in complex + conflictual situations

issue is that we are dealing wth "wicked" problems not "tame" problems

no such thing as optimal solution etc

difficulty starts when think there is 1 right answer - does not leave room for other people' answers + so makes it more difficult to work together

issue with work in Thailand was each party starting input with "the truth of this situation is ..."

= a typical starting point in attempting to collaborate in complex + contentious situations

each party thinks they are right, innocent, people need to listen to them vs wrong, guilty etc 

a recipe not for generative collaboration but for degenerative imposition

we hold on to being right to protect our sense of who we are

not just fail but being a failure

typical starting point in collaboration is parties not agreeing on solution or what the problem is

cf example of blind people and an elephant with each person describing their bit to construct a full picture

but a single agreed model often not possible

people's values are not universal and not always harmonious with each other

beware search for a single overarching ideal - invariably leads to coercion, then destruction, then blood

collaborating cannot + must not require agreeing on single truth, answer, solution - but actually involves finding a way to move forward together in the absence of or beyond such agreements

so conventional approach to collaboration that I learned in 1st part of my career is of limited use

complexity is increasing, control decreasing so all becoming harder

conventional collaboration therefore becoming obsolete

just because conventional collaboration is familar and comfortable does not mean it works in all situations .... it does not work! it increases enemyfying + makes our situation even less workable

conventional collaboration only works in simple, controlled situations

==========

4: Unconventional Stretch Collaboration is Becoming Essential

Book Club Questions

Q1: The author starts by saying that stretching creates flexibility and discomfort. What comes to mind reading this in your everyday working life?
A1: I invariably try to flex my approach to working with others where this is appropriate to getting the job done. In fact, I could be criticised for doing that too much and not being more forceful in how I prefer to get things done. I have mellowed over the years and become more people-orientated over the years on the people/task orientation spectrum with an ongoing desire to get things done. Re discomfort, I am aware that I have a strong desire to remain in my comfort zone but aware increasingly that I need to get out of that to learn more deeply and faster. I am also way more spontaneous about doing new things that at any time in my life to date.

Q2: What did you take away from the updated approach in the parents and son example?
A2: This is as per the elephant example in the last chapter. It is important to hear and understand each person/group's take on a situation including how they are feeling about the situation. As leaders it is very shortsighted to assume we know what everyone thinks about a situation. This may mean that we completely miss the point and waste a lot of time and resources addressing the wrong things in the situation we find ourselves.

Q3: What encourages you about Destino Colombia?
A3: That there is hope for progress and resolution in the most scary situations where life and death even is at stake. That listening and taking risks can bring great rewards. That if this can happen in such extreme situations, we can be hopeful that this strategy can work in our own less extreme situations. Am I big enough to listen to other people's views on subjects where I know we have polar opposite views on subjects that are core to who we are as individuals.

Q4: How do you feel about situations where multiple stakeholders cannot agree on the problem or the solution?
A4: Good to get everyone's views expressed and heard so no assumptions are being made. Once all these are aired then at least no one can say they are not aware of the different and opposing views. The process from there then becomes critical in terms of making progress and moving forward or staying in the quagmire. 

Q5: As we start to look in more detail at stretch collaboration, what blockers do you see in your own situations to adopting stretch collaboration?
A5: The main one in my eyes is the relative power of the people involved and the degree to which they are prepared to listen to opposing view. If one dominant person or group aways gets their way in terms or process, roles, deliverables, approaches etc and ignores opposing views then collaboration will be non-existent or will be begrudging rather than enthusiastic. This may also slow down the pace of change in the team and beyond.

Q6: What immediately comes to mind as responses to these blockers?
A6: The challenge of changing that. But knowing that such situations may be ideal for employing stretching collaboration to bring about changes that would benefit all stakeholders, team members etc.

My Notes From The Book

for most people this is unfamiliar + uncomfortable

Stretching creates flexibility + discomfort

back to parents with son having difficulty with mortgage payments - they openly share their differences + how they feel about the situation - all feel better for being understood - realise they do not have the same view of the problem or the solution - agree an action plan - anger lessened - now dealing with the pressures thoughtfully and as a family

summary of their situation:-

1. they felt uncomfortable stretching
2. opening up to greater conflict + more genuine connection
3. unfamiliar new actions that may not work
4. accepting their own roles in and resps for what is happening
5. hopeful that this approach will work better

How to end a civil war

we need to employ an unconventional approach to collaboration

experience in South Africa taught me how but only after reflection during a project in Colombia - Destino Colombia - group included guerrillas and people in prison - an assassination of participants was called off - deep convos  4 scenarios that mapped to the 4 approaches to collaboration

the bar for making progress on complex challenges is not as high as most people think, we do not need to agree on the problem or the solution

the 4 approaches help you make sense of your situations

Santos won Nobel Peace Prize, ref-ed Destino Colombia as instrumental to this success - it is possible for people who hold contradictory positions to find ways to work together

ended a 52 year civil war

exemplifies the stretch approach to collaboration:-

1. team members were not simply trying to solve 1 problem or to optmise 1 overarching good - they agreed only that the situation was problematic, and viewed it as such in different respects & for different reasons - collaborated without a single focus/goal
2. did not agree on a plan for what should be done in the country - collaborated without having a single vision or roadmap
3. each participant had strong views re what should happen but did not have the power to compel anyone - the team collaborated without being able to change what others were doing

Stretch collaboration abandons the illusion of control

stretch collaboration needs us to stretch in 3 ways, each includes and goes beyond conventional collaboration:-

1. how we relate to the people with whom we are collaborating - our team
   - re the 4 approaches - for the question, can we control this change?
   Yes - conventional collaboration
   No - stretch collaboration
2. how we advance the work of the team
   we cannot agree a single goal and solution, rather we go one step at a time
3. how we participate - what role we play - in the situation we are trying to address
   - conventional means getting other people to change what they are doing, seeing ourselves as outside of or above the situation

5: The First Stretch is to Embrace Conflict and Connection

Book Club Questions

Q1: The chapter talks about working with our conflicts as well as our connections and of fighting as well as talking. Discuss.
A1: There are people I interact with where conflict or connection is the norm. With other people connection is the norm. In some cases the type of work I am doing is the differentiating factor. This is reminding me of some of the self-reflection work I have done re inner critic/voice and mojo boosters and depleters.

Q2: Silence was mentioned as a pivotal point in dialogue in one example of the author's work. How are you with silence?
A2: Slence is powerful. I am better as I get older of not always wanting to fill silences. I have experienced where silence as led the other person or the other people to explore a subject or an issue in greater detail than would otherwise have been the case. Silence for me also includes me shutting up and letting other people speak regardless of how long that is even if it means I do not input my point of view. I used to want to share air time equally. I am learning the value of understanding other people more than my need to be heard all the time.

Q3: Having read this chapter, define your understanding of engaging and asserting.
A3: Engaging for me is all about connecting, hearing the other person/people/party to fully understamd their point of view. Asserting is about me expressing my point of view, what I want and need and why so there is complete clarity of what that is.

Q4: Define your understanding of "holons" and social systems.
A4: This was a new term to me. I love it. We are all part of various groups and each group has its own approaches, ways of thinking, working, culture etc. Lots of these overlap. Understanding them all would make organisations more efficient and effective. Reminds me of the process of designing teams/channels/groups when implementing collaboration platforms. For the book, this term is central as it means that there is never a single goal/objective as each holon has their own.

Q5: Power and love is another theme in the chapter. What is your understanding of these two approaches? Where do you stand between these two poles?
A5: Power is all about getting our own way, getting our needs met, maximising the benefit to us, being speedy. Love is all about inclusion, getting consensus, seeking to meet everyone's objectives once they are understood, getting people on the same page and working to common goals.

Q6: How does the book describe operating with love and power?
A6: I found this really helpful. Understanding and being more aware of where we are on the poles of love and power and when we are too far at one end to realise that and come back the other way to get the balance right and in so doing getting a "better" solution/answer/way forward. The words used in the cycle are not positive or ghelpful words - capitulating, manipulating, resisting, imnposing

Q7: What is challenging you in this chapter? What is your response?

A7: It is giving me a languge and approach to better understand what is going on in inter-personal and inter-group dynamica. I need to be more aware of what is going on in my mind and heart as I operate so I can respond more effectively.

My Notes from the Book

when in complex, unconttrolled situations where our perspectives & interests are at odds, we need to search out + work with our conflicts as well as our connections

need to fight as well as talk

Dialogue is not enough

Guatemala experience - ended genocidal civil war 36 years

pivotal event: one participant in circle explaining each one's personal experience of the war, exhumation of mass grave included pregnant women, thought bones were broken but foetuses - led to silence in room for 5 mins, a silnence like never experienced before

years later often quoted by many involved, the silence was a turning point

one said was like communion

connecting with others + through this revealing + repairing the social whole was the key to collaboration

10 years later in that country, problems again

5 years later three experiences that showed me how to resolve this tension

1: challenged someone's demand that another person agree to his starting point assumptions but came to realise that engaging + asserting are complementary not opposing ways to make progress on complex challenges

different kinds of asserting are part of every story of systemic change

asserting + counter-asserting inevitably create discord & conflict

I thought one group could do asserting while others did the engaging

Mandela's death & obituaries

reminded that Madela had done both engaging / dialogue as well as illegal demonstrations etc

realised that Mandela knew how / when to assert and how / when to engage

I started wondering whether these 2 could really as I had been hoping be kept separate

then Thailand army coup - my view of the 2 positions - understood limitations / dangers of military government but could also understand junta's impulse to impose orderly / peaceful collaboration; they were suppressing asserting to enable engaging

in stretch collaboration we cannot only engage and not assert - we need to find a way to do both

There is more than one whole

one consequence of this imperative is that prioritising the good of the whole (e.g. team, org, community) is neither sensible nor legitimate

the term "holon" (Arthur Koestler) - whole and a part at same time - each whole has its own needs, interests & ambitions - each whole can be part of multiple larger wholes

no such thing as "the whole" so cannot prioritise its needs and if you claim to you are misleading if not manipulative - actually means the good of the whole that matters to us

in stretch collaboration, we therefore look not only to the good of the single whole but also to multiple nested / overlapping holons + the richness / conflict that this inevitably reveals

The holonic structure of social systems

I have historically focused on objectives of the "team" as a single whole - this would only have been identical for me and not those involved directly in the issue

moved back to Canada, saw my country with fresh eyes

for 150th anniversary of Canada , interviewed 50 Canadian leaders asking what would it take for Canada to have a successful future -  at the time in Canada and elsewhere disturbing dialogue re place of Muslims in western society - some things that were said in the interviews:-

1. people emphasise differences rather than things in common
2. we remember negatives more than positives
3. easier voting against rather than for something
4. we are more aware of our differences
5. we have experienced demographic movements that in past were unheard of
6. for individual, humility may be top virtue, for society may be pluralism

Canadian culture values pluralism

crucial value of a culture of pluralism to being able to live and work with contradictory and confounding wholes

Every holon has 2 drives

key to working with multiple wholes is being able to work with both power and love

power: the drive of everything living to realise itself, manifested in behaviour of asserting - in groups produces differentiation and individuation (parts operating separately from one another)

love: the drive towards the unity of the separated, manifested in behaviour of engaging, in groups produces homogenisation (sharing of info + capability) and integration (parts connecting into a whole)

my thesis is that every person + group has both these drives - always a mistake to only use one

MLK - power without love is reckless / abusive ... love without power is sentimental / anaemic

love: part of other wholes

power: reflects holon's wholeness

being able to work with both love + power is pre-req to working with multiple wholes

as leaders / managers of people need to reconcile drive to self-realisation of individual team members with need to unite the team to achieve its collective self-realisation

Alternate power and love

psychologist Rober Johnson - mapping of relationship between poles such as power and love - distinguish between problems that can either be solved or managed - like inhaling + exhaling - can't have one and not the other not at same time but alternately

if healthy, this is automatic

I failed with a harmony-only collaboration

when we collaborate we exercise love + power alternately:-

1. we engage with others
2. continue / intensify our engagement leads to others having uncomfy feeling of fusing / capitulating, of having to subordinate or compromise what matters to them to maintain the engagement
3. this is a signal that they need to switch to asserting or pushing for what matters to them
4. then as they do produces in us desire to push back / resist
5. which then leads us to return to engaging

rings true because we realise that if we continue resisting etc, we will become extreme + defeat / crush the other party

only asserting produces war / death

this risk = why important to notice feeling of resistance that signals asserting going too far + that engaging is now required

engaging when it is needed prevents asserting from becoming degenerative

Managing the polarity of love and power

the poles of love and power:-

1. love:-
1. generative side of this pole - engaging
2. the reaction that signals the edge - capitulating
3. degnerative side of this pole -manipulating
2. power:-
1. generative side of this pole - asserting
2. the reaction that signals the edge - resisting
3. degnerative side of this pole - imnposing

extreme - only employing engaging leads to suffocation - lifelessness through imposed peace

corruption begins not in power but in the ignorance about it

conventional collaboration focuses on engaging - does not make room for asserting, so becomes ossified + brittle

stretch collaboration cycles generatively between engaging + asserting enabling any level of social system to evolve to higher levels

most people more comfortable with either pole

in low-stress contexts people can fluctuate but in high-stress contexts (with opponents / enemies, they default to, get stuck in comfort zone 

may use one at home and the other at work, often couples are 1 of each

stretch collaboration requires all of us to embrace both love and power

if we weaken our stronger pole or outsource our weaker pole, we will not be successful in collaborating in tough contexts

so we need to do the opposite - practice employing our weaker pole, thereby strengthening it

we need to stretch

key to alternating is to know when to employ each to keep it generative and not degenerative

requires paying attention to feedback that signals imbalance to then make the corresponding rebalancing move

key not to make static imbalance but to notice + correct dynamic imbalance

need to be alert + courageous to change behaviour

so the essential practice required for embracing conflict + connection is to attend to how we are employing love and power

we must keep employing both

6: The Second Stretch is to Experiment a Way Forward

Book Club Questions

Q1: "Walker, there is no path. The path is made by walking." (Antonio Machado). What are your responses to this quote?

A1: More of a path person than a going off-piste person. Good when signposts are helpful. But do like solitude and going where there are no people - not all the time! Learning more to be more adventurous and searching for things on a journey. I am aware that I love to trailblaze and leave a path for others to explore, enjoy and further develop.

Q2: How does this chapter challenge how you get things done and may be, specifically, for projects? 

A2: I am a Type A project manager so Covey's "Begin with the end in mind" is a bit of a mantra of mine. I spend a lot of my working life defining a future position and then planning and implementing how to get from here to there. This is also part of traditional leadership thinking. I am understanding more the value of wayfinding rather than just defining B and how to get there fast.

Q3: Would you say that a majority of the things that you do fit into the plannable to the n-th degree category? Give some explanation.

A3: As a services supplier we often get solution requests to do A, B and C. We then understand that requirement and deliver a solution for the client. We prefer to understand the client's problem or opportunity and help them wayfind from now to their preferred solution. Often people do not allow us to wayfind rather they expect us to state the target up-front.

Q4: Describe your map-reading skills, how you get from A to B, are you a GPS user with a destination in mind or a wayfinder, soneone who just starts a journey in a direction in the first instance.

A4: One of my best school assignment marks was for Ordnance Survey grid references. I love a map to help me get from A to B. Not too good in open countryside though - experience of map reading in the army cadets at school (1973-1980). Love how maps are models representing reality. This is similar to the data and process models I use at work o define the as-is and to-be business processes and data. Big user of sat nav/GPS in the car. Mindblown at how accurate journey times and alternative routes are. I like reading about maps.

Q5: A gardening analogy was used in the chapter. How helpful was that for you?

A5: This is an analogy that I love and use myself. This for me is all about giving people the best environment you can to flourish and develop and grow. So for me e.g. this would include a supportive team, clarity of expectations and work standards, coaching, having the tools to do the job, minimising distractions, having the skills to do the job, rewards and stretching people to do their best work.

Q6: Are you an experimenter or someone who strives constantly to never fail at anything? Discuss your response.

A6: I am increasingly realising that I am a risk avoider in all sorts of ways especially in my personal life. I am getting better and realising that I need to try stuff more so that I can learn more quickly. I suspect too that I believe failure will be penalised and in most cases this may not be the case. I am aware too that inaction is often worse than not trying something!

Q7: What are the pros and cons of a deliberate strategy vs an emergent strategy?

A7: Deliberate: forces you to think about the end point and define it before you start. This works well when you can do the work your way and under your control. Emergent better when the end point is not and cannot be clear. Wayfinding needs to be part of the plan. I am reminded of Agile at this point having some awareness of small sprints or small steps to make progress. Emergent strategy is a challenge for many of us as we like to have a fixed view of the end point and others think that not being clear at the outset smacks of "making it up as you go along".

Q8: Describe the 4 ways we can talk and listen.  Assess yourself on each one.

A8: 

(1) downloading (the truth is ...)

Me telling it the way I see it

More than happy to do this. I am a thinker and a reflector so this comes naturally. But I can do this so objectively, I often do not speak for myself as assertively as I should.

I do not just listen to things that confirm my view. I am always after the most effective solution. I find it easy to detatch and see things objectively even when that means criticising myself. I believe I do see multiple wholes and teams re stakeholders who all have their own objectives and perceived benefits of what we are building.

(2) debating (in my opinion ...):

Speaking about your own objectives and position and then seeing how that fits with others' views.

Again I do love a debate and moving to an agreed position while we discuss.

I do see all sides of all stories and want to understand them to make sure we have not missed anything or anyone.

(3) dialoguing (in my experience ...): 

Discussing things using your own past experience to justify your views.

Learning to be more self-reflective. Would like to think I am more empathetic than most. Defo keen to get all stakeholders on-side by understanding their respective positions, seeking common ground, identifying opportunities and thinking win-win.

(4) presencing (what I am noticing here and now is ... ):

Helping the group define the preferred future emerging from all the discussion. Seeing the problem / opportunity from each side's perspective.

Love the funnel process of wide discussion at the start and then narrowing down to an agreed "this is what we will do" position. Always on the lookout for things that will make the implementation "easier".

My Notes From The Book

"Walker, there is no path. The path is made by walking." (Antonio Machado)

conventional collaboration: move forward by agreeing the problem, solution, plan to implement the solution, executing that plan

works well when simple situations, under control, agreement of collaborators, 

in complex, uncontrolled situations, we need to experiment with different scenarios = step forward, observe what happens, repeat

We cannot control the future but we can influence it

usually I work on challenges that other people have and need help with

one example where opportunity to address a challenge I saw - drugs in Colombia & Guatemala

discovered that the same "solution" had been tried for 40 years - war on drugs, criminalising it

Santos (Colombian president) spoke out in Nov 2011

at launch of earlier book in Bogota, get together led to bringing together international leaders to explore new drug policy options

started with lots of suspicion including about our involvement

example where multiple competing objectives, differing views on how to resolve and options

learning process for me as directly involved not just facilitating

we had carefully organised the project so that team could work out its conclusions freely, transparently & democratically - text of report agreed, 4 scenarios

I experienced anger at same behaviour that I was exhibiting

I was learning to stretch towards full-strength engagement and assertion

Did not solve drug problem but did paint 4 alternative future scenarios and ways of working and by so doing opened up new possibilities for future drug policy

game me a clear picture of what it takes to infuence a situation we cannot control

situation out of control for these reasons:-

1. production/consumption of drugs by legal / illegal actors could not be controlled 
2. views / positions on drugs policy of govt / non-govt ould not be controlled
3. outputs of our collaborative process among independent project participants could not be controlled

once team gave up trying to control the situation, we were more able to make progress on dealing with it

disovered that it was not necessary to agree on problem or solution 

this realisation liberated us allowing us to progress

enabled us to proceed with experimenting fluidly with different new strategies and not one single solution

We are crossing the river by feeling for stones

in stretch collab, we co-create our way forward

we cannot know our route before we set out, we cannot predict or control it, we can only discover it along the way 

working in his way can be both exciting and unnerving

in lots of collaborations, people are taking part voluntarily meaning easy to exit

collaborators do what they want to do, you cannot force or cajole them

cf Peter Senge: leaders instigating change often like gardeners standing over plants  imploring them to grow, seed needs the potential to grow

stretch collaboration is like gardening - we can create some of conditions for a collective effort to flourish but cannot direct it to do so

the only way we know whether a plan will work is to try it

arrogant / unrealistic to assume our idea will work as planned

only sensible way to move forward is one step at a time and learn as we go

more important to act than to agree

crucial to create conditions under which participants can act freely and creatively and in doing so create a path forward

success means that they are able to get unstuck and take a next step

can be a useful discipline to create a plan but need to hold it lightly + change it when it no longer makes sense

Deng Xiaoping: we are crossing the river by feeling for stones

principle of teams feeling their way forward more than planning well-established in mgt literature

people find their way forward not necessarily because they have a good map/plan but because they begin to act and process what is happening

just need some shared sense of challenge or problematic situation they are trying to overcome

act and learn from the acting

Mintzberg: 2 ways to realise a strategy:-

1. deiberate strategy that succeeds in realising an intention
2. emergent strategy that is realised despite or in absence of an intention

few managers can do deliberate strategy

conditions that make that do-able:-

1. need precise intentions specified in detail
2. shared intentions across the organisation
3. realise them exactly as intended with stable environment

Types of Strategy

in stretch collab we we advance through processes that are primarily emergent not deliberate

we realise emergent strategies by experimenting

e.g. design-based methodologies such as rapid prototyping - articulate / test assumptions, fail early, fix errors

Creativity Requires Negative Capability

the process of experimenting is a process of creating

fiercely overcome any tendency to hold on to cherished parts at the expense of the emergence of the whole

we connected this principle with Otto Scharmer's Theory U - moving from sensing to presencing to creating

creativity means bring forth something that does not yet exist

lots of trying, assessing, going again

 lots of rework cf writing a book

as we go beware this is awful or holding on to this is great

be objective

Keats: be in negative capability: being capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries & doubts without any irritable reaching after fact and reason

1 of reasons stretch collab is so daunting = requires us to undertake experimentation with others incl oppoinents / enemies plus risk having our mistakes exposed publicly

Listen for Possibility Rather Than For Certainty

open listening is key to practice required to experiment a way forward 

enables us to discover options not yet apparent

cultivating capacity to notice afresh

key way to increase creativity of a ciollab is to open up to the listening of the collaborators

per Otto Scharmer, 4 ways to we can talk + listen determined by place from which we are operating:-

1. downloading (the truth is ...):
1. re-enacting existing realities - primacy of the whole
1. listen from within myself + my story
2. deaf to other stories
3. hear only what confirms my story
4. telling
5. only one whole
6. typical behaviour of experts, fundamentalists, dictators, people who are arrogant, angry or afraid
7. a usual starting point in collab
2. debating (in my opinion ...):
1. re-enacting existing realities - primacy of the parts
1. listening from the outside factually + objectively
2. a clash of ideas
3. some ideas and people win or lose
4. more open than downloading
5. people aware that these are their views and not the truth
3. dialoguing (in my experience ...): 
1. primacy of the parts - enacting new realities
1. listen to others as if from inside them, empathetically & objectively
2. self-reflective
3. multiple living holons - each expressing its power and love
4. presencing (what I am noticing here and now is ... ):
1. enacting new realities - primacy of the whole
1. sensing what is in the process of coming into being and being fully present
2. listening to the larger system
3. boundaries between people disappear
4. each person speaking for the whole
5. each person listening to the whole
6. a shared sense of the potential of a whole that includes / transcends our indvidual wholes

all 4 modes of talking and listening are legitimate + useful

not just one best way - move fluidly + fluently among them

7: The Third Stretch is to Step into the Game

Book Club Questions

Q1: What comes to mind when you read that the biggest stretch is moving from the sidelines into the game?

A1: I have always been more of a player on the pitch than a spectator. I could play more and offer myself up more specifically in work situations. I tend to be concerned about me over-committing time-wise but also have a tendency to view things through a lens of formal roles that people are delivering against i.e. if there is an issue that I see and I believe that it is someone's direct responsibility to sort I do not wade in with lots of suggestions to improve the situation. It is different where I am directly involved and then feel that I do need to act to sort the situation out. I was once told memorably in a coaching session that I needed to let others fail where they are not delivering to standard.

Q2: What were you challenged about in the section on changing out focus to 

what we ourselves are doing, how we are contributing to things being the way they are, what we need to do differently to change the way things are?

A2: That I do not overtly do this assessment about me specifically. I am a systems thinker so am always looking at the whole and what is going on and doing that more than personalising it re me and other people's roles in that ... until we get to understanding who needs to do what next.

Q3: What roles have you played in organisational change initiatives and did you start with you and your part in the current position that was being changed?

A3: Various roles ranging from leading to being on the receiving end of change efforts. This has been in organisations where we ourselves are changing as well as we are driving/assisting change in other organisations where we are the "supplier". I tend to be be highly objective about situations and can be very detached in my assessment of me and others. As I have read this book, I am increasingly sensing that I should start with myself when the change relates to things that I do in my various job and project roles. I am on a continual quest to always do things more effectively and ideally more efficiently.

Q4: What are your fears when you enter into collaboration with others?

A4: Not understanding or not being clear about the objectives. Thinking I will be doing most of the work. Giving and not getting anything back if I am doing a lot of the work. Being taken advantage of. Not being up to the job if it is a subject area that I am weak in. Being an unequal part. Working out how committed the other parties are. Is what I am bringing to the table useful to the objective. Not being listened to. Decisions about the end result already and therefore the collaboration is a sham.

Q5: Are you guilty of enemyfying those you collaborate with? Explain.

A5: Never thought about it in those terms but I think "yes" in some cases. This may be helpful in terms of being on top of my game so as not to be defeated. This reminds me of my active and loud inner voice. It has been helpful tracking what triggers that voice in terms of who, what situations etc to then do something about it. Also making me think of battles versus the war. I tend to be competive with a strong sense of justice about situations. This makes me reluctant to lose battles at all where others are prepared to cave in and fight another day.

Q6: What did you understand from the section about being a director or spectator of actors in a situation versus being one of the co-creators of the situation?

A6: I am usually in the role of co-creator and facilitator. Can sometimes be in the role of spectator where I am not organisationally involved. Where I see failing processes in others or where improvements could be made I often speak up to prompt improvement. Far happier co-creating as a team game. Lots of what I do as a project manager and consultant I do on my own in terms of documenting things but inputs and reviews are all with others.

Q7: Which of the "cherished identities" - expert, professional, authority, leader, hero - listed do you aspire to and do you see them as impeding collaboration with others?

A7: This reminds me of a coaching session in which the coach got me thinking about "who is Simon?" and we talked about various labels and which were positive in common parlance and which were not. I decided to answer this question by defining and assessing each in turn for me specifically.

1. expert
1. definition:
1. someone who knows what they are talking about
2. knowledgeable
3. practical experience
4. opinion is valued and sought after
2. assessment
1. can be viewed by some as negative
2. I would love to be more of an expert in some disciplines whilst retaining my love of generalism
3. re collaboration, can make it harder if the person is aloof, comes across as a "know-it-all", not prepared to work as part of a team in terms of getting their hands dirty
2. professional
1. definition:
1. does what they say will do
2. listener
3. owns / solves problems/opportunities
4. continuous development
5. gets the job done
6. develops others
7. understands organisational trends and customer drivers
8. delivers exceptional customer service
9. commitment to excellence in all they do
2. assessment
1. I aspire to this
2. this is me at my core
3. I have demanding standards of myself - probably where the inner voice/critic comes from
4. defined multiple ways - probably would get a unique definition from each person you asked - I have been heavily influenced by David Maister's book "True Professionalism"
5. I expect colleagues and friends to be professional too
6. re collaboration, ideal for collaboration, a professional always has a collaborative mindset
3. authority
1. definition:
1. a subject expert
2. not many people know more than this person about the subject
3. can apply new situations to the existing body of knowledge
4. a go-to person for information and practical application about the subject
2. assessment
1. in some things I am an authority and my opinion sought out
2. re collaboration, can suffer from the same issues as expert above
4. leader
1. definition:
1. vision caster
2. team builder
3. implementer
4. leads from the front
5. directs
6. listens to ensure best decisions are made
7. inclusive
2. assessment
1. always been interested in learning about and becoming better in my own leadership in all areas of my life
2. always keen to get things done and try new things and involve others
3. a passion of mine
4. re collaboration, all effective leaders are collaborators
5. hero
1. definition:
1. saves the day
2. gets adulation
3. troubleshooter
4. problem solver
2. assessment
1. some positive aspects in terms of fix-it but not fussed about adulation
2. re collaboration, heroes can come across as lone rangers and it all being about them so NOT helpful for collaboration
6. thought leader (added by me)
1. definition:
1. drives a subject area into new territory
2. ideally with practical experience
3. questioner
4. makes people think
5. thinks the unthinkable
6. sought after
7. not many of these in a subject area
8. thoughtful (!!) 
9. deep thinker about the subject
10. accessible content
2. assessment: 
1. reminded of my aspirations to be one
2. did some investigation about thought leadership as a subject/practice and how to develop that including definitions and practical outworking e.g. do you have to have a book that you have written, keynote conference speaker, consulting to big clients
3. I am let down by not sticking to a single subject area and going deep BUT generalism and limited specialisms is a core trait that I want to continue
4. I should probably explore this more!
5. not one for now but who would qualify as thought leaders? I should do a My Top 10 Thought Leaders list!
6. re collaboration, made me think that I am not aware of any joint thought leaders in specific subjects, thought leaders presumably would be more effective if their thought leadership is driving change on the ground but may be that does not necessitate collaboration but a simple case of others simply implementing the thought leaders' emerging and current best practice

My Notes from the Book

the biggest stretch - from the sidelines into the game

if we want to get important things done in complex situations, can't spend our time simply telling other people what to do - we have to step in

conventional - focus on trying to change what other people are doing - does not work in complex situations

change of focus to:-

1. what we ourselves are doing
2. how we are contributing to things being the way they are
3. what we need to do differently to change the way things are

means less distance / autonomy, more connection / conflict

can feel thrilling / terrifying

"They" need to change

we need to reflect more on what we need to change in us not other people

example of a major piece of work not getting agreed by stakeholders at end of gruelling process

essential to begin with yourself, start only there

beware distracting yourself from what you need to do

not focus on what others should be doing but on what I should be doing

NOT "they need to change"

blaming others is common / lazy way to avoid doing own work

most commonly asked q re collaboration is "how do I get them to ... ?"

betrays a hierarchical, black/white mindset, us vs them, friends vs enemies, heroes vs villains, good vs bad, innocent vs guilty

BUT in non-hierarchical, non-controlled, stretch collab, we cannot get anyone to do anything so need a different approach

we are not the central protaganist

we fear if we collaborate with others, we will become contaminated / compromised, that we will betray  what we stand for and who we are

Rene Girard says we create enemies as a way to avoid dealing with conflict within our communities or within ourselves 

cf scapegoating

problem with enemyfying is not that we never have enemies

any effort to effect change in the world will create discomfort, resistance, opposition 

real problem with it is that it distracts / unbalances us 

we cannot avoid those we find challenging 

so we need to focus simply on deciding, given these challenges, what we ourselves will do next

If you're not part of the problem, you can't be part of the solution

2 ways to relate to a situation

ways of seeing our relationship to and role in a given situation:-

1. director or spectator of actors in a situation - you are apart from (above or outside) it
2. you are one of the co-creators of the situation - you are a part of (within) it

cf plays where audience joins in, influences how the play goes

in stretch collab we are co-creators

in this role, we are able to make wise decisions about what to do to affect our situation only to extent we are able to blance ourselves

unbalanced: when we overlook ourselves and focus on what others, rather than ourselves,  should be doing

by looking at ourselves we livberate ourselves and give ourselves agency, we have a direct opportuity to effect change

we can get on with our own work - means that we have to see / acknowledge our own role and responsibility

need to understand our role in the problem

we are not the centre of the world

impedes collab as it distorts our understanding of the situation we are in & what we need to do + creates conflicts with the others we are discounting

self-centredness happens when we are frightened of losing our position / identity, we are afraid of being a failure

many of our most cherished identities - expert, professional, authority, leader, hero - impede collab as they place us hierarchically apart of above the others 

collab with others esp those we do not trust, like, agree with needs us to join with them, shoulder to shoulder as peers / equals

the work is yours but not the fruit thereof

do not take responsibility fort outcomes you can/could not control

Be a pig rather than a chicken

essence of 3rd stretch is assuming responsibility for the role that we ourselves are playing in the situation we are trying to change and therefore what we need to do differently for the situation to change

challenge: risk of fully engaging in the situation and so being changed/hurt by it

requires us to be willing to sacrifice some of what feels known, familiar, comfortable, safe

ham omelette: chicken is involved, pig is committed

stretch collab needs pigs

"click": when we realise we need to change

where I have been most committed is where I have had greatest impact and have taught me the most

need to attend to ourselves and notice what we are doing, how we are thinking etc

when we find ourselves distracted by others, need to come back to the simple q, what must we do next?

8: Conclusion: how to learn to stretch

Book Club Questions

Q1: Was this the ending of the book that you were expecting? How did you feel while going through this chapter?
A1: I was pleased to see this content after all the discussion, inspiring stories to earth the content and apply it. To stretch I need to put things into practice and become uncomfortable as I do so to really apply what I have learned. Good to be encouraged to reflect and buddy up with a colleague to apply this content.

Q2: What is the quality of the relationships you have with those you collaborate with? Without naming names, how many of your colleagues would be happy to be involved in working with you to expand your collaborative capability?
A2: This would be an opportunity to open up and deepen my relationships with colleagues. It is rare to discuss with them how we are working together and how we can improve ways of working. This usually only happens when there are issues to address in working processes re failures, things not working etc. I work with a significant number of people inside and outside the organisation I work for and in varying durations each week on a project-by-project or application-by-application basis. There are numbers of people online that I would like to co-create with that may open up opportunities to do this with.

Q3: How do you feel when reading that applying this content needs "unflinching self-reflectiveness in observing what you are doing and the impact you are having"?
A3: I looked up "unflinching" - "not showing fear or hesitation in the face of danger or difficulty". I am good at reflecting when prompted. I need to make self-reflection more of a habit. I am trying. My issue is mainly doing this at the end of the day when I am tired. I also struggle remembering things that have happened during the day. I do keep a daily log of what I have done but this is mainly the factual tasks that I have done. I am aware that I am not always aware of the impact that I have on people and am surprised and shocked in some cases at what I am told while discussing with a small number of individuals.

Q4: What observations do you have about the 6-week programme re format, tasks, length?
A4: Good to have focus on specific things for a week. Wondered whether there would be enough collaborative activity each week to assess for the programme. I am aware that when you have a specific focus it is amazing how many things relating to that focus that you become aware of.

Q5: Would you prefer to apply this content in a 1:1 relationship or as part of a support group? Why?
A5: Easier to get deeper 1:1. More scope for learning more as part of a group depending on the vulnerability and authenticity in the group. No real preference. Likely not to be easy to do in a group of work colleagues unless part of the development of a specific work team who work closely together.

Q6: Which of the weeks in the programme do you think is the likeliest to give you deep insights of application?
A6: As a project manager, I am intrigued by the focus of the last 2 weeks looking at project tasks differently. I am also intrigued that in a few places I was wondering how often I state what I want personally. I invariably am objective about getting the work done and not about my view on how best I would like it done.

Q7: "Your enemies can be your greatest teachers". Discuss.
A7: As always enemy is a strong word. "A person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something". In some senses, I welcome all feedback but it needs to be substantiated and then validated. Perception is interesting and it is often easy to be blindsided and not see what the other person sees. I am happy to learn from anyone and become more efficient and effective in all that I do.

Q8: Any further thoughts about the 6-week programme?
A8: Reflection every day is a challenge. It would be great if I could make this become a daily habit. I did get strong resonances with the work on habits that I have been doing over the past year.

Q9: What is your intention to do the 6-week programme?
A9: I intend monitoring myself more closely for my language and approaches when collaborating with others IRL and virtually. I will practice the use of specific opening words in a sentence and the exercise around project tasks. I need to ensure that I do actually do this as I can imagine me not doing so!

My Notes from the Book

this book is a call for more collective action and individual responsibility

increasingly in all spheres, collaboration is needed to get things done with all kinds of people per title

and to do this we need to stretch

this chapters turns the ideas into practice

the 3 shifts to stretch:-

1. embracing conflict + connection, requires you to use 2 complementary drives - power, the drive to self-realisation expressed in asserting - love, drive to reunification expressed in engaging - employed alternately not simultaneously
2. experimenting a way forward - requires you to employ dialoguing + presencing that enables new possibilities to emerge rather than only downloading + debating that reinforces status quo, means opening up your talking + esp your listening
3. stepping into the game - plunge into the action, willing to change yourself, rather than remaining outside and above it, only trying to change other people

most find these stretches unfamiliar / uncomfortable because they demand changed ingrained behaviours

the way to learn new behaviours is practice them repeatedly

was to start is try out simple new actions, pay attention to what works + what does not, adjust + repeat, build from there

the practicing requires acting with curiosity + openness cf improv

needs unflinching self-reflectiveness in observing what you are doing + impact you are having

get feedbacl from close colleagues

6 week programme to practice the 3 stretches

need:-

1. willingness to try out new actions
2. sense of humour
3. a way of taking notes
4. colleage or friend

do on own or in group

key practice is reflection - every day

becoming consciously aware of present behaviours essential to create new ones

e.g. same time, each day

Week 1 - First Stretch

Establish a baseline for your use of power and love

1. Consider all your collaborating time anywhere
   
   How much of that time is in primarily in power / asserting + secondarily in love / engaging and the reverse
   
   Which of these 2 ways of acting feels most comfy?
   
   Is this different in different contexts?
2. Ask colleague to assess you
3. Meet with colleague
   
   Share your self-assessment
   
   Listen to their assessment of you
   
   Discuss differences
   
   Take notes
   
   Agree on time to talk at end of week
4. Observe your actions + reflect + write down
    
5.  At end of week, compare notes - write down your insights
6.  Share your insights with colleague. Ask for their feedback
    

Week 2 - First Stretch

Balance your use of power and love - not by weakening your stronger drive but by strengthening your weaker one

1. List actions that expressed your weaker side, what you used less and was less comfy
2. Choose 3 of those actions to practice this week.
   
   Objective is employ & strengthen them esp when you are at risk of using stronger one
    
3. Tell colleague actions you are working on. Ask for their feedback.
    
4. Practice these 3 when working with others
   
   Each day write down reflections
5. End of week, talk with colleague, share your view. Ask for feedback
     

Week 3 - Second Stretch

Establish a baseline for how you are talking and listening

1.  Consider time spent working with others. Estimate how much time in the 4 ways of talking + listening.
   
   Downloading
   
   Debating
   
   Dialoguing
   
   Presencing
   
   Which feels most comfy? Least comfy?
   
   Differences in different settings?
2. Ask colleague for their assesment
3. Meet with colleague.
   
   Share your self-assessment
   
   Listen to their assessment
   
   Discuss differences
   
   Take notes
   
   Agree time to meet at end of week
4. For one week, pay attention to how you are talking + listening
   
   Use following words for each "type"
   
   Downloading - the truth is ...
   
   Debating - in my opinion ...
   
   Dialoguing - in my experience ...
   
   Presencing - what I am noticing here and now is ...
   
   Take daily time to reflect and write down
5. end of week compare notes with their initial assessments and write down insights
6. Talk with colleague, share your observations + insights, ask for their feedback.

Week 4 - Second Stretch

Shift your talking & listening away from downloading and debating toward dialoguing and presencing

1. For 1 week, while working with others, employ only dialoguing + presencing. Take time each day to reflect + write down
2. At end of week, talk with colleague. share your observations  insights. Ask for feedback.

Weeks 5/6 - Third Stretch

Step from the sidelines into the game

1. Think of a project that you are involved in and that seems stuck.
2. Write out descriptions of what is going on from 2 different perspectives: (1) observing from outside, what people are doing and what they need to do (2) from your participator pov, what you are doing + what you need to do for project to get unstuck etc
3. List all your actions on the project. Assess how you are doing them re from 1st perspective or 2nd perspective
4. Share your 2 lists. Ask for feedback. What do they think is clear / insightful vs what might be inaccurate or missing
5. Choose 2 actions from 1st list decide for each whether to abandon it or adapt it to strengthen your role as co-creator
6. Choose another action from 2nd list, decide how you can strengthen it to strengthen your role as co-creator
7. Over next 2 weeks, implement these 3 changes to your actions. Take time each day to reflect and write down.
8. At end of each week, review with colleague, share observations / insights. Ask for feedback

The Way Forward

As you practice and become more comfortable with these new/changed actions, try them out in more complex and conflictual situations.

You will have varying success

but you will move from unconcious incompetence to conscious incompetence to conscious competence to unconscious competence

primary obstacle is overcoming familiarity and comfort of your habitual way of working

from "it must be this way" to "it could be this way"

sacrifice your smaller, constricted self to your larger, freer one

these stretches can therefore feel both frightening and liberating

in learning to collaborate, the people you think of as your enemies can surprisingly play a helpful role

stretching needs you to move towards rather than away from different others 

you will learn the most in situations you find most difficult: when others do not do as you want them to making you pause and find a new way forward

your enemies can be your greatest teachers