Why should I be sending a streamlined version of my recent
essay titled, Generating
Virtual Synergy: Turning the Iterative
into the Creative? Why the
need to rework it? To answer these
questions, I must traverse the pragmatic to the psychological. Hopefully such (psycho)-analysis will provide
another window into the iterative process.
A concrete motivator was an editor of ORATE Speakers Bureau Website saying
they are more carefully monitoring article length. I was way over their new word ceiling, hence
the “request”: “We need you to reduce “Ten Tips” to “Five?”
The “Ten Tips” had generated some very positive feedback. I even suggested dividing “Generating Virtual
Synergy” into two parts. The editor
tactfully acknowledged this being a “wonderful idea”…but they still wanted a
leaner version.
Okay, so my ego was a bit bruised.
You know the old adage: Vanity thy name is Gorkin! Actually, my two-part counter reflected a
hard-earned understanding that major editing was not mere cosmetic surgery, a
little nip and tuck. And especially when
enamored by almost all of my ideas and examples…which of the pearls must be
grudgingly tossed back into the sea? Yes,
having to tear down and redesign one’s hand-crafted word artistry evoked a
sense of loss – parts pride and artistic control – if not some short-lived grief. (There’s a familiar voice inside: C’mon
get over it.) And adding insult to
injury…I was caught by my own recently coined maxim: Keep It
Short and Smart!
Stop Ruminating and Jump In
Not surprisingly, anticipation was worse than the actual “cut and paste”
operation. As the Ancient Roman poet and
philosopher, Horace, avowed: To begin is to be half done; dare to know –
start! The result of cutting and combining some of
the ten steps and strategies as well as casting out several
no-longer-so-precious-pearls…a more
concentrated and punchy KISS!
The trimmed down, “Five Steps and Strategies” version, was, IMHO, still
a hearty spread, full of meaty chunks of ideas, learning points, and stories. Was “Ten Tips” the equivalent of a belt-loosening
ten-course oral orgy? Ugh…anybody have some
Alka-Seltzer? If what was left out was
truly essential, I could always write another essay; with the leftovers have
another “food for thought” meal. Right
now, though, I’m feeling nicely sated!
Finally, I must recognize, with new-found humility, that the ORATE editor had extended and strengthened our iterative process and product – a sequence of operations yielding results
successively closer to a desired result.
Please tell me your take: IYHO, do
we have a more efficient and hence effective, more synergistic outcome?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Stress Doc provides key steps, skills, and
strategies for transforming a virtual problem-solving exchange into a
CRE-iterative, synergy building and product-generating process.
Generating Virtual Synergy: Turning the Iterative into the Creative
Key Steps and Strategies
Recently I met Dr.
Terence Jackson, through a Linked-In intro. Dr. J is an experienced
Corporate Culture-Organizational Development-Business Strategist and Thought
Leader. While I’m a Motivational Speaker and Stress and Change
Resilience, Anger and Conflict Management, and Team Building “Psychohumorist”
™, known as the “Stress Doc ™. While Dr. Jackson lives in North
Carolina and I'm based in Columbia, MD, we quickly began to virtually and
conceptually groove. In fact, a fiery kindling of the minds soon sparked
an “iterative process” through our dynamic exchange of emails and calls. Our back-and-forth generation of content,
suggested edits, encouragements, differences, resource links, etc., mirrored
the Miriam-Webster Dictionary definition
of iterative: a procedure in which repetition of a sequence of
operations yields results successively closer to a desired result...even, I would add, a divergent and unanticipated,
if not novel, outcome or product. In
fact, our neologistic conceptual baby/program – Organizational
Resilience & Rhythm: Achieving High Tech & Human Touch Harmony (and Profitability) – was
CRE-iterative!
The Mind- and Outcome-Expanding "Iterative"
Process: Five Key Steps and Strategies
What is it about the virtual-iterative experience that lends
itself to all manner of problem-solving and product development? If this question intrigues, get ready to
discover how iterative arenas, pathways, and processes (“app”s, if you will)
stimulate the Stress Doc’s enriched notion of “synergy”: Not
only will your product’s essence be greater than the sum of its parts…but parts
just may magically transform into partners!
Consider these five
key components of the back-and-forth electronic interplay of two individual and
idiosyncratic minds:
1.
Division of Labor yet a Common Language. From the outset, there was some role division: Dr. J was more the conceptual generator,
especially of macro- or systems-wide organizational issues, e.g.
“Organizational Rhythm.” The Stress Doc was a writer-integrator weaving
specific stress resilience-communication tools and concepts within the “big
picture” framework. One example, I added
“Resilience” to Dr. J’s “Organizational Rhythm.” To Dr. J’s emphasis on “Cultural
Accountability” I amended “Authority” and “Autonomy,” i.e., yielding The Triple “A” – Authority, Autonomy and Accountability – of Organizational Responsibility and Resilience. Our conceptual and experiential diversity,
far from dividing us, increasingly vibrated a Yin/Yang sympathy. A key factor:
we both spoke the language of “Emotional Intelligence.” A common or
complementary language means less time and energy is expended in “message sent
equals message received.” More
important, it also facilitates the intuitive connection, that is, a capacity to
quickly get the gist of what’s being expressed and/or to plumb unspoken or
shadowy depths. Such a wavelength connection also generates an ability to
listen and leap into analogical, mind-rippling, pathway-generating ideas and images
Of course, words and phrases may evoke multiple images and
meaning. When Dr. J talked “inclusion”
his primary emphasis was maximizing the diverse talent, experience, and input
among employees in the organization. In
contrast, my initial focus was more micro:
“inclusion” evoked the military phrase “helmets off,” that is, to hold a
meeting where for a period of time there is no rank in the room; “right (or at
least good reasoning) makes might,” and the Corporal gradually trusts that it’s
safe to talk candidly even with the Colonel in view.
2. Evolve and Exchange Resources and a Working
Goal. Almost immediately Dr. J and I had a sense of
the project – organizational development training/leadership retreat programs. However, what
a joint presentational system-program would look, sound, and taste like was
still a mystery. Early back and
forth through email and an initial phone call definitely generated more
questions than answers. Finally, a phone
dialogue was just the spark to grasp and grapple with Dr. J's purposeful
concepts and passionate focus. From
“jazz riff rhythm” to “cultural accountability,” concepts had give-and-take
resonance. Of course, the speed at which
information or links can be shared keeps the information sharing and idea
swaying process fast if not furious. And
when a thesis is met by a
counterpoint or antithesis…this often
disturbs the status quo…and may motivate or set the stage for a
concept-expanding synthesis. A paradoxical challenge of this process: fight
for those issues or beliefs you believe critical yet be receptive to
contradictory or challenging ideas; be willing to let go, at least temporarily. (For example, a CEO once underscored his enigmatic
learning-performance mantra: Strive high and embrace failure!) Conceding
a battle does not mean the campaign is lost. In similar fashion, alas, establishing a beachhead does not mean the
island is conquered. Sustaining a
genuine back-and-forth, iterative process, just may determine the day!
3. Vive la
Difference! I recall a late 20th c.
problem-solving study involving submarine personnel. The most salient outcome: the
teams that had the most heterogeneous-culturally diverse groupings invariably
came up with the most creative solutions.
While quick to achieve a solution, the homogeneous process-product
tended toward the one-dimensional; agreement was reached too easily. The more diverse teams had to grapple with
difference and even conflict; they had to allow and learn from and reconcile
divergent viewpoints and the competition of ideas. While conflict-driven problem-solving
requires greater time and energy, these groups produced a more truly collaborative,
multifaceted, expansive, and effective problem-solving synthesis. As John Dewey, the 19th c.
pragmatic philosopher and “Father of American Public Education” observed:
Conflict
is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to
observation and memory. It shocks us out
of sheep-like passivity. It instigates
to invention and sets us to noting and contriving. Conflict is the sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity!
4. Allow Values-Driven Issues to Build Understanding
and Trust. In an iterative process, with two
passionate- and purpose-driven individuals, it’s vital to distinguish when
fighting for an idea is or is not critical.
It may be preferable to concede a battle to sustain iterative and
integrative give-and-take. Unless
repeatedly hitting a negotiation wall, the goal is to continue as allies in the
greater war/project effort. Retreating not only allows opportunity to lick
wounds but may facilitate toughening a “thin skin”; most important, it also
provides time and space for conceptual battle seeds to germinate in one or both
parties’ minds. I recall our exchanging
messages about the recent NY Times
report on the very demanding if not possibly corrosive workplace culture at
Amazon. It reminded me of the label for
the 24/7, 6000 person workfloor at a US Postal Service Processing &
Distribution Plant: “The Postal
Plantation.” (I had been a USPS Stress
& Violence Prevention Consultant in the ‘90s.) Perhaps Amazon was now inviting its own
sobriquet: “The High Tech Plantation!”
Dr. J had a strong reaction to my provocative cultural metaphor: “Nobody was losing their life at Amazon. Folks could leave the Amazon plantation if
they had enough.” As an African-American
he thought I was trivializing the horrific, culturally devastating, too often
mind-body and family-crushing experience of slavery.
I was taken aback by the intense rejoinder
while also questioning my own cultural sensitivity. (Upon reflection, I certainly have a visceral
reaction when believing the Jewish Holocaust of WWII is being trivialized.) Though still somewhat enamored of the
metaphoric marker, mulling over my own and my partner’s perspective, I emailed
saying that I could let go of the terminology.
In turn, Dr. J indicated that wasn’t necessary. He just wanted to affirm his
cultural-historical vantage point, a value which touched his core. In some ways, this exchange was a test of our
willingness to give and take culturally.
In addition to the outcome of my more intimate understanding, I believe
we both emerged with a greater sense of trust in both the person and the process.
5. The Lennon-McCartney Effect.
Reading a biography of Paul McCartney of the Beatles is helping to shape
my thinking on this essay. John Lennon
was often deep and dark, if not an angry and cynical hard rocker; Paul tended
to be breezier, pop-friendly, and engaging.
Yet, Paul could profoundly touch your heart with such songs as
“Yesterday” and ”Let It Be” while John could inspire with “Imagine” or “Give
Peace a Chance.” They were each other’s’
toughest critics when Paul’s lyrics were too sappy or John’s music was too
grungy. And despite their differences
there were profound commonalities: In
addition to their idiosyncratic genius and being awash in both the musical culture
of Liverpool and the African-American/Southern roots of US “Rock and Roll,”
together they developed their musical chops by the rough and tumble Hamburg,
Germany wharves. In their own way, each was
driven and ambitious, yet also possessed a sly sense of humor. Perhaps most poignantly, they both had lost
mothers during their teen years. The
bottom-line message is not that iteration requires genius, but that differences and commonalities, along with
heart- and soul-shaping life experiences, all seed and spice the creative stew. Steadily bring your full self to the give and
take. The “how to” lesson for this
CRE-iterative essay: play to your
strengths, share resources, be flexible with roles and focus, and be open to
and daring with new ideas and viewpoints.
Let conflict and criticism push your conceptual boundaries more than
your emotionally charged buttons.
Gradually build trust. Find an
inquisitive and responsive partner who will provide the Stress Doc’s TLC: Tender
Loving Criticism and Tough Loving Care.
Are you ready to find
such a partner and go back and forth for it?
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a
nationally acclaimed speaker, writer, and "Psychohumorist" ™, is a
former psychotherapist and Stress & Violence Prevention Consultant for the
US Postal Service. The Doc is a Trauma
Debriefing and Critical Incident Consultant for variety of organizations,
including the national post-earthquake, Nepali Behavioral Health & Wellness
Initiative. He has led numerous transformative -- silo-breaking and communications
bridge-building -- Pre-Deployment Stress Resilience-Humor-Team Building
Retreats for US Army Senior Officers and Sergeants. He also provides
international Stress Resilience and Burnout Recovery Phone-Skype Coaching.
The Doc is the author of Practice
Safe Stress: Healing and Laughing in the
Face of Stress, Burnout & Depression and The Four Faces of Anger:
Transforming Hostility and Rage into Assertion and Passion, and Resiliency Rap: The Wit and
Wisdom of the Stress Doc. His award-winning, USA Today
Online "HotSite" – www.stressdoc.com – was called a
"workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). Email stressdoc@aol.com for more info.
No comments:
Post a Comment