Directions for self management from prototyping as a team
This week, we committed to building a prototype.
But it wasn’t only a prototype that we were building. It was teamwork. The battle (within, without). The magic (sometimes only long after the battle). The myth. There are endless reasons why teamwork yields to different results each time.
But oh, it is worth the work — precisely because it wasn’t easy, and that is where the learning is needed.
Our Process- A Biased Recap
“Should we build this prototype for one user, or should we build for all of us (on the team)?”
This question— led us to two options.
- First, we thought it would be useful to identify a single user, even if they were a figurehead, so that the principles of design thinking, meeting needs, getting close feedback and making improvements can be achieved, with ease.
- However, arising from a shared belief- work has to have purpose, and purpose needs to be aligned, we also thought, that whatever the prototype process may call for — the resulting prototype should be, something for each to hold on to, that we can identify with, and are motivated by.
We answered the question and made the decision by consent, no one blocked the second option — we would own this prototype together, as users.
As a result of this decision, the team’s labour went full-out into deep listening and clarification.
Listening for ‘whys’, for our intentions, our motivations. We asked questions to clarify the vision, (who will it involve? how will we best contribute? what are its principles?). Some questions gained consensus, others gave to differences, that were given space to exist.
I believe our listening was not only for what was worded, but also for pauses and silences, to what was unsaid.
I felt a gradual stacking up of what we heard and sensed from the group discussion -stone by stone, adding to commons. But as a result, sinking (unintentionally?) into a series of decisions by consensus. This was intense and counter-intuitive to active, fast iteration, it was a bit of the purported trap of self-organised teams, the slow burn of consensus.
Although we had two prototypes lurking by the first meeting, we kept to striving for a group-arrival at a solid ‘Why’ and ‘What’. When it felt like we did, we agreed to let the emerging proposition percolate one more day, pushing team action for a prototype iteration into our second, and last meeting.
“A prototype is a practical and tested mini version, or a sashimi slice* of value.” — Better.Work.Together.
“Can we make this (work) lighter?”
This question from the team, describes what I experienced as a quandary in our team, between iteration and deliberation.
Arguably we could done more to converge faster, earlier, branched out individually into iteration mode and failed faster, maybe reserving consensus decision-making for feedback into subsequent iterations.
But we did not, and in hindsight there are many reasons why this was not the case. It could be team dynamics that necessitated this pace. Perhaps the next step of the team trajectory could be the setting up of more boundaries of the sandbox for experimentation, making the implicit explicit.
What we did was a attempt at the slow and steady process of listening and trust-building, in favor of purpose and commitment convergence.
Arguably too, the ‘lightness’ finally came through in our first group prototype, a work-in-progress invitation to a Self Management Dojo, with much breathing space for the form, structure it can offer. It is what it is, a ‘sashimi slice’ of value, but embodying our vision as Theory U says it — in a real, and small way.
Much appreciation to my team Saem, Nick E. and Jeanne for the experience, and to Jeanne for recording while listening.
Insights
This week I might not have lessons, but I have directions. Drawn from insights of larger self management group intelligence.
1. The reality of being human WITH a group.
Self-management isn’t just a new approach to business management; its a new approach to being humans in groups. We aren’t just solving for productivity and efficiency, we are solving for the fact that past ways of organizing ourselves only solved for productivity and efficiency. — Simon Mont
I have experienced working well alone in a system that does not obstruct experimentation and innovation, but there was scant support from and scaling with a team. I have also worked with a team where we better-ed each other, but in a system that drained us of stamina, and of our flourishing.
I can’t wait to turn the chapter, to experience my whole self, beyond myself.
2. Our best technology- relationships.
Processes and workflows are brittle. Interfere with any one piece, and the whole system breaks down… Relationships, on the other hand, are enduring. They are anti-fragile in that they can actually become stronger under stress. — Sarah Goff-Dupont
There is no independence in this world, only interdependence, Brother David Steindl-rast said. I need to unlearn the ways I have been conditioning myself to survive in groups, or I can go off and work alone and pretend I live alone. In as-it-is-COVID19 times, it will be a hard pretense to keep up with.
3. The point is systems change.
Systems change work isn’t about one tangible output. It’s not just about solving plastic waste, or food miles, or government corruption, or fast fashion. It’s about changing the underlying structures that enable and disable how the world can work…. the underlying structures that govern our individual potential to make decisions and shift systems. — Anthony Cabraal
In my everyday life and work, I might not be able to face off a pressing planetary challenge, or even find proven causal links of my work with people down the impact chain. But I can work on my self in relation to working with others. And that is the point.
