An Experimental Conversation

I’m going to propose something that may seem a little off the wall.  What if we had a conversation in the workplace that we may not have had before?  It could be kind of weird, kind of awkward at first.  It might not even work, but hear me out.

Think of it as an experiment.  I’m wondering what would happen if we tried an experiment with a different kind of conversation, just to see what happens.  There’s no risk.  If it doesn’t work, no harm done.  We can just move on and try other things.  If it does work, then we all benefit because we’ll develop a new capacity and maybe new skills to work together, and we’ll contribute to making our workplace more like we want it to be.  So it’s all up side and no down side, as far as I see it.

The experiment I’m suggesting is to discuss something non-essential in our workplace.

Why pick something non-essential?  Because we want something that’s not entirely hypothetical but doesn’t hold a significant emotional charge.  The intent is that, by picking something real, people will actually be willing to invest and engage in the conversation.  But by selecting a topic without a lot of baggage attached to it, something where the stakes are relatively low for the participants, we can use the subject as a kind of conversational practice ground.  If it’s a topic that generates a lot of heat or triggers people or where there’s a lot of polarization, people probably won’t be able to open up and practice in a productive way.

For the purposes of this post, let’s use the hypothetical issue of how we handle our workplace common areas and housekeeping-type situations (this may or may not meet the above criteria in your workplace).

Here’s the unusual part: let’s not jump right into talking about the actual substance of the issue, such as the expectations or rules, at least not yet.

Instead, let’s first discuss how we want to handle conversations about these situations.

So, rather than having a discussion along the lines of, “I think that a certain writer of blog posts should vacuum up the crumbs that fall on the floor when he’s shoving donuts in his mouth,” my proposal is to try having a conversation about how we want to handle conversations about our shared expectations and how we want to handle holding each other accountable for those expectations.

Does that sound strange?  Does it sound like a waste of time?  Does it make you uncomfortable and irritated to even think of having a conversation like this?  Are you thinking, if there’s an issue, let’s just deal with it and get on with business?  If so, that makes complete sense.  I understand that approach, and I applaud your practicality.  That is efficient—at least in the short term.

But let’s think this through together in a little more depth.  In this scenario, there are probably a variety of ways to approach just getting on with it and dealing with common area matters efficiently.

One way might be to just not deal with it directly and let things work themselves out. That has the advantage of being efficient because you spend virtually no time on the matter. This can work really well in “uniform” groups—groups where everyone pretty much shares the same expectations. The downside is that the more differences you have in the group, the more friction there will be as a result of different expectations and different behaviors. Another downside is probably the added uncertainty created when these irritations arise. There’s more uncertainty because no shared expectations have been established that can be pointed to, and there’s no agreed-upon mechanism for dealing with these differences. This uncertainty can create stress and animosity if the issues remain unresolved. And when animosity and resentment go unresolved, the environment can turn toxic, and relationships can be damaged. Let’s call this the disorganized approach.

Another way to approach it, which is probably at the opposite extreme, would be to have someone in a position of authority establish and enforce a set of rules. This approach has the advantage of clarity in terms of both the expectations and the mechanism for addressing violations. This is undoubtedly pretty common and largely unquestioned in many of our workplaces. Among the downsides, I suspect that the system doesn’t always produce the consistent accountability it seems to promise, and the experience of holding or being held accountable in that system tends to not be uplifting. Let’s call this the top-down approach.

Presenting those two extremes was obviously an oversimplification of the alternatives, but I’m not above oversimplifying to make a point. The point I want to make is that neither of those contrived-yet-not-entirely-unrealistic “efficient options” represents an ideal kind of workplace. Some of us probably lean more towards preferring one of these alternatives or the other. But I imagine that neither of those pictures is entirely consistent with our vision of what we want for our workplace.

So, if we don’t want our workplace to look like either of those alternative efficient scenarios, it might be productive for us to ask ourselves some questions as we consider how to move forward: What do we want our workplace to look like? What kind of relationships and interactions do we want to have with each other? What’s important to us? What values do we hold that might relate to those questions?

“Hey, mister! You’re tricking us into talking about shared vision! But we’re not going to fall for your silly ploy because this is just stupid, insignificant housekeeping (or some other non-essential) stuff that we don’t want to waste our time on!”

Fair enough. This is just housekeeping (or some other non-essential thing). But let me ask, how do we figure out which stuff “really” matters? More to the point, can we be a certain kind of workplace when doing our core, externally-focused work and simultaneously be a different kind of workplace when dealing with each other on internal matters?

I don’t believe we can. I don’t think people can compartmentalize that well. No group of people trying to accomplish something meaningful together can be dysfunctional (Note to reader: I’m not saying you’re dysfunctional.) in their internal operations without sacrificing effectiveness in their external operations.

That’s just to say that, while in the big picture it may not matter much whether there’s a persistent trail of donut crumbs leading to a certain blog writer’s office, it does matter whether his team has the systems and the collective and individual capacity to address crumb-gate effectively when someone sees it as a problem. It matters not because the crumbs themselves are necessarily a big deal but because being able to deal effectively with a “small thing” like that is a reflection of the overall culture and health and functionality of that group.

We need to spend time discussing the discussion because it’s not the [insert non-essential issue] that really defines and reflects the quality of our culture—that stuff is just on the surface. The question of whether and how we can go about working together to establish a set of shared expectations is a key in determining whether our workplace is the kind of place what we want it to be. Whether and how we handle this deeper conversation is the key because it will be reflected in other aspects of how we do our work together.

That was a long-winded way of saying, “Yeah, it really is worth taking some time to talk about this.”

In order to carry out this experiment, I think we’ll need to consider together a number of questions. I’ll go ahead and throw out a bunch of questions that might be helpful to consider.

As you ask yourself these questions, consider what’s most important to you and what you really want for yourself and the company and your co-workers.

  • What values do you hold that are related to this discussion?
  • It may also be valuable to consider what concerns you, namely, what do you worry about and what fears do you have in connection with this conversation?
  • What negative outcomes are you afraid of for yourself or for the organization?
  • Going back to those two alternative approaches, if we don’t want the problems of disorder or the rigidity of a top-down system, what principles do we need to keep in mind in order to approach this conversation effectively?
  • What would it look like for us to handle this conversation in a way that matches our vision for our workplace?
  • What principles do we need to keep in mind in order to approach this effectively?
  • What’s your vision for how the people in an ideal company would handle setting expectations for themselves?
  • How would it handle differences of opinion and different perspectives on such issues?
  • How would it handle holding each other accountable for those expectations?
  • What would these conversations sound like?
  • What kind of systems and structures and mechanisms would need to be in place to support this going forward?

There’s no need for everyone to answer every single question. Just have everyone pick a handful that stand out to them and share their thoughts.

Most of all, like I said, try to remember a couple things: One, remember that it’s just an experiment. Two, remember that we’re really talking about more than crumbs on the floor (or whatever non-essential issue has been chosen).

Engaging in this kind of conversational practice will likely expose thoughts that and ideas that are important elements in developing a high-quality workplace.  You may even be able to take the results from this conversation and use them as a foundation for other conversations about more important topics.

If you’ve tried this in your workplace, what came out of it? What was valuable? What worked, and what didn’t? How would you do it differently in the future?


Applying Mental Models

Let me start by saying that you’re completely right–that last article on mental models was pretty abstract.  Let’s try a different approach this time and take a crack at making the idea more concrete.  We’ll consider how mental models might actually apply to our lives and work with a few examples.

At the risk of creating some kind of Inception scenario (mental models of mental models of mental models), I want to share my own experience with the idea.  I may not be typical, and you’re an intelligent reader, so you definitely don’t need to take my word for it, but it seems like once I became familiar with the concept of mental models I started seeing the idea in a lot of materials that I was reading.

To consider how the concept can be applied, let’s check out three different sources that discuss mental models in different real life scenarios.  One example involves conflict resolution and communication, one is from research on married couples, and the last is from an expert on business innovation.

Mental Models and Crucial Conversations

Although the authors don’t use the term mental model, the books Crucial Conversations and Crucial Accountability present a framework for communication and interpersonal relationships.  Their approach is based on the principle that we can handle our interactions with others more skillfully when we learn to identify and work with the mental models we hold of other people.  This idea can also be found in a number of other works on interpersonal relationships.

These authors recognize a few key points while presenting their framework: One is that relationships are dynamic human systems.  Nothing in a relationship can ever be taken in isolation.  In that system, one party’s behavior is always influenced by and always has an effect on the other party’s behavior.  Another is that our thinking, including our beliefs, assumptions, and attitudes about the other party and about the nature of the relationship, shapes how we behave in the relationship and how we treat the other party.

The authors of Crucial Conversations present this principle of working on our mental models in a couple interesting ways.  One is the recommendation to “Start with Heart.”  This step is based on the idea that a prerequisite to handling difficult interactions well is to clarify what is most important to us in the situation.  Essentially, the recommend that we clarify our mental model regarding the purpose of the interaction.  This involves working with mental models at a fairly high level.  The authors recognize that it’s possible to approach an interaction from the standpoint that our goal is to win, to save face, to prove a point, to punish the other, or to protect ourself at all cost.  The main takeaway is that intentions are not likely to produce a positive outcome for either party when we go in with this mindset.  The problem, when we accept one of these purposes (which usually happens implicitly) as our objective, is that we will tend to behave in certain ways.  And the behaviors that we’ll use to accomplish those purposes are not the kinds of behaviors that are consistent with healthy, happy, mutually beneficial interpersonal relationships.

However, it’s often the case in these challenging interactions that we’re dealing with someone with whom we have an ongoing relationship that’s important to preserve and that we hold values that go beyond and run deeper than our initial ideas of what we want to accomplish in the interaction.  When we follow the advice to slow down and reflect on these deeper values and what we really want for ourselves, for the other person, and for the relationship, we’re able to change our mental model of the purpose of the interaction.  Clarifying and focusing our thinking in this way puts us in a mindset that enables us to look for ways to handle the interaction in a manner more likely to accomplish that purpose.  (This slowing down may also help us to see that, even though we may have always claimed to hold this purpose and intent and these values, we were not initially operating in a way that was consistent with our claims.)

The next key point in the Crucial Conversation framework relevant to mental models involves the tool called “Master My Stories.”  The story framework that the authors use is really an application of the mental model concept.  The idea of stories used in these books recognizes that (a) we observe the world and filter what we observe through the lens of our mental models; (b) this filtering is a process of interpretation that produces a story that we tell about what we observed; (c) the story we tell produces an emotional response in us; and (d) we then act on the basis of the resulting story and emotion, not on the objective nature of what was initially observed.  The authors do a wonderful job of illustrating how we can begin to recognize this process, recognize that our default stories/mental models often aren’t accurate or useful, and work with this recognition in productive ways.  They offer skills to help us investigate the situation more carefully and to tentatively test our preconceived story/mental model in order to construct a new story (a new mental model of the situation, including the other person) that is more complete, more accurate, and more conducive to having a mature, constructive conversation.

Mental Models and Marriage Research

I recently came across an article (here) about some really interesting long term research that has been done on married couples.  The key point of this article was to show the important role of kindness in the long term success of marriages.  The term mental models wasn’t used at all in the article, and I’m not aware that it’s used in the research findings, but consider this passage from the article [including the commentary I insert to heavy-handedly make my point]:

“One way to practice kindness is by being generous about your partner’s intentions [Have a mental model that assumes the other person’s good intentions as a default unless clearly proven otherwise.]. From the research of the Gottmans, we know that disasters [People with very unhappy marriages.] see negativity in their relationship even when it is not there [They have a mental model that consistently produces negative interpretations of situations that aren’t objectively negative.]. An angry wife may assume, for example, that when her husband left the toilet seat up, he was deliberately trying to annoy her [She has a mental model of her husband as a person who is inconsiderate, doesn’t respect her, and intends to cause her distress.]. But he may have just absent-mindedly forgotten to put the seat down [Her mental model of her husband may be inaccurate, but she can’t see that part of the situation.].

Or say a wife is running late to dinner (again), and the husband assumes that she doesn’t value him enough to show up to their date on time [He has experienced prior situations where she is late. Those situations have been used to construct a mental model of his wife as an inconsiderate person who doesn’t respect his time and efforts.] after he took the trouble to make a reservation and leave work early so that they could spend a romantic evening together.  But it turns out that the wife was running late because she stopped by a store to pick him up a gift for their special night out [His mental model of his wife as applied to this situation was inaccurate and incomplete.  The only objective information he had about the situation was that she was late and that she had been late in the past.  The rest, including his interpretation of the situation, the story he told about the kind of person she was and about her character and attitude and intent, was all a product of his mental model.]. Imagine her joining him for dinner, excited to deliver her gift, only to realize that he’s in a sour mood because he misinterpreted what was motivating her behavior [The problem is that his mental model, besides being objectively inaccurate and incomplete, was unhelpful because it produced in him a negative emotional state, which led to unkind behavior towards his wife, which contributed to an unnecessarily negative interaction.]. The ability to interpret your partner’s actions and intentions charitably [Having mental models that don’t automatically assume negative intent and bad character in others.] can soften the sharp edge of conflict.”

The mental models we hold even influence what we are able to see.  According to John Gottman, one of the primary researchers, “’There’s a habit of mind that the masters [people with strong, happy marriages] have, . . . which is this: they are scanning social environment for things they can appreciate and say thank you for.  They are building this culture of respect and appreciation very purposefully.  Disasters are scanning the social environment for partners’ mistakes.’”  In fact, they discovered that “[p]eople who are focused on criticizing their partners miss a whopping 50 percent of positive things their partners are doing and they see negativity when it’s not there.”  The thing that interests me the most about these statements is that research has shown that our mental models are not simply a matter of how we respond to what’s “out there” in our environment.  Our models actually influence what we are able or willing to see.  They determine what information we perceive in the world around us.  People with negative mental models can’t even see the positive things that the researchers observe in their marital interactions!

The point I draw from the article in order to support the narrow point I want to make here is this: The success of our relationships is determined largely by the behavior of the individuals in that relationship (again, relationships are dynamic systems).  By closely observing couples interacting with each other, the researchers were able to identify specific, tangible behaviors (many of which were fairly subtle but real nonetheless) and correlate those behaviors to the long term health and success of those relationships.  And those behaviors, it turns out, are the products of the individuals’ mental models.  The behaviors result from the way the individuals think about their relationship and about the other person–what they believe about the kind of person they’re with, what they assume about the other person, how they interpret the other person’s behavior, the intentions they attribute to the other person.  One key, it seems, to addressing some of the behavior that enables or precludes a healthy marriage, lies largely in the minds of the individuals.

Mental Models and Innovation

The capacity to work with mental models is also a popular idea among authors who study and write about innovation–the process of developing and implementing creative new ideas.

Richard Martin is a consultant and author who has written a lot about innovation, especially about the kind of thinking that produces innovation.  Unlike the earlier examples, Martin actually uses the term mental models in his work.  To grossly oversimplify things, the basic premise of his book The Opposable Mind is that people in a given company and in a given industry tend to see the world in a particular way.  These viewpoints collectively form a set of mental models about their world that have been validated and proven successful over time (that’s why the market exists and why the current companies are alive to operate in it the way they do).  Most people, however, tend to confuse their models of reality with reality itself and therefore tend to dismiss any information that would bring the preferred model into question as the best or only model.  This approach to the world inhibits the ability to find innovative solutions to problems.

Martin contrasts this typical stance with a skill he refers to as “integrative thinking,” which he identifies as a key to innovators’ ability to come up with new and creative solutions.  He defines integrative thinking as “[t]he ability to face constructively the tension of opposing ideas and, instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generate a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new idea that contains elements of the opposing ideas but is superior to each.”  For these kinds of thinkers, “[i]t’s not a choice of this model or that model.  They’re all wrong.”  The goal therefore becomes “to combine those multiple perspectives and enhance the quality of your mental model.”  With this approach, they tend to treat opposing models as hypotheses of how the world works, not the truth of what actually is.  This strikes me as extremely humble, extremely pragmatic, yet extremely confident and hopeful approach to life.

As we’ve discussed, we have to create mental models in order to simplify the world into something that makes sense–there’s no way around this.  Integrative thinkers, however, tend to find innovative opportunities by creating mental models that account for a bit more of the complexity that’s actually present in the world.  They typically do this by taking a larger view of what information is relevant to the issue and by being able to see more of the complexity in how cause and effect works as the various factors interact and influence each other.

These innovators are able to do all this because they have a different relationship to their mental models than most of us.  Rather than carry on with what tends to be the default approach of most people (arguing for their model and defending it against attack by others with different models), integrative thinkers actually assume that their current mental model is inaccurate and incomplete in important respects.  Because of this, they purposely seek out contrary information because they believe that they are capable of producing a more accurate and more complete (though still inaccurate and incomplete) model.

The Opposable Mind offers a number of case studies to illustrate these points.  One of the main case studies involves the origin of The Four Seasons hotel chain.  When the founder, Isadore Sharp, entered the hotel business, the people in the industry shared a mental model that the only two business model options were smallish motels or large hotels that catered to business travelers.  The problem was that the smaller motels offered a personal touch that guests enjoyed but, because of their small size and the room rates they charged, could not provide business travelers with the amenities they desired.  The large hotels, on the other hand, could provide those amenities, but their large size made them extremely impersonal, which produced a less enjoyable experience for guests.  Sharp was able to question the assumptions and beliefs about the hospitality industry that everyone else took as reality and was able to develop a new mental model of what was possible in that business.  Sharp held the apparently irreconcilable tension created by recognizing the respective advantages of the two types of hotels and did research that allowed him to understand the needs of guests in a new and unique way.  By doing this, he was able to create a new hotel business model.  The Four Seasons’ model has proven extremely successful.  According to Martin, it has been successful because it uniquely satisfies customers’ needs that the other established companies could not see or serve because their mental models blinded them to recognizing that opportunity.

How Does It Apply to Us?

When things are going well in our workplaces we can typically find examples of when we’ve been open enough to question our mental models, when we’ve experimented and come up with new ways to do things.

We may not have used the terminology of mental models.  More likely it was just changing our minds or seeing things differently or learning.  But whatever we call it, it’s the kind of thing we do when we’re at our best, when we do things like handle difficult interpersonal interactions with skill and grace and character, when we do things like build and maintain high quality relationships with our clients and customers, when we aren’t afraid to innovate, to experiment, to change and improve and grow.  It’s part of what we need to do to be successful and maintain a high quality workplace.  Perhaps developing a mental model of the way mental models work can help us do this even more skillfully and more effectively.

How do you think mental models relate to what you do and how you do it in your workplace?  Can you recognize situations when your mental model of someone affected the quality of your interactions and your relationship?  Can you think of an example of a time that you benefitted from reexamining a mental model?  Can you think of one you could benefit from reexamining now?

People Like Us

Seth Godin occasionally uses the phrase, “People like us do things like this” when talking about how people mobilize to accomplish something together.  I think the phrase can be taken in a couple ways.  It could mean that people like us to this kind of thing.  It could also mean that people like us do things in this kind of way.  It’s probably most useful to think of it in both ways.

Either way, that phrase raises some important questions that relate to the idea of a shared vision.  Approaching this vision business really is about considering certain kinds of questions.

The common line about the educational goal of law school is that it teaches you how to think.  The approach law schools use to try and teach students how to think is the Socratic method.  The Socratic method is basically the process of asking a student a question, getting a response, which produces another question, and continuing the cycle until exhaustion or the end of class.  So a key part of the this popular and long-standing approach to teaching thinking skills involves the asking of questions.

And if the creation of a vision is about certain types of questions, I would suggest that what we’re really doing is using the asking of particular questions in order to think more deeply about certain things.  It’s about asking questions to facilitate deeper thinking about what we really want and what’s really most important to us.

If Seth’s phrase is accurate and certain kinds of people actually do certain kinds of things in certain kinds of ways, I believe it would be worth giving some thought to the implications of this assertion.  The relevant questions that arise in this inquiry would seem to include: What kind of people are we at our workplace?  What kind of people do we want to be?  What kind of workplace is this  What kind of workplace do we want this to be?  How would people like this operate?

There’s no shortcut to deeper thinking.  Thinking, especially the kind that asks difficult questions for which there’s no easy answer, can be hard, time consuming work.  For this reason, asking these kinds of questions may be inefficient and may be frustrating.  But I would suggest that it is less inefficient for someone in a car to ask where we’re headed, why we’re going the direction we’re going, and whether this route will get us where we want to go than to simply ignore those inefficient questions in favor of the seemingly more efficient act of simply driving.

What are your answers to those questions?  What other questions need to be asked about your workplace?

Creative Tension – The Energy to Do the Work

There are some other ideas that are important to talk about along with shared vision and aspiration. These other ideas are important because I recognize that in the prior post about the value of talking about shared vision* I basically just asserted that vision,if approached in the right way, can be connected to and can influence what we do and how we do it.

I made that claim, but I didn’t back it up.  I didn’t actually make the connection between the abstract, academic idea and the concrete, practical world of getting stuff done.  I want to try and connect those dots because I understand that talk of vision can still seem irrelevant to the concerns of real life.

One idea that helps make this connection is something referred to as “creative tension” in The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge.

Here’s the short version:

We always want something.  When we decide that we want something at Point B and we realize that we’re at Point A, that creates a gap.  The existence of that gap creates tension.  That tension is uncomfortable.

We have a couple options when faced with the gap.  We can give up our desire for Point B and surrender to apathy.  We can deceive ourselves and try to believe that we’ve already achieved Point B.  Either of these may help reeducate tension for a time.

Alternatively, the tension can be a source of energy and creativity and motivation to help us do the work required to move towards Point B. That’s the value of creative tension.  Without explicitly articulating the aspiration for Point B, we may not have experienced the tension and may not have had the energy to do that work.

Here’s the longer version:

There’s a problem that we get into when we head down this road of aspiring towards something better.  The problem is illustrated in one of Aesop’s fables, The Fox and the Grapes.  In the fable, the fox comes walking down a road (let’s assume he’s walking on his back legs and wearing human clothes, including pants, like any respectable story book animal).  During his walk (maybe it’s a saunter) he comes across a bunch of grapes hanging from a vine over his head.  He’s hungry, and he can see that these are excellent grapes.  They’re plump and juicy and the perfect ripeness for picking.  He can imagine (in his strangely human-like fox brain with a neo cortex) how delicious they’ll taste.  They’re beyond his reach standing on the ground, so he jumps to grab the bunch . . . and misses.  He jumps again and misses again.  The grapes are father away and harder to get to than he first realized.  So he takes a few steps back, gets a running start, and jumps again.  No matter how hard he tries, the grapes are just out of reach of his little fox paws.  Eventually he tires himself out from all his jumping and gives up.  As he walks off, he tells himself that those grapes were probably sour and that he didn’t want them anyhow.

After the fox aspired to get his paws on a bunch of ripe, delicious grapes to ease his intense, gnawing hunger (he skipped breakfast), he learned that there was a gap.  There was a gap between the height of the grapes he wanted and how high his nimble yet diminutive fox legs were able to jump.

That’s the situation we find ourselves in whenever we entertain any kind of aspiration in any area of life.  The nature of an aspiration is that it’s something that we don’t now have or some quality or state that we haven’t achieved.  So in any vision or aspiration there is always a gap between the current reality and what we want.  And the presence of that gap always sucks or, as we’ll refer to it here, it creates tension.

We can picture the gap as a rubber band stretched between two poles.  One pole is our current reality–where we are right now.  The other pole is our desired end state (who we want to be, where we want to be, how we want to perform, etc.).  The farther apart the two poles are, the more the rubber band is going to be stretched, and the more tension there’s going to be in the system.

In our lives, that tension is a form of cognitive dissonance, and it’s not comfortable.  In fact, it can be intensely uncomfortable.  It can be awkward.  It can feel yucky.  It can taste like the bitterness of failure.  It actually shows up as feelings of physical discomfort and mental anxiety.  We feel uncertain and vulnerable.  It can trigger our fight or flight response and all the physiological stuff that goes along with that.

Going back to the rubber band analogy, we also need to recognize that the rubber band that’s stretched contains potential energy that wasn’t there when it was just sitting limp on the table.  The same goes for the tension in our gaps.  We call it creative tension because there’s energy and power in the gap between current reality and what we aspire to.  That energy is what helps us do what’s necessary to create what we’re shooting for.

Like the fox, in the face of the gap and the discomfort we experience when we recognize how far we are from what we want, we can give up, and we can claim that we didn’t really want that goal and that it probably wouldn’t have been that good anyhow.  We can also try to fool ourselves into thinking that we’re better than we really are.

With that in mind, it’s also helpful to look at what happens when there’s no creative tension.  Without the tension, either because we aren’t aspiring to anything different or better or because we don’t accurately understand where we are, there’s just satisfaction with the status quo.  With no motivation to change or to work for improvement, there’s stagnation.  When we abandon our aspiration, we’re left with apathy, disinterest, and disengagement.  And deceiving ourselves into thinking we’ve achieved something that we haven’t produces an off-putting smugness.

The alternative is to expect and even welcome the discomfort.  We can come to recognize that the discomfort is ok, to see it as something positive because it’s a sign of energy in the system.  And to then remember that we can use that energy as a creative force to help us do the work that will get us closer to what we want.

The fox had options.  There were ways to be creative (story book foxes are clever, after all).  He could have found a stick to knock down those grapes or found a fox ladder (that’s what anthropomorphized foxes use) or found some climbing friend (perhaps a tree sloth) or taller friend (like a bear) to help him, but he didn’t.  He couldn’t hold the tension, and he couldn’t cope with it effectively.  And he didn’t get what he wanted.

That’s why we say that it’s not what the vision is, it’s what the vision does.  If the vision is going to actually do something, we have to let it produce creative tension; we have to tolerate the discomfort of that tension; and we work with the energy in that creative tension to figure out how to get closer to what we say we want and then actually do the work.

Going back to the earlier post about shared vision, I think part of the problem with a lot of vision exercises is that they don’t actually produce much creative tension.  Or, if they do initially, then we don’t hold it and don’t use it, and it disappears.  That could be because people don’t fully understand current reality and don’t see the gap.  It could be because they don’t actually invest in wanting what they say they aspire to–maybe in reality it’s just a bunch of fancy words that we use to make us feel good about ourselves but don’t really want that badly.  Maybe we don’t believe it’s achievable.  Whatever the cause, it’s clear that there’s no creative tension in the system, so there’s no energy, so the vision doesn’t actually “do” anything, in spite of what the words say.

Does this help you make the connection between the abstract idea of vision and the concrete of daily work?  What’s your experience with creative tension?  How does that gap feel?  How do you deal with the tension?

*Again, feel free to use goal, objective, ambition, target, destination, desire, target, etc.–something reflecting a desired future state.