The Long and The Short Of It

Episode 111 - Collaboration

Transcript:

Jen: Hi, Peter.

Pete: Hello, Jennifer.

Jen: Okay, so one of my clients brought up something that was so interesting to me that I'm guilty of, in the middle of him sharing with me, saying, "Ooh, I have to record an episode about that."

Pete: [laughter] Yes. Thank you, client.

Jen: Yes, thank you. And the reason I wanted to do an episode about this idea is I feel like you and I, as a team, will have some interesting thoughts to share. So essentially, what he said was that he feels that there is a relationship between collaboration and confrontation that most people don't consider.

Pete: I'm writing it down, "Relationship between collaboration and confrontation." Wow, I am curious. And I feel like this is about to get meta. This is The Long and The Short Of It.

Jen: So to provide a little bit of context around this, what he was saying was that when people use the word "collaboration", they tend to romanticize it and assume that it's like this magical, beautiful, easy process where everything goes so well because, I mean, you're collaborators. But essentially what he was saying is, "Doesn't a great collaboration have to have moments that are confronting? Or moments of conflict, or moments of disagreement in order to be an actually viable collaboration?"

Pete: Mmm. Are we about to fight? [laughter] Is that what's happening?

Jen: [laughter] Put 'em up, put 'em up.

Pete: I'm really curious about this. And I feel inclined to do a Jen Waldman, and want to like start with the definition.

Jen: Okay.

Pete: Or maybe not a definition, but like my brain wants to understand what makes a collaboration in the first place. Because I feel like there's got to be some sort of noodle, or answer, or hint at what that looks like, and whether that relates to conflict, or confrontation.

Jen: Okay, well, I don't think I've ever in my life actually defined the word "collaboration" in my own words. Which is so interesting, because I am a collaborator.

Pete: Yeah.

Jen: Like, my best work happens in collaboration. So with someone else, I guess. Okay, now I'm feeling like the need to go to the root words. You know, "co-" meaning together, "labor" meaning work. Although I'm more drawn to "lab", meaning like something being made or tested. And I'm not sure what "-ation" is.

Pete: Me neither. Me neither.

Jen: So, there we go. But: Working together to make something. That's what I guess I think of when I talk about being collaborative. I'm making things with other people. I'm working together.

Pete: I love that definition. And I feel like the "lab" part I hadn't considered. Because, I mean, if we really like hone in on the word "lab", and if we think about collaboration as being working together in a lab like a science experiment, or something along those lines, what we know about science is they create hypotheses. They test them, they get them wrong, and then they try again. And they tweak variables, they get that wrong, and they try something else. And so I wonder in that metaphor or idea, is the getting it wrong the confrontation? Is the getting it wrong the moment of tension that could create confrontation? Hmm.

Jen: Okay, so I'm going to use us as an example here.

Pete: Yeah, please.

Jen: So in this moment, we are collaborating, but we also collaborate on other projects. And sometimes I apologize to you because I sort of steamroll a bit. Like, I have an idea and I'm so intent on it being, like, that idea that I can just like roll right over you, which is not a good thing to do. And in that moment, that is not collaborative. Because if only one person's point of view is being considered, that's not a collaboration. So, it is vital to our collaboration that we both contribute ideas and we both contribute objections.

Pete: Mmm.

Jen: Otherwise, like in my steamrolling moments, that just becomes Jen's work and then where's Pete? So the collaboration part requires that we both put something in, we mix it around, and we see what happens to it. And then what comes out on the other side is the thing that we made together.

Pete: Mm-hmm. Oh, my brain is going in so many directions, so I'm hoping this is along the same thread. But I think about...in the same way that we mentioned, or your client mentioned that we think of collaboration in this kind of utopian, beautiful world where everyone's getting along and working together and all of that, I think the same is true with the word "confrontation" in the inverse. Which is, when you hear the word "confrontation", you're like, "Oh my god, everyone hates each other, and is fighting, and no one is getting along. And it's like, horrific." But what I love about what you just said is the word "objections". Which is true within any collaboration, I think there are going to be moments where one person objects or has an objection, or the other person has an objection. And so, you talk that through. And I guess I hadn't ever considered that as a confrontation, because when I hear "confrontation", I'm like, "Woah, woah, woah, woah. Jen and I don't fight."

Jen: No. Most of the time.

Pete: Yeah. Except for that one time. So then I still go back to like, what is it that makes a really good collaboration? And we could use, again we can use ourselves as an example. We talked, actually, a little bit about this. You and I were interviewed in a podcast by two friends of ours, the In Trust podcast. (We'll pop it in the Box O' Goodies.) And they sort of talked to us about what makes a great partnership, and how do you build trust, and how does that collaboration work? And I feel like there was some elements we talked about there that might be worth unpacking a little here and sharing. One of the things that I seem to recall us talking about, because I remember it being quite a, I guess an aha moment of sorts, was part of the reason we are able to so effectively, I would say, effectively collaborate (I think we have quite an effective collaboration) is that we both feel comfortable just showing up as ourselves. We both, I guess we have a sense of belonging in the collaboration, in the partnership. We don't feel like we need to be other people. You, I think, mentioned on that episode, like you're comfortable saying pretty much anything to me. And vice versa. I don't have a, like a filter in a way, where I'm like, "I can't say that to Jen because, you know, she wouldn't care about that thing, or that's not relevant to our collaboration." So there's this fundamental sense of belonging, which is created by way of the fact that we're comfortable showing up as ourselves.

Jen: Well, that is very true about our collaboration and our relationship, and it's leading me (that's an ironic word choice), because it's leading me to the idea of leadership, and how in our work that we do together, we really co-lead the work. But I've also been a part of collaborations where there is one leader, but we're all collaborating. But ultimately, there is one person who's vision we're trying to recognize. And sometimes I've sat in that seat as a director, and as an artistic director. But sometimes I am sitting in a position to help someone else achieve their vision, and we're collaborating on what ultimately they're going to have the final decision on or the final say on, and that is a very different kind of collaboration. So I'm just sort of like interested, where does leadership fit into the process of collaborating?

Pete: Yeah. Well, I think in hearing that example, I think about leading a team, or a team of leaders. And you and I have spoken a bit about this offline before, I think, but the idea that I think about a lot around effective teams is you can think of it as like the Avengers metaphor or the X-Men kind of metaphor, where each individual has this like own unique, quirky superpower that only they possess. And the way that that team works so effectively together is they're able to show up as themselves and leverage that superpower. So if I bring it back to us, I don't have to show up and pretend to be you. And you don't have to show up and pretend to be me. We show up as ourselves and recognize that we are very different in many ways, which is a plus. And so this is why, you know, diversity, inclusion, and belonging is so important in organizations. Because having teams that are intentionally different individuals is like fundamental to innovation, to creativity, to effective collaboration, I think. So to bring it back, that I guess if you think about conflict, or if you think about confrontation, I would say that it comes about when two people have different ideas, a different perspective on how things should move forward. Which, by definition in the effective team or the effective collaboration that I just described, it should happen. You've got people from different backgrounds, different age groups, different genders, different nationalities, different races, different skill sets all coming to the table to try and collaborate. So it's like, I'm now realizing that I really agree with your client. That built into a collaboration there is going to be, there should be conflict and confrontation. I think what I need is a reframe on what "confrontation" means.

Jen: Well, okay. So to your earlier point about confrontation carrying a very negative connotation, and like a wildly aggressive and like, "This is awful," idea around it...right now, I'm just like pinging over to some feedback you and I gave to our group that's currently going through the Big Ideas Lab. And part of what we asked them to do in their collaborations this week was to be brutal in their feedback. Like, to be as specific and unemotional about telling each other what is landing and what is not. And I recognize that had that not been established as an expectation, that receiving that kind of feedback could be really, really painful and feel like confrontation. But part of what we're trying to do is actually set the rules. So now, everybody's expecting that it is in service, and we all agree that we will be brutally honest with our feedback because we're collaborating to make these things better. Rather than, "Well, because we're collaborating with each other, I'm going to withhold all this information that quite frankly, you need to hear in order to get better."

Pete: Yeah. Yeah. So I'm wondering if, do you think the difference between confrontation that would, say, be associated with really negative, visceral, attacking type language or ideas or thoughts, versus what we're saying...it feels like the element is trust that is required. Without trust, confrontation, I think, does create that really negative experience. Because you're like, "Well, hang on a minute. Who are you to challenge this idea that I have? I don't even know you. I don't trust you. I don't respect your ideas, because I know nothing about you." So I feel like in an effective collaboration, whether it's in the Big Ideas Lab like you described, there is this like really important base layer of trust that exists and must exist.

Jen: So, I wonder if we need to replace the word "confrontation" with something else?

Pete: Mmm.

Jen: The word that's coming up for me right now is "challenge".

Pete: Mm-hmm.

Jen: That part of what makes a really effective collaboration is that we challenge each other. We challenge the ideas, we challenge the solutions, we challenge the outcomes, we challenge the questions. Because if we just are sort of like going blithely forward, we're probably not going to put our best work out. And that part of being involved with challenging ideas is that we will, at some point, disagree and have to unpack that disagreement in a way that allows us to see each other's point of view. And then in service of the thing we're trying to make, we have to give up being right and make the choice that is best for the change we're trying to make and the thing we're trying to make together.

Pete: Yes, yes, yes, Jen Waldman. It reminds me of that line that I'm trying to associate to who...I'm trying to work at who said it. But it's basically a question of: Do you want to be right, or do you want to make change?

Jen: Mmm. Yes, yes, yes.

Pete: And so, I mean, I would use...I could use us as an example. Just last week...because I've heard actually from a couple of friends that have been like, "You and Jen agree on everything. Do you ever disagree on things?" I'm like, "Oh, yeah. Oh, like all the time."

Jen: Offline.

Pete: Yeah, offline, exactly. Offline. So last week this happened, when we were talking about the Big Ideas Lab class that we were teaching. And we were talking about our various approaches to running a Zoom workshop. And what we discovered was, we actually have completely different perspectives on a certain element of running a Zoom workshop around eye contact, and where to look on the screen. Do you look at the camera? Do you look at the individual? Like, where should you place your attention? And you went on this like beautiful riff about, "This is how I think about running an effective workshop." And I was like, "Actually, I do the entire, like the exact opposite. So let's talk about this." And then I shared my perspective. And we went back and forth for, I don't know, twenty-odd minutes. And then to your point, where we landed on in service of the work we were doing was, "Well, I guess what we should do is share both ideas."

Jen: Yeah.

Pete: "And have them practice both, record both, and see which one they're comfortable with. Because clearly one works for me and one works for you, and that's okay."

Jen: Totally. Yeah, that conversation was so hilarious to me because it was almost jarring how different we were in our perspectives. And to your point, like, we were in that conversation, and I feel like both of us were in that conversation expecting that only one of these answers could be the right answer, and then when it finally dawned on us, "Wait a minute, we can share both."

Pete: Because that was the experience of, as I was hearing you explain your method I was thinking to myself, "Oh my god, have I had it wrong all this time? My approach has been wrong this whole time?" And then as we talked it out, yeah, to your point, "Oh, there's a couple of different ways."

Jen: So I think what we've landed on is that a functional collaboration has conflict, disagreement, questioning, and challenging. And a dysfunctional collaboration is one that is just smooth sailing all the time.

Pete: Mmm. And also, I think the ingredient that exists in the former and doesn't in the latter is trust. Is, I am less likely to give you brutal, honest feedback and expect you to receive it well if we have no trust and we've never met before. I'm more likely to say the agreeable thing in a "collaboration" with people I've never met before. Because there is no level of trust, I think, is what we're saying.

Jen: I've definitely been part of collaborations that have gone on for months (and in some cases, years), where I still didn't trust anyone and I've known them for a really long time.

Pete: Yeah, that's true. Which probably leads us to an entirely different episode on trust.

Jen: Tune in next time. So I guess what I need to say to my client is, first of all, so sorry for sidetracking our conversation to talk about how I was going to steal your idea and bring it to my podcast. But also, thank you for generously collaborating so that this idea would birth this episode. And Pete, I have to say, our collaboration is such a joy to me. Like, I love working with you. And my favorite moments, I'm now realizing because we're sort of giggling about it, are the moments where we don't see eye to eye, where we do have to stop and unpack and really try to understand where the other person is coming from. You know, sometimes it's very deep things and sometimes it's word pronunciation, but in both cases, those are my favorite moments of our collaboration.

Pete: It's true. It opens up our worldview, it creates more empathy, and fills blind spots that we clearly had. So, I think it's nothing but a good thing. And that is The Long and The Short Of It.