The Long and The Short Of It

Episode 144 - Effective

Transcript:

Pete: Hey, Jennifer.

Jen: Hello, Peter.

Pete: So last week, I was running a workshop for an executive team. And one of the executives said three words that kind of blew my mind up in a little bit. And I really would like to hear your thoughts, get your responses to help me unpack what this means.

Jen: ...okay?

Pete: Should I share the three words?

Jen: Yes.

Pete: That was the right answer. The three words were: Effectiveness kills curiosity.

Jen: This is The Long and The Short Of It.

Jen: Wait. Back it up, my friend. Back it up.

Pete: Context?

Jen: Effectiveness kills curiosity. Can I just try to translate that, off the top of my head?

Pete: Of course. Of course.

Jen: If you think it works, why would you investigate another way?

Pete: I think that's a pretty solid definition, a pretty sound definition, or at least a read on those three words. Maybe I'll give the context, which will help us. Because I actually think just before we started recording, I actually started questioning myself, wondering, "Maybe it was efficiency that kills curiosity." But I'm 98% sure he said "effectiveness". So let's unpack that, and then maybe see if it applies to efficiency, too. So the context was, we were talking about the benefit of being a curious coach-like leader. So I was helping the executive team get a bit clearer on how they can practice curiosity, how they can practice being more coach-like in the way that they lead their teams, which was great. They were loving it. They were practicing asking questions, and then we came back from a breakout and one of the sharers was this particular individual who said, "I realized that as a leader, and even as an organization or as a team, we are incredibly effective. We have certain rules that we like to follow for meetings, which is, 'Let's get them fifty-five minutes so we give everyone five minutes back in their calendar.' We have agendas. We have people who take notes. We have really quite solid rules on how to run and structure an effective meeting." Actually, which I was quite impressed with that I know many organizations don't do. And he said, "What I've realized in this moment is that I'm sometimes so effective in delivering on those rules of engagement, that I don't leave space for curiosity. I don't leave space to go off the agenda, off pieced, to have a curious conversation that I don't know where it's going to land, because I'm so busy effectively going through the agenda." And I was like, "That feels like kind of profound, and also interesting." So, what do you think?

Jen: I'm still trying to fully wrap my brain around it. But as you were just describing it in context, it reminded me of another saying which has four words.

Pete: I love that we now lead with how many words are in these things.

Jen: And this quote is from my friend, Jasper Grant: Leave room for serendipity.

Pete: Mmm. Yes.

Jen: And it feels like maybe that's a close cousin.

Pete: Yeah.

Jen: Like, create structure. Within structure, there is freedom. Create a plan. Create a strategy. And, leave yourself open to the truth that you can't plan for everything. And by not leaving room for serendipity, or curiosity, or whatever word you want to put there, you might be missing the gold.

Pete: Yeah. Oh, that's good. It's almost like in that example, on the agenda, having "Ten minutes for serendipity," like put aside. You know? Or making the agenda, I guess in that example that I mentioned (a fifty-five minute meeting), maybe you account for forty-ish, forty-five minutes worth of agenda items, and you leave room for the serendipity, the questions, the curiosity, the rabbit holes, as I like to call them.

Jen: Yes. Wow. My brain is just going in many different directions. But it's making me think of how I've been going to a lot of union meetings lately. And there's always a very structured agenda, but then the last item is called something like "Other Business."

Pete: "Miscellaneous."

Jen: And when I build out budgets, whether it's for my studio or production budgets as an artistic director, we always have a line which is, you know, the slack in the budget. The "leave room for serendipity" moment. And I'm thinking about how many times we've needed the "Other Business" moment or the cushion in the budget, because life throws you curveballs. Sometimes those curveballs are great, but if you don't have the slack for it then how are you going to be able to swing?

Pete: Yeah. Yeah. And so then, I guess I'm also wondering about the word "efficiency" and whether that applies too. Because for some reason, I started doubting that I heard "effectiveness" prior to this recording. I was like, "Maybe I heard efficiency." Because I'm starting to think, I could see where efficiency could kill curiosity too. Where we're so focused on getting things done and getting things done quickly, that we don't make room for or forget to make room for questions, and serendipity, and space, and curiosity. So, I feel like I wonder if efficiency applies here too.

Jen: Well, I'm thinking that...I mean, efficiency (just like effectiveness) is a really good thing. Like, those things are not bad. They're things you want. But are they the ultimate goal? Like, are you willing to sacrifice creativity in favor of efficiency? Are you willing to sacrifice curiosity in favor of effectiveness? That's the thing that's coming up for me. Is like, of course you want to run efficient and effective meetings, but not if it means that the best idea, as it is coming out of someone's mouth, is halted because that's not on the agenda.

Pete: Yeah. Yeah. I feel like you're reflecting back to me how it can be both/and, it doesn't have to be either/or.

Jen: Yeah.

Pete: Which is interesting, because one of the things we also talked about in this workshop was the idea of can/if instead of can't/because, which comes from a great book called A Beautiful Constraint. (I'll pop it in the Box O' Goodies.) And one of the concepts from that book is, very often we human beings, but also we leaders, or we employees, or just creatives might start a sentence with or have a story that we tell ourselves that sounds something like, "Oh, I can't do that because..." So in this case, "I can't leave room to ask curious questions because I've got an agenda, and I like to be effective and efficient." And we talked about what it looks like to flip that to (which is from A Beautiful Constraint) a can/if. So, "Oh. I guess I can be effective and curious, if," to your point, "I leave space for serendipity." "I guess I can be efficient and curious, if I add a time constraint. That the time for questions is ten minutes long, and here's the container for it." So, I'm realizing that there's definitely a yes/and and a can/if. I think they're quite closely related, those two sayings, those two ideas.

Jen: Woah. Okay. This week in my Homeroom class, we did an exercise which I would not have connected the dots that these were similar until I just heard you explain this. But this month at the studio, our theme is "Embracing Imperfection" and trying to help people get a little messy. And part of this is giving up the need for everything to be effective. (I wouldn't have used that word until this conversation.) So I asked everyone to name something that they wanted to explore or experiment with or complete this month, but that they made this decision not to because they didn't know how to do it. And so, everybody named the thing. And then we went through and tried to itemize as many things as we could that would fill-in-the-blank on the sentence, "I have no idea how to..." and then list all the things associated with the thing that you don't know how to do. And then, we wrote a counter-statement. Which was, "I could try fill-in-the-blank." And I think what I'm recognizing here is that this need to be effective keeps us from going after things if we don't know they're going to work. This need to be effective keeps us from exploring and experimenting. Because what if, on the other side of this experiment, my experiment was not effective? And wow, talk about killing creativity.

Pete: Yeah. Yeah, no room for experiments. That's a great way to kill creativity. Huh. So one of the other things that came up that I've heard a few people say around, you know, when talking about how to practice curiosity, how to be more coach-like with leaders...something that often comes up is, I guess, the nervousness around, "What's the second question? Like, how do you respond to what they're going to say?" So we were practicing asking, and brainstorming, "What are some great questions you could ask some of the people in your team in order to, you know, help them?" And things like, "Where are you stuck? How can I support? What are you working on? What's the hard part?" Like, really solid questions that were coming out. And one of the leaders actually shared (and again, I've heard this a few times), which is like, "I'm okay with the first question. It's like, how do I respond to what they say in response?" And I think that actually speaks to your point, which is the nervousness around the effectiveness of, "Will this take us down a rabbit hole, into an experiment, or on a tangent that I don't really know how to measure if it's effective, or efficient, or productive, even?" And so like, "How do I get comfortable with that kind of ambiguity?"

Jen: Ooh, that feels so juicy. Because I think it points to so many potential teamwork issues, not the least of which is psychological safety. That if someone believes that they have to be effective and efficient all the time, how would they feel safe enough to answer the question, "Where are you stuck? What isn't working?" You've got to trust that you are allowed to be stuck, and that the thing is allowed to not work in order to be able to honestly answer that question.

Pete: Yeah.

Jen: So, it seems to me that leaders have to project to their teams that effectiveness isn't the gold standard. Otherwise, you're potentially steering people toward the answer the boss wants to hear, as opposed to creative problem solving together.

Pete: Yeah. Yeah. And I think part of how you open that space up for folks is by modeling that. That you, too, are nervous about something, stuck with something, having a hard part, experiencing some tension. You know, at the moment, there's this very, very common theme throughout almost everyone that I'm working with in the executive team function, no matter which organization, which part of the world, which is, "We're nervous about and we don't know how to handle this transition to hybrid."

Jen: Yeah.

Pete: And so, I've had a number of sessions with folks where I'll say, "What is it specifically you, as a leader, are nervous about?" And had them, like, just answer that. And then actually say, "That's the thing you need to share with your team."

Jen: Yep.

Pete: Like, you should lead and model that this is the thing you're nervous about. Because we've never done hybrid before. Because this is all new. Because, who knows? Maybe we'll end up back in lockdown again. Or maybe we'll discover that we can't actually travel as frequently as we want to, and like all of these unknowns. By actually modeling that, you're actually modeling, I guess in a way, vulnerability, and the ability to share that hard part. Which, to your point, is providing psychological safety for others to do the same.

Jen: And the thing that's so interesting about this is, as we step into this very real, very bizarre, very unknown world of hybrid work, part of what we're aiming to do is figure out how to work (dare I say it) effectively in a hybrid model. But we've also got to be willing to find out what is not effective, in order to find out what is effective.

Pete: Mmm. It's all very meta. Like, I don't want us to come across as if effectiveness is taboo.

Jen: No, it's great.

Pete: I actually think, to the point of both/and that we were talking about earlier, like I've pulled up the definition of "effectiveness", which is, you know, "The degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result." Now, the thing that I'm particularly curious about is the "desired result". Because if we add to our desired results (our definition of success) that we want space for serendipity, we want to spend time being curious, or coaching our leaders, then if we do that, that's effective. So, I think that's where I was maybe getting confused with effectiveness and efficiency. Because for some reason, I thought that...I guess it was where I started this conversation, was, in order to be effective, does that mean you have to kill curiosity? (Which was the three words that we started with.) But if part of the desired result, going back to the definition, is space for serendipity, as long as you make space for that (I'm repeating myself), it's effective.

Jen: Wow. It seems like we've gone full circle, back to basically the heart of what I hope this whole podcast is about, which is being more intentional.

Pete: Mmm.

Jen: Leading with intention, as opposed to willy-nilly.

Pete: [laughing] Willy-nilly.

Jen: So, oh my gosh, it goes back to the questions, the golden questions of, "Who's it for? What's it for?" So a meeting where part of it is designed to leave space for serendipity, for brainstorming, for curiosity, for rabbit holes...while the meeting might have been very productive, if you never got down the rabbit hole, was that meaning effective? Well, if you know that that's what it's for, you can measure it more accurately. It all goes back to intention.

Pete: Yeah, it really does. Which is...I probably should have seen coming because the real skill that we were discussing in terms of the leadership skill in this particular workshop, prior to talking about coaching and curiosity, was indeed intentionality, was indeed asking questions like, "Who's it for? What's it for?" It's almost like I did it intentionally.

Jen: It's almost like your workshop, Pete, was effective.

Pete: And that is The Long and The Short Of It.