Working together in a collaborative manner is always wrought with perils and pitfalls. Finding common ground often involves the downward negotiation ideals, the shredding of core values and a watering down of fiery ideas to meet a melting, middling, middle-ground.
Collaboration is so often a compromise against excellence because we have been taught since childhood that we must play well with others and fit in to the smaller expectation of the societal queue of acceptable behavior.
Aesthetics of fire and water are never a good mix — they make a dull mush in the end.
However, a collaboration of fire and kerosene often creates an exploding magnitude that measures well past the individual means of each artist.
We seek the same in others that we see in ourselves — and that mealy mandate merely creates stasis and static without any flow.
To truly collaborate, we need to be offended and horrified by what we sense in our possible collaborators, because only a personal threat to our current safety of thinking can expand the creative process into something special and memeingful beyond the initial dyad.
If we continuously challenge who we are and what we think we know — then we begin to go past the horizon of belief in our own reality to create a whole new hyper-state with an inherited set of core values and wants — and that makes us grander, and more sustainable, in every sense.
That’s great thinking, David. What’s the purpose of collaborating with someone if they are just your exact clone in thought?
I think the appeal of picking a same is the desire to remove conflict and disagreements from the creative process. That, unfortunately, too often creates a circular “Yes Man” loop.
Agreed David, 100%.
This reminded me of the following HBR article:
http://blogs.hbr.org/baldoni/2009/07/hire_people_who_disagree.html
I told our Vice President once -… “I expect a more straightforward and upfront leadership approach from you”….
I still have the e-mail and my job intact.
You’re lucky! That sort of email to a boss in the USA would result in a sacking.
Hi David,
I think it doesn’t depend on the country, it depends on the person. I was ready with my resignation letter after sending that e-mail, because I didn’t know what to expect.
I was fortunate that he understood the “why” behind it and took it in his stride.
I know you are right about the consequence that it could result in sacking, at the same time – unquestioning obedience was never a part of me…and I am always ready to face the consequence.
Having your resignation ready after sending an email like that was, indeed, the only option.
I agree David.
The scenario was simple – he had a choice to kick me out, he chose to sort out the difference of opinion instead. His “annual business balance score card” depends on my performance and he knew what I could deliver.
My motto was even simpler. I was ready to walk out, I just wanted him to know the reason.
I don’t micro manage, I stop functioning when someone does it with me. In case of expansion – once a property is negotiated and finalized, his job is over. He can go play golf or take a vacation in Mauritius or Maldives or do whatever he does. I come in at that point. My target is to get the store up and running within a stipulated time frame and to make it an Ebitda positive store within the 1st quarter. If I fail, I get another quarter to rectify it, or I quit.
My boss gets a regular feedback about the happenings but the last thing I want in my life is a constant breathing down on my neck – I need enough elbow-room to perform.
I was fortunate enough that he understood my pov.