Latest news about Bitcoin and all cryptocurrencies. Your daily crypto news habit.
At a conference last fall, I chatted with some other attendees, and realized that I wasnât alone in experiencing a certain pattern. Granted these folks were self selectedââ they signed up for a conference on product development (Agile and Lean focused to be specific)â but I found the similarities interesting nonetheless.
SoâŠgetting personal. I am what you might call âsensitiveâ. Sometimes others call it out as âsystems thinkingâ or âbeing perceptiveâ, but letâs use sensitive for now.
It has taken a couple decades to come to better terms with what that means (and with what it doesnât mean, and with ways I was probably mistaken). Hopefully me sharing this will help other folks who experience the same pattern(s) in their work lives.
A common dynamic with me and work goes something like:
- Arrive somewhere.
- âPick upâ on some underlying core tension/conflict very quickly. Connect with people experiencing that issue quickly.
- Simultaneously, advocate for the things I typically advocate for (e.g. continuous improvement, cross-functional teams, transparency, systems thinking, evidence-based approaches, limiting WIP etc.) This resonates with some % of the team/organization. Thereâs an appetite for what Iâm pitching, at least with some people. People actively seek me out.
- Importantly, #2 and #3 often dovetail, but they are unrelated. As inâŠI would still be doing #3 if the core tension/conflict did not exist. That I advocate for continuous improvement to address root cause problems is tangential.
- I attempt to help people resolve the underlying tension/conflict (#2)âââserving as some kind of more vocal spokesperson, but caring deeply about inclusivity and co-designing the change.
- The status quo pushes backââ often blaming me for sowing discontent and fanning the flames. Thereâs a general confusion about my agenda. Is it a need to dictate or âownâ #5 ? What is the difference between #2, #3, and #5 ? Is #2 âthat badâ ? ImportantlyâŠthere is confusion about whether this is MY problem, or a broader problem.
- Management/leadership wants to 1) control the narrative around #2ââ the core conflict, 2) keep me doing #3ââ because it is valuableââ but without ruffling feathers, 3) stop #5, because it is getting people riled up.
- A cycle of tension results in me getting burnt out and leaving on my own volition. Management doesnât âknow what to do!â They seem to want me to stay, but I seem stressed out and unhappy, and theyâre not happy about #5 and #7 (meaning they might not want me to stay, but Iâve created too much momentum with the advocacy and good work to make firing me attractive).
- This has repeated itself a couple times, and each time with fairly predictable results. I remain very close friends with some coworkers. I always get referrals for new work. Sometimes the change I was advocating for happens, but on a different timelines.
OK, that was stressful just explaining (but kind of liberating). Thereâs a ton to dig into here. Before I do that, however, I want to make it clear that Iâm fully aware that Iâll fall victim to a million-and-one cognitive biases when trying to unravel this. Thatâs just how it works. Iâll do my fickle best not to.
With that, a couple realizations that might be helpful to others:
Change agents need to remember self-care, and cultivating an identify beyond whether a particular situation goes the way youâd like it to go. It is ok to just smile and watch things unravel sometimes. Assess your needs and move on.
It is easy to assume that youâre helping a cause by becoming a spokesperson for a cause. Not always true. In organizational settings, that often isnât the case. Youâll perpetually leave people wondering whether this is YOUR cause, or a broader cause. This can be tough, because some people need advocacy. They are not listened to otherwise. But whenever possible try to advocate for conditions that will make individual advocacy safer and more effective vs. being a spokesperson.
You have to be OK with the long game. Change takes experimentation, time, influence, empathy, experimentation, relationship building, influence building, and tons of patience. The book Crucial Conversations is a greater reminder that some people learn how to do this effectively. You can too!
Talking in back-channels does not always equate to a willingness to advocate in public. If youâre pitching something attractive (or that resonates), youâll typically attract people with similar views. But be careful about assuming 1) their views represent the views of everyone, and 2) that their passion about talking in private necessarily equates to a desire to âgo to batâ in public.
Thereâs little debate on continuous improvement. Rather, thereâs a debate on who should own it. Few people will argue for not fixing problems. The argument is around who âownsâ that fixingââ front-liners, management, or senior executives. In your change efforts, you have to keep this in mind. At any given time, most orgs are straining under the tension of multiple change agendas, and a battle over who owns change.
It isnât simply about making people âawareâ of the problem. Or âbeing rightâ or âlogicalâ. I frequently make the mistake of believing that âif only people could see the impact and see the problemâ that they would respond differently. In most cases, the problem is knownâŠit simply isnât viewed as the most important thing to address and/or solving that problem would clash with other agendas. AlsoâŠaggressively challenge whether your version of reality is the correct version of reality (there are typically multiple cohesive versions of reality). You may be missing something important.
Be crystal clear about your own needs. At least n=1, I often get caught up in advocacy to the point of losing sight of my own needs. The reality is the companies die and fade all the time. An issue can be staring everyone in the faceââ from CEO to front-linerââ and the org canât get out of its own way. You can view this as fucked up, or you can view it as an unfortunate aspect of the human condition, and of complex sociotechnical systems. But donât forget about what you want/need. Also importantâŠif you discuss your needs, people will feel more comfortable engaging/responding vs. discussing the needs of lots of âotherâ people simultaneously .
Meta is hard. Advocating for continuous improvement is kind of meta. You arenât advocating for a specific solution, or advocating to fix a specific problem. Rather, you are providing an âoperating systemâ to tackle what people sense/perceive as the most pressing proble, and exploit the most promising opportunity. Over the years I have had an extremely difficult time communicating this. It is possible, but you need a TON of patience, and super crisp messaging. This can be challenging if you are simultaneously advocating for approaches (see #3).
Maybe youâre just bored. At least consider that option.
Thatâs about it for now on this topic. Iâm still mulling it over myself. But hopefully by sharing this, it might spark some ideas on being a âsensitiveâ change agent (of sorts).
The Canary Dies was originally published in Hacker Noon on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the views of Bitcoin Insider. Every investment and trading move involves risk - this is especially true for cryptocurrencies given their volatility. We strongly advise our readers to conduct their own research when making a decision.