Background #1
I was in dire straights trying to understand how to provide value to my organization. I won’t go back into detail about my jumbled thoughts from my last post, but there is one thing to bring up. When I took up my new role, I recognized the challenges that communication presents within my organization. My favorite communication issue is the frustration between managers and their reports. A manager wants a certain output and asks their team to do more than possible to achieve it. The team struggles and strains and begins to make assumptions on what will improve the situation. This can look like increased headcount or new equipment or anything else. So, a project is put together and resources are spent and exhausted and after months, not much has changed.
Agile helps to improve this communication issue because it requires that we break up a large solution into incrementally smaller solutions. We can identify if something is actually valuable by testing along the way. Another benefit to agile is that we can eliminate the fear of failure because if we are wrong, not much time was wasted and we can pivot into a new, more valuable, direction. I felt that this is the right answer, but it requires that we understand what value is so we know if we are successful. That is where I got stuck. How could I avoid miscommunication between manager and team if I did not know who provides value? We cannot grab requirements from every source because this would only slow down the overall process. Not only that but if I had five requirements from different teams, how was I to know which one to move towards? What impact does taking one direction have on the people whose ideas were ignored?
Background #2
Months ago, I saw on Linked-in that the new CEO of my organization set up the ability for employees to have a “Walk and Talk” with him. He is in Switzerland so my ability to have that opportunity was very slim. I have traveled to Switzerland for work before but when I looked up the availability of the Walk and Talk, it was booked out months in advance. I would occasionally brainstorm ways that I could reach out to him and ask a question. I would also think about the unlikely possibility that he would visit and I would get a chance to meet him in person. I often joked to myself that I would reach out to him over Microsoft Teams or send him an email, but I always knew that would be the worst way to contact him. I could only imagine that he would have an assistant to deal with those things.
I recently learned that the CEO planned to visit our facility, so the hypothetical situations within my mind sprouted again. Maybe there would be a way I would get to meet him. Especially now, my desk is right in front of my General Manager, so it could be possible.
Connecting the Dots
A coworker reached out to me and mentioned that the CEO of my organization added her on Linked-In. She also mentioned that he reviewed her profile as well. This poked at the part of my brain that sought a way to contact the CEO over the past few months. I kind of laughed it off in my brain, but Linked-In did seem like a valid option to connect to someone, and if the CEO was actually taking the time to review profiles then it could work.
This same day, I was dealing with the ramifications of staying up writing my thoughts from the last post. I knew that I needed to take it easy, so I decided to take an early walk. As I started my walk, I sent the CEO an invite on Linked-In, just to see where it would lead. I reviewed in my mind the thoughts from the day before and I started to question how I might improve the communication between managers and reports so that we would avoid waste. As I did, a powerful realization occurred. If waste occurs, it is because it is meant to happen. Good or bad, these ideas lead to the direction that we need to move as an overall organization. If it was not meant to be then it would not happen.
The realization was directly connected to the idea of co-creation that I learned over the past year. Co-creation is a paradox of two dichotomies. The first part of co-creation is the idea that we achieve success through others. In Summer/Fall 2021, I had a coworker that I spent a lot of time discussing career path options. This coworker would experiment with ideas for furthering her own path. She would experiment with her life and then share the results with me. I would take those thoughts, combine them with my own ideas, experiment, and share my realizations back with her. It turned into a cycle that extended beyond just the two of us. It connected to the people within our circles and the same process occurred with them as well. Every conversation, every moment in our independent lives had the opportunity to come back and influence each other. With co-creation, often certain realizations and discussions came at the exact moment we needed it. It was like finding the exact puzzle piece we needed to continue solving our life puzzle right then and there. If it came sooner or later it would not be as effective.
The second part of co-creation is that we influence the success of others by focusing on ourselves. In the example above, I was not actively trying to influence this coworker’s life. Instead, I was focusing on mine and just sharing what I learned. The coworker would decide if that was something she needed for that moment. If it was, then she would take it, otherwise, it was just something interesting to talk about. The point of this step is to not assume that what we are doing is what other people need. We do not know what lessons we learn that other people can benefit from. Additionally, if we do have lessons that we know will benefit someone, sometimes it requires them to try and make mistakes to learn. We cannot force the process to move faster than it does. It all happens when it is meant to happen. I have heard this portion of co-creation referred to as leading by example.
All of these ideas culminating at once made me certain that co-creation was the answer to every question I had from my previous post. I should not be worried about what might be perceived as a poor result or poor purchase in a particular moment, because the decisions that led to that moment were significant. Each person involved in that decision walked away with something even if they did not realize it at the time. If the decision led to a failure, it would only be through that failure that later success could be achieved.
All of these thoughts occurred because a coworker messaged me about the CEO. She did not know that I had thought about ways to connect to my CEO in the past, but something told her to share that information with me at that moment. From that moment, I was able to connect the dots to co-creation and to answer big questions that had me stuck.
I was buzzing from these ideas. I could tell this was a big realization and it was important for my overall growth. I decided to put forth an experiment to see if my theory of co-creation was accurate. I knew that my CEO would visit my facility in a few months, so I finally put months of playful thoughts into action. I messaged my CEO and asked him if he would be available to do a walk and talk. There were plenty of doubts that flooded my brain, but I felt empowered by the moment. To make matters a little better, he accepted my invitation on Linked-In, so I could tell that the universe was guiding me to the outcome I wanted.
After I sent my message, he responded to me within 10 minutes and said that he would do his best to make it happen. If that wasn’t enough, an Osprey, a sign I correspond to co-creation, was perched right above me.
Summary
Co-creation is my leadership style and how I approach my career. My success in my job and the relationships I build are because I genuinely want others to succeed. I recognize that through their success, I will gain mine. Paradoxically, I also recognize that staying focused on being the best version of myself will also bring out the best in others too.
