Over the last few years, I’ve done a lot of things I’m proud of, but I feel like it’s been too much at the same time. The last two weeks, I’ve been on the other side of the spectrum. I don’t have too much to do. I can do the things I should in a reasonable pace.
A part of me stuttered. Shouldn’t there be more stuff going on? Shouldn’t I be busier?
I’ve made a conscious effort to calm this tendency. Not having too much is fine.
This experience got me asking why.
I have a few things I’d like to achieve. I have goals I want to reach. Outcomes to accomplish. Over time, however, I don’t think accomplishing outcomes should be the only motivating factor: I need to find meaning in the process too The way there. The path we’re going; the path we’re making for ourselves.
Which is where I’m at right now. A part of me keeps pushing for ambition. Just do it! Or, more realistically, “Just start that other initiative too!”. Because the drive is to start. And when we ruthlessly follow the drive to just start, we risk not finishing.
Counterintuitively, for me, it’s easier to finish things when I don’t hold the goal so tightly in mind. I can give myself room to think after I’ve done a piece of work. Reflect on its impact. Tweak it a bit.
Another piece of the lesson is working with great people. I’m currently working with great people. That gives me room to breathe. It will be okay if I don’t push with all my weight all week. I can trust the others to do their part. I can contribute to their stated goals. Sit in the back seat, pay attention to what the others are doing.
I’ve written about learning to play support before. Sometimes it’s better to aim to be helpful than try run the show. The core of this is what I wanted to convey in support, challenge, carry. Support is to help, to challenge is to pull intent apart for analysis, and to carry is to create intent. I do believe that in the best teams, the carry changes over time.
I write the following in support, challenge, carry:
dynamic initiative. Who should carry? That depends on who knows the territory better – what we’re doing now, and where we’re going. As a team forms, its turst, shared sense of quality, and shared intent will improve. That lowers switching costs. Questions & framings that needs to be explicit early on takes hold in a shared understanding. With lower switching cost, it makes sense to move the initiative around. When the switching cost reaches zero, we want the player with the best map to lead. But can we reach “perfection”? No. I don’t believe that’s possible. There will always be information asymmetry. The reason is plain: information asymmetry gives teams leverage. Different people want different things.
Not: perfect dynamic initiative. But: shared understaning, charity and team willingness to support, challenge and carry.
I still believe that a dynamic initiative is the best solution for a team.
So perhaps this is all ego? Or mostly ego, and a tinge of me wanting to keep carry-skills I’ve built from going dull?
I do believe our current direction is exactly where we need to go. I am happy with the two last weeks of work, even if my contributions weren’t essential for what we got done. And I am even more happy with the fact that our work doesn’t stink of stressful reactions to every irrelevant movement of nearby leaves. After all, our team doubled in size a month ago, and we probably will have to make an effort to find a rhythm that works for us.
One model I’ve seen referenced is Tuckman’s stages of group development. From the Wikipedia page:
The forming–storming–norming–performing model of group development was first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965,[1] who said that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for a team to grow, face up to challenges, tackle problems, find solutions, plan work, and deliver results. He suggested that these inevitable phases were critical to team growth and development. This series of developmental stages has become known as the Tuckman Ladder.
Tuckman hypothesized that along with these factors, interpersonal relationships and task activity would enhance the four-stage model that he first proposed as needed to successfully navigate and create an effective group function.[2]
It’s not entirely clear to me what differentiates the phases from each other. What, exactly, is forming, storming, norming and performing? Here’s a brief summary of the Wikipedia page:
the team and its objective is defined. Members behave independently, but try to make good impressions.
To grow from this stage to the next, each member must relinquish the comfort of non-threatening topics and risk the possibility of conflict.
the people on the team start getting used to each other. Trust is built, opinions voiced. The first decisions are made.
Wikipedia includes this passage:
In this stage “participants form opinions about the character and integrity of the other participants and feel compelled to voice these opinions if they find someone shirking responsibility or attempting to dominate. Sometimes participants question the actions or decision of the leader as the expedition grows harder”
… which I (quite frankly) find America-centric. At least, this does not reflect anything I’ve seen in Norway.
The quote is indeed from an American book: Leadership the Outward Bound Way: Becoming a Better Leader in the Workplace, in the Wilderness, and in Your Community, published by “Outward Bound USA”, with a foreword from Jimmy Carter.
(… and now, I (quite surprisingly, if you ask me) feel the need to read just that book. Its table of contents. I digress. Let’s dig in! Digressions is what this page is for.)
relative to forming, it appears that people are getting to know each other a bit more now. Again quoting the Wikipedia page:
“Resolved disagreements and personality clashes result in greater intimacy, and a spirit of co-operation emerges.”[3] […] In this stage, all team members take responsibility and have the ambition to work for the success of the team’s goals. They start tolerating the whims and fancies of the other team members.
“all team members take responsibility” and “tolerating the whims and fancies” sounds a bit silly, but sure. Sounds like people getting to know each other.
interlude - on one hand I find it nice that people write about people dynamics like this. On the other hand it feels wrong; reducing people to recipies. “This is the recipie for your team”. Bleh.
performing :: “stuff works, people focus on achieving goals, etc”.
Overall, I found the distinction between forming, storming and norming a bit intersting.
Phew, that was some detour. So which phase are we in? We have been formed and the wheels aren’t turning with butter smoothness yet. So storming or norming, which one is it? That’s a little bit hard to say. I know some people better than others. I think maybe “gain trust and voice opinions” best describe us. In that case, storming.
So, as a final piece of parting advice for myself - perhaps let the stormy waters clash for a bit, and pay attention? See where we end up.
Talk to ya later, Teodor (February 2025)
buuut, wait. “motivation from process or outcomes”. Thank you. We aren’t quite ready to focus properly on outcomes. We need a bit of process first! I think that’s good enough for now.
There we go. Until next time.