Posts Tagged ‘partnership’

Randy Nelson of Pixar: Collaboration is like improv theater

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

I learned of this video of Randy Nelson, dean of Pixar University, from Garr Reynolds’ Presentation Zen blog. Garr points out many interesting facets of Randy’s presentation, but I was struck by the initial message in the talk, and I’ve been thinking about it a lot the past few days.

Randy says this (all in the first 1:30 of the video):

Two core principles of improv have always guided us. The first is: Accept every offer. If an improviser says to you, “It’s raining a lot in here today,” you don’t say, “Raining in here?” You say, “That’s why they gave us umbrellas.” It’s an offer. You don’t know where it’s going to go, but the guarantee you have: if you don’t accept that offer, it’s going nowhere. You’ve got a sure thing on the one hand: dead end. Or you have a possibility on the other.

The other principle is: make your partner look good. What a great thing. So you know on a team that anything anybody says to you, you’re going to get a chance to “plus” that, you’re going to get a chance to have that be on the table. And they’re going to try to make you look good, not make you look bad.

At Pixar, what we mean by “plussing” is this. You take a piece of work, you take something you’re working on collaboratively, and when it’s given to you, you don’t judge it. You don’t go, “Oooh, this is pretty good; this is what I’m going to do to make it better.” Or, “This isn’t so good, this is what I’m going to do to fix it.” You say: “Here is where I’m starting. What can I do with this? …How do I accept the offer and make my partner look good?”

This made me think of how I learned to collaborate, starting in engineering school and continuing as a programmer and software designer. Collaboration in that environment meant, largely, fighting over ideas. This is how we should design a data structure. We should design a home screen this way. It was a combination of thinking and persuasion. Whoever had a good idea and could persuade the others in the group of its merits, would win the argument.

In my mind, these weren’t destructive arguments. They were, in fact, thrilling. You won some, you lost some, and the results were often really cool.

But when I moved into management this method didn’t work so well. It doesn’t help quiet people contribute to ideas. It’s a peer method and doesn’t work well in a hierarchy. It can divide people. It can be intimidating.

So I’ve been thinking about how to apply the improv model to more situations. When someone comes to me with an idea, how can I, rather than dismissing it initially (which I am prone to do), “accept the offer”? And how can I use my capabilities, not to critique the idea, but instead to make my partner look good?

September 2009 Carnival of Trust: Nine ways of looking at trust

Monday, September 14th, 2009

This post is part of Charles Green’s Carnival of Trust, a monthly review of blog entries discussing elements of trust in relationships among people and companies. Thanks to Charlie for inviting me to host this month’s Carnival.

What is trust? Or, more directly, what are the conditions for trust to be present, between a customer and a company or between two companies? This was a theme of several great blog entries this month. To Ron Ashkenas in the Harvard Business Publishing Conversation Starter, simplicity creates trust. He writes: “When you create complicated explanations of products, services, and contracts, customers often feel that you aren’t being truthful about what’s being offered.”

In a selling situation, a salesperson’s knowledge and insight are essential to creating trust, according to Dave Brock. “If the customer doesn’t know, immediately, that you can contribute to what they are doing, they will be reluctant to engage in any kind of discussion with you.”

Roger Dooley of the Neuromarketing blog writes that fairness and transparency are essential to trusting and effective relationships between partners and that engaging in those behaviors (which are rare indeed in many business dealings) can yield better profits than every-man-for-himself negotiation.

Another dimension of trust is allowing autonomy – the ability to loosen the leash a bit and allow employees to make their own decisions rather than the system deciding for them. For example, deciding what material they need to access, even if it’s outside their everyday needs. Bruce Schneier discusses the ineffectiveness of “role-based access control” and argues for a system that sets employees’ access rights but allows them to override these controls when they decide it’s necessary. These escalations are closely audited and inappropriate accesses are penalized. In a world where companies are logging keystrokes to “ensure” remote workers’ productivity, Schneier’s proposal is welcome indeed.

A warning to companies reinventing themselves: merely acting differently can impact the trust their customers have in them, according to Lewis Green in his post, “Social Strategies Grow Out of the Culture, Not the Tactics.” Writes Green, “When customer service is outsourced overseas and customers perceive a decline in their experience, people conclude that efficiency and cutting costs are more important than customers.”

Being able to balance a corporate strategy with the need and perceptions of customers is necessary for trust, as well. So writes Bob Sutton about the dust-up caused by Wal-Mart creating an imitation Girl Scout cookie for sale in its stores. (I posted earlier on Sutton’s post, here.)

Wally Bock talks about the unique and rare breed of trust between an employee and his/her boss (”How Do I Trust Thee?“). To Bock, a boss must be willing to stand up to his own management and defend/protect the employees who work for him. Without this, trust is nonexistent. This post made me think of my management experiences: how often did I stand up for my employee, and how often did I find it easier to agree with my boss about things the employee should do better?

Indirect means of building trust are necessary when your product is intangible – when you’re “selling the invisible,” writes Jorge Lazaro Diaz. Doctors, for example, can build trust in patients by listening to them, showing care and concern, and running an organized office. Patients see these behaviors as proxies for what they’re really in the market to buy, but what’s hard to measure in advance – curing what ails them.

And to wrap up, remaining on the subject of doctors, Scott Eblin mines a New York Times article about a palliative care specialist for leadership lessons. Dr. Sean O’Mahony talks to patients who are dying. He is honest, clear, caring, and curious about his patients’ feelings. He also keeps a level of detachment, preserving his emotional reserves for other patients and his own needs. In this case, passion does not promote trust, it can damage it.

(Thanks to Ian Welsh for collecting an excellent batch of posts to choose from.)