Wrapt in Tension

Does Harvard Business Review really need to act like our increasingly divisive media outlets to get people to read an article about a new creative process concept? Why attack when the intent is constructive discourse? In the recent article "Design Thinking Is Fundamentally Conservative and Preserves the Status Quo" by Dr. Natasha Iskander, the preferred creative process being introduced here was "interpretive engagement." Albeit interesting, it was sadly overshadowed by the vitriol of the first half of the article. As a result ,the opportunity for the concept to inspire civil and potentially supportive discourse was lost.

I think we can agree that one of the earliest steps in any design or interpretive engagement process is about attempting to understand the intended user behavior shifts (both intrinsic and extrinsically motivated) as a result of our 'design / engagement.' In this case, it's not clear to me what behavior shift HBR and/or the author was expecting by attacking Design Thinking. I, for one, was left confused about how a person steeped in the open dialogue ways of 'interpretive engagement' left me feeling so shut out, offended, and excluded. I'm okay though. Given the track record of both HBR and the author (see her uplifting work: Creative State), I am confident that it's more a reflection of our very tense zeitgeist than it is their personal intent to polarize and divide, which leaves me with this thought: I look forward to evidence of improved civility as we all continue to learn how to manage our emotions while attempting to introduce new ideas for human progress during these challenging times.

Avoid Change

We've heard it said before, "Nobody likes change." or "Everybody's uncomfortable with change." or "Change is scary for people."

Really? Nobody? Everybody?

Does this mean we should avoid using the word change?

Does this mean we should not inspire students and leaders to imagine, create and support change?

I don't think so.

However, I am willing to test one simple thing and that is avoiding the use of the word "change". My sense is that the aversion goes way beyond the word itself and that it's the concept of change, the unknown and the lack of control associated with change, that upsets people's human desire for stability and security.

Regardless, I am going to start small and attempt to avoid the word "change" all together. Join me if you wish. Let's choose words that more specifically communicate the WHY and HOW of something moving, or moving something from one state of being to another. Let's clarify our communication with and for those around us. Let's see what happens.

It might mean we have to slow down and avoid soundbite-style sentences or catchy titles like "change agent" or "architects of change". I think we might learn something from ourselves and our conversations that we were not able to hear before.

That's a change I'm willing to try.

Energy

Humans convert the sun's energy into physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual energy to share with other humans but often expect something in return. Where did we get the energy to create 'expectation of return'? The sun expects nothing in return for its energy.

Thankfully, in the best cases of the return, we expect to experience reciprocity or mutual benefit. In the worst cases of return, we expect everything and are downright selfish or even criminal. The sun's energy ultimately fuels both.

Perhaps there's a clue in the fact that sun exposure at either extreme is deadly.

Too much sun burns. Too little sun kills. The sun expects to be consumed in moderation.

Human expectations are a bit like that, expecting too much, or expecting too little of oneself or others is not the best use of human energy.