Dear design debaters,

Michael Barry, principal at PointForward and adjunct faculty at Stanford's
Product Design Program, speaks on how much more difficult it is for those
involved with design to collaborate around ideas than artifacts.  Barry's
notion is that the artifacts provide a party outside the human actors in
the discussion to bear the brunt of criticism that routinely arises in the
struggle to innovate.  The object is separate from personal relationships
being tested and becomes a "whipping boy" for the combatants that allows
the designers to follow the advise of Shakespeare in the Taming of the
Shrew, " And do as adversaries do in law, Strive mightily, but eat and
drink as friends." The Taming of the Shrew. Act i. Sc. 2.
Michael's experience is echoed through my own in research, practice and
education, is that without this object the game becomes sticky
quickly.  It is only with high levels of trust and security do these
wrestling matches become less dangerous to the personal
relationships.  Trust takes time to build and requires constant attention
to support.  We all know how fragile this bond is and that small actions
can destroy years of shared efforts and experiences.
Many of you have met in "real life," fascilitating the building and
maintenance of the trust between this community.  Others, such as myself,
rely on watching the social dynamics of the list, assessing the quality
and methods of discussion through this low social bandwidth email compared
to sharing a conference room together.
Rules and structured protocols can assist in building trust and protecting
trust from our flawed human nature but typically within the birth of new
relationships.  This community has evolved significantly over the years
such that in my opinion, the imposing of new rules and protocols would be
of little utilitiy in radically transforming the personal relationships
and social capital resources of the list members.

Clarity of expectations in discourse is critical to rebuilding lost social
capital.  Negotiation experts tell us to focus on goals rather than on
positions.  Arguing over positions tends to end in disaster while focusing
on goals allows for higher level discourse and the shared design of
solutions that address the goals of all parties involved in the
negotiation.  Strategic thinking over tactical nitpicking.

In our debates, it might be interesting to explore the goals of
discussions and working with each other to design a new common
understanding rather than drilling down in the nuances of arguments.  At
this minute level of detail errors are just as likely to be caused by
langauge difficulties and differences in context as they are by poor
arguments.  English is difficult even for native speakers and the issues
we work through on this list are challenging enough.

Some of the sparks that fly across the list due to attempts,
some more successful than others, to rebuild that trust when one or more
parties are unwilling to do so.  Rosan's offer to shake hands as the
footballers do requires someone to offer their hand in return, a risky
move if there is a lack of social capital in the relationship.  Even the
noble footballer can be drawn in with a handshake that rapidly
transistions into a punch or kick while the guard is lowered at this
apparent offering of peace.  I am reminded of the constant quest of
Charlie Brown, of Peanuts and Snoopy fame, to kick the American football
held by his friend Lucy.  His trusting nature is repeatedly taken
advantage of Lucy as she constantly pulls the football away at the last
second, causing her friend to fly into the air and do himself harm!


Maybe there is some "virtual" trustbuilding exercise that can be utilized
to recharge the trust banks of the list.

I am thinking of the trust falls used in the corporate teambuilding
retreats.

Can we do this over email?

Let's try...

I'm going to lean back and let myself fall!

Anyone want to reach out across cyberspace to catch me?

;-)

Cheers,

John