Randy Nelson’s presentation Learning and Working in the Collaborative Age: A New Model for the Workplace provoked and helped coalesce a range of recent thoughts and ideas. In addition to ideas on collaboration described in a previous post, Nelson also commented on mistakes which immediately took me back to a post by Gardner Campbell almost a year ago, Mistakes as Portals.

In relation to Pixar’s search for innovative potential employees, Nelson commented:

The core skill of innovators is error-recovery not failure avoidance.

Nelson explained that resiliency and adaptability are critical skills.  I interpreted Nelson’s conversation to suggest - to me at least - that avoiding failure may just as likely indicate an overly cautious individual as it will an overly proficient one.  It is far more important to try, fail and recover from failure than it is to avoid the failure altogether.

When I first read Gardner’s post earlier this year, I focused - as my comment suggests - on the “how terrible it was that schooling had kept mistakes from being turned into opportunities while the learning was taking place.”  However, revisiting Gardner’s post within the context of Nelson’s comments, a different statement stood out:

We must be willing to open our minds to each other as we learn, and endure our mistakes, and be alert to the possibilities of learning that mistakes can reveal or even inadvertently stimulate.

Apply this to a workgroup with an organization.  We must open our minds to each other as we work and endure our mistakes . . . to be alert to the possibilities of discorvery that mistakes can reveal or stimulate.  That is the skill and type of work environment Nelson highlights in regards to Pixar.  The ability to fail and recover is critical.  For that skill to be cultivated however, the organization must, as Gardner suggested, induce professionals to trust one another with their individual mistakes.

I took 10 minutes to watch at Edutopia.org Learning and Working in the Collaborative Age: A New Model for the Workplace - a presentation by Randy Nelson, Pixar University, at the Apple Education Leadership Summit this past April (embedded below). I know there’s a cohesive message in this presentation, but I didn’t quite catch it because the presentation was densely packed with a number of thoughts or ideas that hit upon recent or important topics for me. I’m interested in hearing what you may take from the video.  I focused on several key thoughts that ultimately may help explain to learners several things they can do to help facilitate a collaborative effort rather than a cooperative one.

Collaboration vs. Cooperation

This was the last topic Nelson discusses, but for me, it brought the video segment together.  It hits upon an issue I blogged about a few weeks ago: the distinction between collaboration and cooperation.  Nelson describes the two concepts more succinctly, cooperation is a protocol that prevents people from getting in each other’s way as they work, but their working together is a matter of convenience than true necessity.  Nelson offers an assembly line as an example; each step of the assembly line is clearly defined; the line proceeds in a manner to prevent a worker at step 3 from getting in the way of the worker before or after them.  Other than they’re working on completing a single large task, there’s no real communication or interaction required between the two workers.  A cooperative effort usually helps make up for a lack of time or resources; many people work on the task since it would take one person much longer to accomplish it.  Dr. Reeves described cooperation as “divide and conquer.”  Ultimately though, given time and resources, one person could run an entire assembly line single-handedly.

Collaboration means something very different.  In contrast to cooperation, collaboration is more than simply making a contribution to the work effort.  In a collaborative workspace, people amplify one another; the good work of one person magnifies the work of another.  Individuals enhance the impact of contributions by others on the team; interaction and communication are necessary.   The question is how to teach learners to accomplish that; how to participate in a collaborative manner rather than a cooperative one; and how to design and develop activities which lend themselves to collaboration rather than cooperation.

Nelson described a few approaches taken by Pixar in various business processes that may be relevant.

Apply Key Principles of Improv

Nelson notes Pixar encourages and applies two key principles of improv in an effort to facilitate collaboration and innovation.  The first is, “Accept every offer.”  In improv, when a colleague hands a line (product) off to you, you don’t question what you’ve been given; you accept it and move forward with it.  Questioning the product halts the conversation; the conversation dies.  The alternative is to accept it and move forward with the possibilities. The second is, “Make your partner look good.”  The key is to focus on the positive; don’t judge or criticize as a first step.  Always working to make your partner look good allows you to, as Nelson calls it, “plus something.”  Focus on “This is what I have, what can I add to it?  How do I make my partner look good?”  That’s a more productive approach that leaves open possibilities which contrasts sharply with where the conversation goes if you focus on how to fix or improve a product you’ve been given.  Focus on how you can contribute to the conversation.

Be Interested, Not Interesting

Nelson described several characteristics of potential employees that Pixar hopes to find - innovative, accomplished and resilient were among them. And, of course, when searching for a next employee among a group with those attributes, you find many interesting people.  However, Nelson commented that it’s more important to be *interested* than it is to be *interesting*  When working in a collaborative environment - in contrast to cooperative - the person that’s interested contributes a great deal more.  An interested person leans in and listens closely when group members have something to say; an interested person is curious about solutions other than the first one suggested.  An interested person is more concerned about the process than their role in it.  An interested person does more to amplify the people around them.

Communicate, Not Transmit

I think similarly, Nelson stressed the importance and definition of the ability to communicate.  Communication is more than simple transmission.  Effective  communication inherently involves translation, and the translation must be done by the communicator, not the listener.   For example, most everyone has encountered IT support personnel in some shape, form or fashion.  Some IT personnel “emit” information rather than communicating; they don’t consider the audience and don’t make an effort to translate from tech-speak to English.   Further, communication is bi-directional; you must be able to receive information as well as send it.  Ideally, the information you receive helps shape the information you choose to send.

Collaboration in the Classroom?

So, what do learners need to know to better understand what collaboration really means?

• Collaboration absolutely requires the participation of two or more people; if you could accomplish the work by yourself, you’re cooperating, not collaborating.
• Collaboration Is enhanced by “accepting every offer” and “making your partner look good.”  Focus on what you can add to what others have suggested rather than revising or fixing their ideas or solutions.
• Collaboration is facilitated by group members that focus on being *interested* rather than being *interesting* - be curious about others’ ideas, explore the possibilities, enjoy the process rather than focusing to quickly on the outcome.
• Collaboration demands bi-directional communication in which your ideas are shaped by the ideas of others; you must work to make sure your ideas are comprehensible.

Sarah Robbins at Ubernoggin posted “An open letter to Baby-Boomer Managers” following a conversation she had with colleagues at the Young Professionals Summit in Florida this week.  The letter describes differences that group identified and discussed between Generation X/Y workers and their Baby Boomer managers. I want to comment on at least one of the differences Sarah describes from an educational, “in-the-classroom” perspective.  Sarah comments,

The internet has served as a great social equalizer. In most online communities your value (and therefore reputation and power) are based on what you contribute not who you are.  A well-read 18 year old who knows his stuff and is constantly active in the editing process of a Wikipedia article may be revered more than the heavily credentialed professor who interjects, corrects, and condescends to the community of the page. These relationships break down entitlements and, instead, center on accomplishment and contribution.

This alludes to an issue I’ve mentioned in this space before: shifting notions of what constitutes or is necessary to establish expertise.  The ubiquitous availability of information makes the development of expertise much more possible than it’s ever been; as Sarah describes it, the internet is a social equalizer.  Those that may not have had access to information previously now have access and are capable of using it to develop knowledge and make unique contributions.  I recently encountered another example via one of my favorite blogs, Wired’s Geekdad, in a story they noted regarding the development of a potentially revolutionary solar cell.

William Yuan developed a three-dimensional solar cell that absorbs UV as well as visible light. The combination of the two might greatly improve cell efficiency. William’s project earned him a $25,000 scholarship and a trip to the Library of Congress to accept the award, which is usually given out for research at the graduate level.

Here’s the kicker.  William is a 12 year old 7th grader from Portland, OR! How did a 7th grader get the information necessary to learn enough about solar cells to develop such a project?  I’d like to find out to be sure, but I’m guessing this wasn’t a classroom contained project conducted exclusively between William and his middle school science teacher/s. Further, has William’s use and application of that information not made him an expert of some manner in that field?  Absolutely.

The implications for education focus on the manner in which we “teach.”  Educators need to acknowledge that learners - of all ages - have the potential to develop expertise given the opportunity, and that opportunity is less likely to develop if the learner’s primary source of information is the instructor at the front of the room.  We need to encourage and facilitate learner exploration of information resources beyond what we can offer.  For many - particularly those reading this blog - that seems logical and a simple concept, but if that seems simple and logical to you, you are also probably familiar, as I am, with a number a number of educators that not only believe but insist that their learners need to listen to information only they can provide: their lectures are a necessary precondition for learners developing an understanding of the content.

We need to learn how to teach “unconventional” experts - to not just give but to facilitate the opportunity for learners to develop and demonstrate expertise.

Hopefully, you are familiar with the videos produced by Dr. Michael Wesch and the Digital Ethnography project at Kansas State; if you haven’t seen A Vision of Students Today or Information R/Evolution, I recommend you take the time to view those and others.

However, Dr. Wesch’s February 27th post is just as valuable a resource, to me, as the videos he and his students have produced. The post describes the mashup of various collaborative tools he and his students are using to conduct their research, and of course, the workspace is publicly available. It’s an incredible opportunity for any faculty member to browse through the work they are doing, and more importantly, how they are accomplishing it.

The most personally revelatory aspect of the research platform is how they are using NetVibes to juxtapose the data collection point (YouTube) and the data entry point (Zoho Creator form on the right) on the same web page. Within that, the use of web-based forms isn’t new, but I’ve not looked closely enough at the Zoho tools in the past to consider how the forms and spreadsheets could be used to collect the data in that manner. Of course, this time around, a better personal familiarity with that concept following Google’s release of the same feature - forms attached to Google Spreadsheets - made the idea sink in a bit more. Seeing it in action certainly helps.

Anyone working with or working to promote the use of collaborative documents and tools should take the time to browse through the research platform created by the Digital Ethnography working group at Kansas State.