Weeknotes Ten:6? — Ethics of Comfort Zones, Hard/Soft Everywhere
We’re reaching End of Epic stage; that emergence from a strung out thought-converse-trial-show-repeat cycle over the last few months, stretching back into valentines and pancakes. Initial contexts remain documented like dusty photos. Assumptions have come and gone. Where you end up is a test of your old map, not your walking shoes.
Last week I was moving into ‘focus’ mode, which is that part of the epic just before the end game, when things either come together well, or blow apart like dandelion seeds. Fine line, making sure there’s the right amount of emphasis. No hard deadline except our own. From experience I know things can slip at this stage. I’m still learning to trust the team too — we’re playing with new approaches to UX. Things may be ok. But, rather safe than sorry. The hard part of being a hit pushy: you’ll never really know if being pushy helped or not. Like that bit with the vase, in that film. The Matrix.
Pushiness is an art I’m still getting my head around. Take 1–1s and mentoring, for instance. People have their comfort zones. But I’d wager all real, quality learning comes when you’re off kilter and outside your zone. Focuses the mind, makes you pay attention. Memories are formed in these moments that stick with you forever.
So there’s an ethical question there. How do you know how much to move people out of their comfort zone? How much is too much? Should you push for discomfort of you know it’ll benefit someone, but they haven’t agreed to it? Is it enough just to let them they’re supported?
Related note: Currently reading ‘Deep Simplicity‘ by John Gribbin on chaos and order. He uses the term ‘order on the edge of chaos’, relating to how Things (structure, abstractly) emerge from entropy, and how certain interactions within a system produce this emergence. Planets forming from gravitational wells. Life forming from chemicals.
I’m captivated by this. It seems relevant. That meeting point of influences, that ‘decisive moment’, to borrow from Cartier-Bresson. Isn’t this the subtle art of leadership — knowing where and when to act in order to produce effectiveness? And, just as importantly, when not to act. Know strength/yang, but maintain weakness/yin, says the Tao Te Ching. Push sparingly.
‘Deep Simplicity’ refers to this as catalysis, to draw on chemical reactions. An instigation, a point of interjection. Controlling the arm of time through a single elbow.
Related: a brief Twitter thread on how skills aren’t inherently “hard” or “soft”, but rather that skills can be carried out with harder and softer approaches, depending in need.
Steve Halliday posted:
Winner of the worst term in leadership award: “soft skills” No, they ain’t soft. They are people skills. They are business critical skills.
My follow-on thoughts:
Was thinking about it the other day, and about the overlap between code and team management. Couldn’t draw a clear distinction except that flesh is soft, and servers are hard. But where does that leave software?
It’s not that there is no “soft/hard” skill dichotomy. Maybe a yin/yang approach is more apt though, where “soft” = more passive, listening, and “hard” = active/doing. Both apply to all skills though.
Eg. Listening is “traditionally” thought of as “soft”, but actually you can have both soft and hard forms of listening.
Soft: Quieting the mind, being aware of the moment/situation/person.
Hard: Actively asking for feedback and eliciting questions/responses.
Whereas, say, software engineering might be a traditionally ‘hard’ skill? But…
Soft: Observing and understanding the flow of information and logic needed for efficiency.
Hard: Deciding class and interface names, setting spec in stone, making tests pass, fixing syntax errors.
Which is to say, softness/hardness is less to do with particular skills, and more to do with your own approach to whatever you’re doing.
Originally published at 6work.exmosis.net on March 29, 2019.