Working Meditation

Observations from a life in motion

Home » Collaboration

#77: Sustainable is inherently relational

Transaction: An exchange or an interaction between two or more things or entities. It’s a communicative action involving two or more units that reciprocally affect or influence each other.
Examples: Paying back a friend who covered our dinner when we were short on cash, scheduling a meeting on someone’s calendar and them accepting, saying hello to a neighbor and getting a smile in return, negotiating a business deal.
1. Transaction has a broader definition than simply buying and selling. Our lives are dominated by convenient acts of buying and selling, appropriately called transactions, so we may forget that these acts represent a subset of the exchanges humans conduct daily. Transaction is an exchange, an interaction. We transact not only as consumers but also as friends, parents and collaborators. 
2. Transactions require trust. Throughout human history, we transacted with those that we had (varying degrees of) relationships with. Transactions were simply one part or the last mile, so to speak, of an ongoing engagement.
3. It’s only in the recent past that we’ve been able to transact “facelessly” with another. As more and more of the world opens up to us (more people, more internet-enabled tools, more geographies), we’ve leaned into the comfort of anonymity, distance, and low commitment. We exchange ideas, conversations and goods without any of the relational tethering that transactions and exchanges were historically built upon.

Relation: An existing connection or a significant association between two or more entities or objects.
Relational: The way in which these entities or objects are connected. Anything that is connected will have a cause and effect relationship. Push or pull on one object and you’ll create a reverberation within other related objects.
Examples: Collection of related data in a database; relationship between fertilizer, soil, and plant; our relationships with family, friends, colleagues and neighbors.
4. In every transaction, we look for markers of trust while interacting. Reviews, photos, fidelity of those reviews, public upvotes etc. Even when our tools our designed for the last mile of the engagement, i.e. the transactional part, we look for markers that are typically revealed over the course of a relationship.
5. Our businesses, tools and even societies are mostly designed for the last mile transaction, not the upstream relationship. Our workplaces, healthcare systems, communal areas, shopping, dating, communications – everything – is geared for convenience and efficiency so we can cram in even more transactions into our lives. Be productive, do more, be more. 
6. We thrive when transactions nest within a genuine relationship. We crave to know another and to be known by them, to offer our best and be valued for it. This is only possible if we shift our paradigm from seeing people and places as a means to an end to valuing connection as a fundamental end in itself.

Sustainable: Being able to maintain something at a certain rate or level over a period of time. Sustainable implies continuity for a long period of time.
7. Continued thriving in the long-term (i.e. the definition of sustainable), is possible only if we create relational societies, products, services, and mindsets. We can’t sustain joy, contentment and hope by endlessly taking and moving on. An overly transactional life weighs on our psyche. Thriving depends on nesting transactions back under their larger relational contexts, it depends on expanding our perspective to see human and environmental interconnectedness. In the absence of this, it’s easy to keep harming and depleting ourselves and our commons.

The gold-standard in business is to make our lives frictionless, so we can fit even more transactional handshakes in our cramped life, displacing the time we need to create relationships. So we get more and more seamless handshakes with more and more faceless and bodiless entities. Neighbors, coworkers, friends, all reduced to profile pictures, interests and demographic markers to ease the transaction. What nurtures us for the long-haul are the acts of being in relationship, not the endless transactions. We forget that we crave not just the hand but the whole body.  

“I live my life in widening circles
that reach out across the world.
I may not complete this last one
but I will give myself to it.”  ― Rainer Maria Rilke, Austrian poet and novelist.

#51: The actor. The director. The actor and director.

I like John Krasinski because of how he actively embraces all parts of his creativity, from acting and writing to directing across genres. I admire how he kindles his intent with a mix of humility and courage to bring projects to fruition. He also seems to partner well with other heavy-hitters. I enjoy knowing how he’s evolving, even if I’m not the audience for that work. Since I pay attention when I hear of his new projects, I watched this 10-minute video where he breaks down a scene from his latest movie, A Quiet Place-II.

I was struck by what he said at the 9:33 mark. He explains why acting in a movie he directs is helpful for him as a director. That when he is on set with the actors, he can shape the energy of the scene as he goes; whether it’s whispering encouragement to someone or modulating and cuing their emotions through his own acting. For example, if he needs someone to be more emotional, he can act more emotional and they pick up the cue. He says – “You can weirdly direct through your acting, which is really fun”. Interesting!

Another thing that’s interesting is that a whole movie is built like this, scene by scene. Even when he is the actor engaged in the scene, the director part of him doesn’t leave…it’s right there all along, guiding him and through him the others. Showing up like this in every interaction requires sustained intellectual and emotional presence. John, the director, has a vision of the end goal and clarity around how every scene, resource and actor plays into it. While there is planning, there seems to be a fair bit of improvisation during execution. To do this well, he has to create an environment where all actors are aligned with the overarching vision and in sync with how that vision is brought to life; an environment where they have the psychological safety to bring their full expression to the performance and also improvise with good judgment. Isn’t that exactly what good leadership is?

Good leaders have a north star and a thoughtful execution map, they assemble the resources, the right skills and team; they set the board upon which the game is played. But they also make thoughtful adjustments to shape the team’s trajectory as the play unfolds. In films, not all directors have the benefit of being actors but in business most senior-leaders were once individual contributors, functional specialists, operatives, middle-managers etc. As they progress into leadership roles, they sometimes lose touch with their internal “actor” because of the many high-stakes demands of leadership. But what if there was a way for them to periodically jump in the scene with their team to see first-hand, understand and learn from them? (Without micromanagement of course). Would it help them lead better? Would it make their own journey, in Krasinski’s words, “more fun”?

“Observation is a passive science, experimentation an active science.”― Claude Bernard

#35: In praise of lived experiences, in aging bodies

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg became a supreme court justice at age 60 and was crowned as cultural icon “Notorious R.B.G.” at 80, after she delivered a scathing dissent in defense of voting rights. 
  • Maya Angelou directed her first film at 68 and wrote four books during the last ten years of her life, in her late 70s to late 80s.
  • Pablo Picasso produced 347 engravings in one year, at 87. His final works were a mixture of styles and his means of expression kept morphing and growing until the end of his life.
  • Susan B. Anthony was past the age of 80 when she formed the International Woman Suffrage Alliance. In the final six years of her life, she spoke at six NAWSA (American Woman Suffrage) conventions and four congressional hearings, completed the fourth volume of the History of Woman Suffrage, and traveled to eighteen US states and Europe.
  • Benjamin Franklin was 70 when he signed the Declaration of Independence. He did not retire from public service until he was 82.

Many more examples but I’m guessing you get the point. None of these people took their foot off the gas pedal because of ageist messages. In fact, they seem to have done quite the opposite. They produced a torrent of work, became more daring and their works became more expressive with age. The world is better for it. Despite these shiny examples, ageism runs rampant in modern society. Over the last few years we’ve heard a lot about valuing lived experiences but why are they less valued in the workplace when they come in aging and aged bodies? The lack of intergenerational work and collaboration feels like massive waste of wisdom. And this bias feels so arbitrary across disciplines. While some professions like science, humanities and academia seem to value the wisdom of age, others―like business―generally don’t. We’re not discussing physical disciplines here. How can humans appear sharper and more seasoned with age in some intellectual disciplines and not the others?

Just when a person gets comfortable being themselves, just when one taps into their sense of purpose, and just when a person gains enough lived experience to contribute meaningfully, others turn their backs in favor of tight skin and sharp eyesight. We may have it backwards. Our institutions and communities are complex and no single generation can adequately address these issues without the cooperation and contributions from others. We are so fixated on how best to divide the economic pie that we forget we can increase it.

“And as, methinks, shall all,
Both great and small,
That ever lived on earth,
Early or late their birth,
Stranger and foe, one day each other know.”― Henry David Thoreau

#31: The sonar of diversity

A friend and I helped another postpartum friend with chores related to new motherhood. While cleaning the house, organizing the baby’s space and helping with the car seat, we quietly absorbed our friend’s new cadence and flows. We saw how laboriously she walked, climbed stairs and bent after a caesarean section. Nether of us have children and this was the closest postpartum view I ever had. We wrapped up as evening came and as we walked out to our cars, my co-helper friend commented on how the hastily-parked rental bike outside the building was blocking stroller and wheelchair access. How quickly she had created a bridge to what our friend would need from her environment as a new mother! It was the most organic and kind realization.

Diversity and inclusion conversations often come attached with strong emotions and fear; and they can be perceived as tools of righteous reckoning and moral anger. Could we instead think of diversity as life’s best sonar? No matter how well-meaning, empathetic or brilliant we may be, it’s simply impossible for any of us to have all potential life experiences. It’s these lived experiences that allow us to understand something from the deep crevices of its insides; they create a clarity of thought and language that helps translate ideas into meaningful actions. Without this hands-on knowledge we often grasp things superficially, lacking vital details around the aches, needs and dreams of those we seek to serve. Creating space for diverse experiences and voices helps us deep-dive into life.

In a complicated world, diversity is a formidable environmental scanner and compass. It’s a precursor to path-building.

A sustainable world: “I call the transformed world toward which we can move ‘sustainable,’ by which I mean a great deal more than a world that merely sustains itself unchanged. I mean a world that evolves, as life on earth has evolved for three billion years, toward ever greater diversity, elegance, beauty, self-awareness, interrelationship, and spiritual realization.” ― Donella Meadows

Hi friends,
Just a heads-up that from this week onwards I plan to publish twice weekly, on Mondays and Fridays, instead of three times. This cadence seems better suited to my current workload. Thanks for reading as I find my voice and style.
Many thanks and much love,
Suparna

#24: Holding Lightly. Hint: It may not be forever.

(Our Sanghas, part 3)

I know a sweet little girl Adriana. Last time I saw her, she was blowing bubbles in the sun standing next to a flower bed brimming with Tulips. Most of the bubbles were medium-sized and not very long lasting. Then quite unexpectedly, she made a massive bubble that kept on growing and seemed to have staying power. The four adults watching got instantly excited about the big bubble. We wanted to see how far it would travel and just as we all boarded the dream-train, little Adri popped the bubble with an audible glee. “Speak of nonattachment!”, I mused.

Ofcourse―to create any real impact―work, practices, relationships and Sanghas need to have a longer-shelf life than bubbles but given enough time, every single thing changes. That’s the inherent nature of life and growth. It may be that our Sangha-partners become life-long practice partners and that’s quite wonderful. Alternatively, they may “graduate out” of the Sangha over time and evolve in ways that make the partnership less of a mutual fit. Their goals, approaches, and needs may shift or they may need to tend to other aspects of their selves, lives and work.

Even as I say this, it would hurt to see any of my budding Sanghas dissolve but mutual growth only occurs with natural alignment and when practice spaces can exist without excessive corralling. I take heart in knowing that even if my Sangha-partnerships morph or dissolve, our relationships won’t necessarily. They might feel like plants whose roots now need larger planters to thrive in. And with time, the roots of these relationships may have the capacity to carry more depth outside of that one practice.

“Once a sangha-partner ≠ always a sangha-partner. Once a sangha-partner = always a soul friend.” ― Li’l ol’ me